ORDER:

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent No.1 is the absolute owner and possession of the open land in Survey No.29 in Plot No.E, admeasuring 1000 Sq.Yards, Thukivakam village, Renigunta Mandal, Chittoor District. Respondent No.1 sold the schedule property to respondent No.4 herein under a registered sale deed No.1337/1975 dated 28.05.1975 and put the registered owner in possession of the same. In the sale deed dated 12.05.1975 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent No.4, due to typographical mistake, survey number of the schedule property was mentioned as 829 instead of correct survey No.29 (subsequently the said survey number 29 is assigned new survey number 521). Respondent No.4, who purchased the said property, did not notice typographical mistake, enjoyed the possession of the land by running industry in the said land till 2004. Consequently, respondent No.4 sold the land to the petitioner under registered sale deed dated 3695 of 2004 dated 14.07.2004 and delivered the possession of the property under due acknowledgment.

The petitioner also did not notice the said mistake at the time of registration, on noticing the same the petitioner made a representation on 17.03.2021 and issued legal notice dated 07.04.2021 and 20.04.2021 demanding respondent Nos.2 and 4 to execute rectification deed to the sale deed No.1337/1975 dated 28.05.1975, consequently the sale deed No.3695/2004 dated 14.07.200, receipt of the notices also acknowledged. Therefore, the petitioners sought to declare the inaction of the respondents as illegal, arbitrary; consequently, direct the respondents to rectify the mistakes as sought for by the petitioner in the writ petition.

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions urged in the petition while submitting that the original executant is no more and died issue less. Therefore, the question of executing any rectification deed does not arise by the original owner or his legal heirs. Hence, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to demand respondent No.3 to rectify the mistake in the document.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Stamps and Registration requested to dismiss the writ petition as the remedy is available to the petitioner to obtain rectification deed and register with the Registrar, but the writ of Mandamus cannot be issued for rectification of the error in the registered document.

Undisputedly, the petitioner obtained sale deed from the vendor, who purchased the same under registered sale deed bearing document No.1337/1975 dated 28.05.1975. According to the petitioner, there is a mistake in the survey number in the schedule annexed to the document and unless the same is rectified, it is difficult for the petitioner to carry on its business. It is not known whether the survey number is wrongly mentioned, but by way of Writ of Mandamus such mistake cannot be rectified. As the petitioner purchased the property from respondent No.4, remedy open to the petitioner is to obtain rectification deed from the legal heirs, though the original owner is issueless, his legal representatives are available. Legal representatives are different from children. There are class-II legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, can execute rectification deed in the event of succeeding the estate of the deceased original owner. Death of the original owner without children is not a ground to issue a direction to respondent No.2 to rectify the mistake. Hence, I find no ground to issue a writ of Mandamus for rectification of the error in the schedule annexed to the document and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to obtain rectification deed from the legal representatives of the original owner in the event of death of original owner. No costs.

The mi