The SDO is not required to obtain the sanction of the Collector before rejecting an application under Section 115 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959, if the SDO is of the opinion that the entry is not to be corrected.

Heard.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the

respondent No.1 SDO on an application filed by the petitioner under Section

115 of the Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code of

1959'). Vide the impugned order, the SDO has rejected the application on

merits.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order is without

jurisdiction as the SDO ought to have referred the matter to the Collector before

taking any action and thus, the sanction of the Collector was required under

proviso to Section 115 of the Code of 1959.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents/State, on the other hand, has

opposed the prayer and it is submitted that there is no error committed by the

SDO in rejecting the application as it is not a case where the correction has been

made without the sanction of the Collector, but a case where the application

itself has been rejected on a preliminary inquiry itself. Thus, it is submitted that

2

no case for interference is made out.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the

documents filed on record, so far as Section 115 of the Code of 1959 is

concerned, the same reads as under:-

"[115. Correction of wrong or incorrect entry in land

record .— (1) A Sub-Divisional Officer may, on his own motion

or on application of an aggrieved person after making such

enquiry as he deems fit, correct any wrong or incorrect entry

including an authorized entry in the land records prepared under

section 114 other than Bhooadhikar Pustika and record of rights,

and such corrects shall be authenticated by him:

Provided that no action shall be initiated for correction of any

entry pertaining to a period prior to five years without the

sanction in writing of the Collector.

(2) No order shall be passed under sub-section (1) without.--

(a) getting a written report from the Tahsildar concerned; and

(b) giving an opportunity of hearing to all parties interested:

Provided that where interest of Government is involved, the Sub-

Divisional Officer shall submit the case to the Collector.

(3) On receipt of a case under sub-section (2), the Collector

shall make such enquiry and pass such order as he deems fit]."

6. A perusal of the proviso to the aforesaid Section clearly reveals that

no action shall be initiated for correction of any entry pertaining to a period

prior to five years without the sanction in writing of the Collector and thus, it

has to be assumed that the sanction is required only when the SDO is of the

opinion that the entry is required to be corrected.

7. In such circumstances, when the SDO himself was of the opinion that

the entry is not to be corrected, there was no occasion for him to seek any

sanction in writing from the Collector. In view of the same, no fault can be

found in the impugned order.

8. Accordingly, the petition being sans merit, is hereby dismissed.

3

(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)

JUDGE

Bahar

4