A clerical or arithmetical mistake under Rule 16 (5) (b) of the A. P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 is limited to slips or mistakes made in the performance of clerical work or errors in reckoning figures, and does not extend to substantive errors or the non-application of Government Orders.

LYYAPU PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision petition is directed against the order dated July 9,1991 of the chairman, L. R. A. T. Sangareddy, rejecting the revision petitioners claim to correct the alleged clerical mistakes and determine the Standard Holding of each of the declarants in the interest of equity.

( 2 ) THIS matter originally came upto before A. Lakshmana Rao, J. , while he was sitting single. Before the learned single Judge the decisions reported in A. Reddy Yerrayyamma vs. Authorised Officer, K. Rama Rao vs. State of Andhra pradesh and Chenchi Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh were cited to impress upon the learned Judge that the point involved is nothing but a pure and simple clerical mistake and the same has to be corrected as prayed for. The learned judge having heard the matter observed as follows:"in the instant case, after the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal had become final, the declarants filed a petition under Rule 16 (5) (b) for rectification of the mistake in the computation of their holdings. The primary Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that the alleged mistake in the computation of the holding was not raised earlier either before the Appellate Tribunal or this Court in the revision petition. In such circumstances, it has to be considered whether in the exercise of power under Rule 16 (5) (b) the tribunal can correct the alleged mistake in computation of holding after the decision declaring the holding had become final. This question is likely to arise in many cases. In my view, the views expressed by the learned Judges referred to above require reconsideration. "so observing, the learned Judge, directed the office to place the papers before the Hon ble the Chief Justice for posting the case before a Bench and accordingly, the said case came up before this Bench.

( 3 ) BEFORE considering the point that arise for consideration, certain facts which are relevant, be noted. One Lakshma Reddy had two sons Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha reddy. Lakshma Reddy and his two sons Janardhana Reddy and Narsimha reddy filed three separate declarations which were numbered respectively as c. C. 1247/npr/75, C. C. 1248/npr/75 and C. C. 1246/npr/75. Narasimha reddys brother-in-law one Rajendra Reddy also filed a declaration which was numbered as C. C. 1249/npr/75. The declarations of Lakshma Reddy and his two sons and Rajendra Reddy were considered and as per orders dated January 21, 1977 the Land Reforms Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Primary tribunal ) held that the father Lakshma Reddy was a non-surplus holder; janardhana Reddy hold lands equivalent to 2. 2343 Standard Holding in excess of the ceiling area which he is liable to surrender and Narasimha Reddy hold lands equivalent to 4. 4300 Standard Holding in excess of the ceiling area which he is liable to surrender. Aggrieved by the said orders, while the father lakshman Reddy filed L. R. A. T. No. 605/77; Janardhana Reddy filed l. R. A. T. No. 603/77 and Narasimha Reddy filed L. R. A. T. No. 604/77. The Primary tribunal also held that Rajendra Reddy was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling area and he preferred L. R. A. T. No. 606/77. When the said appeals came up for consideration before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, it was contended before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal that certain lands standing in the name of Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy which were computed as the separate properties of the said individuals by the Primary tribunal were not in fact the separate properties of the said individuals and they were purchased in their names from the joint family nucleus and consequently they have to be treated as the joint family properties of the father Lakshma reddy and his sons Janadhana Reddy and Narsimha Reddy. The said contention was upheld by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and held that properties separately shown in the names of the sons Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document