Back
2000(5) Supreme 38
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
A.P. Misra & M.B. Shah, JJ.
Piara Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1911 of 1990
Decided on 10-7-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Dr. (Mrs.) Roxna Swami, Bharat Sangal, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.L. Chibber, S.C. Chadha, M.L. Chibber, C.M. Nayyar, G.K. Bansal, Rajiv Dutta, Sunil Gupta, Piyush Sharma and Pramod Dayal, Advocates.
(ii) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954-Section 25(2)-Correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes-Auction sale in 1959 and possession given in 1964-Auctioned land gair mumkin bhatta-Subsequent allotment of gair mumkin toba to appellant as tenant-In 1978 land under dispute described as gair mumkin toba given to appellant as tenant-Appellant was given possession as highest bidder-Thereafter application by respondent for issuance of corrigendum on ground entire land auctioned not handed over to him-Corrigendum issued including certain land other than land in dispute-Fresh application for issuance of corrigendum to include land in question-Issuance of corrigendum including land in question without hearing appellant-Dismissal of appeal/revision of appellant as without locus standi-Held, corrigendum order illegal-Dispute raised after 23 years-No clerical or arithmetic error warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25(2)-Under guise of corrigendum additional land given in possession-Appellant had locus standi to challenge corrigendum-Corrigendum order quashed.
Held : It is apparent that order issuing so called corrigendum for giving possession of additional land is grossly arbitrary because :
(a) Auction of the land stated to be the property No. 25 was sold in the year 1959 and the possession of the said land was handed over to respondent No. 2 on 8-12-1959. The authorities issued the sale certificate on 21.3.1964 for the land purchased at the time of auction. At that time, respondent No. 2 never raised an objection that he was not given possession of the entire area of the land auctioned and sold in his favour.
(b) In the year 1978, possession of the land in dispute was given to the appellant as a tenant. At that time also respondent No. 2 had not raised any objection that the said property was sold to him in the auction.
(c) On 22.5.1978 respondent No. 2 filed an application for issuance of corrigendum and the concerned Managing Officer issued corrigendum to the effect that the auctioned land comprised in Khasra No. R/28/17 admeasuring 4 Kanals 14 Marlas in village Khokhar. This corrigendum was issued after a site report from Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur. At that time also respondent No. 2 had not raised any objection that site report or the corrigendum issued by the concerned Managing Officer was incorrect.
(d) Respondent No. 2 applied only on 25.9.1982 for issuing of fresh corrigendum correcting the sale certificate issued in his favour with the request to include the portion of the land which was in possession of the appellant since 1978. The said application was rightly rejected by the Tehsildar (Sales) by order dated 9.2.1983. The said order was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded to the Tehsildar (Sales) to examine the relevant record and to issue a fresh corrigendum after hearing respondent No. 2. It appears that without recording any reason and without considering anything the Tehsildar issued the corrigendum (Annexure K ) on 6.2.1985 including the land which was in possession of the appellant.
(e) It is mentioned in the orders that what was sold to respondent No. 2 in a public auction held in 1959 was a brick kiln property No. 25, which was known as "gair mumkin bhatta". As against that, the land on which the appellant was inducted as a tenant was classified as "gair mumkin toba" i.e. pond or tank land.
Further, it appears on the record that some portion of the land which was sold by auction to respondent No. 2 was acquired by railways and without considering this aspect the impugned order is passed. Authorities have also not considered the effect of consolidation proceedings. In any case, in the present case it cannot be said that there is clerical or arithmetical error in mentioning khasra number or its area in the sale certificate. As such, what is contended by respondent No. 2 is - the possession of the land which was sold by auction in his favour in 1959 is not handed over and only a part of the land was handed over to him in 1959. This dispute he raised in 1982, that means, after lapse of 23 years. Considering the long lapse of time and the fact that there is no question of clerical or arithmetic error, the authorities ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Act which only empowers the authority to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any order or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. Under the guise of corrigendum authorities have passed an order handing over possession of additional land in favour of Respondent No. 2. It is also apparent that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and has only observed that there is no bar on issuing the second corrigendum or more corrigendum in correcting the arithmetical error. Further, the Chief Settlement Commissioner ought to have considered the fact that the appellant was in possession of the land as he was inducted as a tenant since 1978. Therefore, he was having locus standi to file an appeal against the so-called corrigendum granting additional land which was in his possession, to respondent No. 2. (Paras 13, 14, 15 and 16)
JUDGMENT
Shah, J.-This appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 21st August, 1989 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No. 4692 of 1989 whereby the High Court dismissed the same summarily by upholding the order dated 6.9.1988 passed by the Financial Commissioner Revenue (Respondent No. 1), who rejected the Misc. Reh. No. 42 of 1987-88 filed by the appellant under Section 33 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act").
2. The dispute in the present appeal pertains to land admeasuring 2 Kanals 12 Marlas out of Khasra No. 28/23, 24/2 which admeasures 5 Kanals 12 Marlas situated in village Khokhar, tehsil Dasuya, district Hoshiarpur, Punjab. It has been contended that the said land was low-lying land and was classified as "gair mumkin toba" i.e. pond or tank land, which was not cultivated for more than 10 years. That land was evacuee property within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. It is the contention of respondent No. 2 that on 8.12.1959 the Tehsildar (Sales) put up for auction a parcel of land stated to be brick kiln property No. 25, total admeasuring 13 Kanals 10 Marlas, which was "gair mumkin bhatta". According to the appellant, what was auctioned was gair mumkin bhatta land and not the land in dispute which was known as gair mumkin toba. In the said auction, land was purchased by respondent No. 2. On 21st March, 1964 a sale certificate was issued by the H.O. (Sales), Jalandhar of the Rehabilitation Department, Government of India. By some error the name of the village was inaccurately mentioned and the schedule in the sale certificate read "property No. 25 brick kiln situated in village Cholong, district Hoshiarpur". No khasra numbers were given in the original sale certificate to identify the property. It is also admitted position that because of acquisition of the land by the Railways out of the auctioned property, respondent No. 2 was entitled to only a total area admeasuring 7 Kanals and 6 Marlas. On 17.4.1964 part of this property being Khasra No. 28/17/1 admeasuring 7 Kanals 18 Marlas was mutated in the name of respondent No. 2 for a period of 14 years. Respondent No. 2 remained satisfied with the mutation and took no steps. However, on 22.5.1978 he filed an application for issuance of a corrigendum and the concerned Managing Officer issued corrigendum to the effect that auction land comprised "Khasra No. R/28/17 total admeasuring 4 Kanals and 14 Marlas in village Khokhar." This corrigendum was issued after a site report from the Tehsildar (Sales), Hoshiarpur.
3. It is the contention of the appellant that the land in dispute Khasra No. R-28/23, 24/2 was also evacuee land and in 1978-79 the appellant was inducted as a tenant. At the time of grant of such land to the appellant, it has been recorded as low-lying waste land (pond land) which appellant levelled, fertilised and irrigated to make it fit for growing green fodder and thereafter in 1985 onwards the appellant was growing sugarcane thereon.
4. After grant of land to the appellant as tenant respondent No. 2 filed an application on 25.8.1982 for issue of further corrigendum for including the land which was granted to the appellant by stating that it was also sold to him by the auction held in 1959. That application was rejected by the Tehsildar (Sales) by order dated 9.2.1983 (Annexure H ) by holding that the Assistant Settlement Officer (Sales) after having examined the case papers of the Tehsildar, Hoshiarpur had issued corrigendum on 22.5.1978 and had issued fresh sale certificate mentioning Khasra No. 28/17/2 and 18, admeasuring 4 Kanals 14 Marlas of village Khokhar, district Hoshiarpur. The request of respondent No. 2 for further correction in the sale certificate was not acceded to as the corrigendum was issued after proper verification and after obtaining report from Tehsildar.
5. Meanwhile, the land held by appellant-tenant was put to auction on 30.12.1982 and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
