Supreme Court clarifies ‘clerical error’ under Andhra Pradesh Land Revenue Act in Telangana Housing Board vs. Azamun nisa Begum Case (1 May 2018)

Date of the Judgment: 1 May 2018
Citation: Civil Appeal Nos. 4632-4638 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.
Can a correction in land records be made after 25 years, claiming a clerical error? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving the Telangana Housing Board and landowners, clarifying the scope of ‘clerical error’ under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. The Court held that a correction sought after such a long period cannot be considered a ‘clerical error’. The judgment was authored by Justice Madan B. Lokur, with Justice Deepak Gupta concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around land acquisition proceedings initiated in 1963 by the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB), now the Telangana Housing Board, for a housing scheme. The acquisition included several survey numbers in Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District of Andhra Pradesh, covering a few thousand acres. Among these, Survey No. 1009, with a recorded area of 661.04 acres, was a key point of contention. The APHB took possession of the land in 1968. The landowners, dissatisfied with the compensation, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claiming that 11 acres and odd of their land was not acquired. However, they did not specify the survey number of this unacquired land. It was much later that they claimed this land was part of Survey No. 1009.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the landowners’ claim for additional compensation was settled by the Supreme Court in 1992. Subsequently, in 1993, the landowners applied under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, claiming that the revenue records incorrectly showed the area of Survey No. 1009 as less by 11.10 acres. The District Collector ordered a survey, and the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, reported that the area was actually 20.18 acres more than recorded. The District Revenue Officer ordered corrections to the revenue records. The APHB appealed this decision, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the District Revenue Officer’s order. A single judge of the High Court quashed the Commissioner’s order, but a Division Bench overturned this, leading to the Supreme Court appeal.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, which deals with the correction of clerical and other errors in settlement records. The section states:

“The Director of Settlements and on making over the settlement records to the Collector, the Collector may, at any time, correct or cause to be corrected any clerical error or errors admitted by the party concerned.”

The Act also mentions a two-year time limit for correcting wrong entries of a pattadar’s name, but this is not relevant to the present case. The Supreme Court also considered a circular dated 15th October, 1994, issued by the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, which clarified the definition of ‘clerical errors’ as minor errors not involving alterations in area, change of classification, or change of name of the pattedar.

Arguments

Landowners’ Submissions:

• The landowners argued that there was a clerical error in the measurement of Survey No. 1009, which was incorrectly recorded as 661.04 acres, while the actual area was 687.03 acres.
• They claimed that 11.10 acres of their land was not acquired by the APHB and that they were in possession of this land.
• They contended that the correction of the measurement error falls under the purview of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli, and the circular dated 15th October, 1994, which allows for correction of clerical errors at any time.
• They relied on the principle of contemporanea expositio, arguing that the revenue authorities’ interpretation of ‘clerical error’ in the circular should be accepted.

Telangana Housing Board’s Submissions:

• The APHB argued that the entire Survey No. 1009 was acquired in 1968, and possession was taken.
• They stated that the landowners’ claim of 11.10 acres not being acquired was not specified or identified in their earlier claim petition.
• The APHB contended that the application under Section 87 of the Act was made after a delay of 25 years without any reasonable explanation.
• They argued that the alleged error was not a clerical error but a substantive error, which cannot be corrected under Section 87 of the Act.
• They submitted that the survey conducted decades after the acquisition cannot be relied upon.
• They asserted that they had the locus standi to raise a dispute since the correction of records would affect their housing scheme.

Submissions Table

Innovativeness of the argument: The landowners innovatively used the circular dated 15th October, 1994, to argue that the revenue authorities themselves recognized the error, and the principle of contemporanea expositio to contend that the interpretation of ‘clerical error’ by the revenue authorities should be accepted. However, the Supreme Court did not accept this argument.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. What is the correct interpretation of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli?
2. What is the meaning of the expression ‘clerical error’?
3. Can a ‘clerical error’ be corrected “at any time” or only within a reasonable time?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

Treatment of Submissions

Treatment of Authorities

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The nature of the alleged error: The Court emphasized that the claimed error was not a simple clerical error but a substantive one that would require a re-survey, which is not permissible under Section 87 of the Act.
• The delay in making the claim: The Court found the 25-year delay in making the claim to be unreasonable and without any proper explanation.
• The acquisition of the entire Survey No. 1009: The Court concluded that the entire Survey No. 1009 was acquired by the APHB, and possession was taken, which was supported by the records.
• The creation of third-party rights: The Court noted that the APHB had developed a housing scheme on the land, creating third-party rights, which could not be ignored.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, such as the acquisition of the entire survey number and the delay in making the claim, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered and rejected the landowners’ arguments, emphasizing that the entire Survey No. 1009 was acquired and that the claim was made after an unreasonable delay. The Court also considered the definition of “clerical error” and found that the error claimed by the landowners did not fall under that definition.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The entire Survey No. 1009 was acquired by the APHB for a housing scheme.
• The landowners’ claim was not a clerical error but a substantive error requiring a re-survey.
• The landowners’ claim was made after an unreasonable delay of 25 years.
• Third-party rights had been created through the housing scheme, which could not be ignored.

The Court rejected the landowners’ argument that the circular dated 15th October, 1994, should be accepted as a contemporaneous exposition of the law, stating that it was not in line with the law laid down by the courts.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The jurisdiction given to the [Industrial] Tribunal by Rule 31 [Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957] is closely circumscribed. It is only a clerical mistake or error which can be corrected, and the clerical mistake or error must arise from an accidental slip or omission in the award.”

“A clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the court. It represents that which the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation.”

“To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, with both judges concurring.

Key Takeaways

• Clerical Error Definition: A clerical error is a minor mistake arising from an accidental slip or omission, not requiring a re-survey or re-evaluation.
• Reasonable Time Limit: Even when no specific time limit is prescribed, corrections of errors must be made within a reasonable time. A delay of 25 years is not reasonable.
• Substantive Errors: Substantive errors, requiring a re-survey or re-evaluation, cannot be corrected under Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.
• Impact on Land Records: Land records cannot be altered after a long period based on claims of clerical errors, especially when third-party rights have been created.
• Contemporaneous Exposition: The principle of contemporanea expositio cannot override the law laid down by the courts.

Impact of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case has significant implications for land disputes and the interpretation of ‘clerical errors’ in land records. It clarifies that:

• Limitations on Correcting Land Records: Land records cannot be altered after a long period based on claims of clerical errors, especially when third-party rights have been created.
• Definition of Clerical Error: The definition of a clerical error is limited to minor errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. It does not include substantive errors requiring a re-survey or re-evaluation.
• Reasonable Time for Corrections: Even if no specific time limit is prescribed, corrections should be made within a reasonable time. A delay of 25 years is not reasonable.
• Precedence for Future Cases: This judgment will serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes over land records and the interpretation of ‘clerical errors’ under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.

This judgment also highlights the importance of timely action in resolving land disputes and the need for accurate record-keeping to avoid future conflicts. The judgment underscores the need for a balance between correcting errors and ensuring certainty in land ownership and transactions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Telangana Housing Board vs. Azamun nisa Begum is a landmark decision that clarifies the scope of ‘clerical error’ under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli. The Court emphasized that a clerical error is a minor mistake, and it cannot be used to correct substantive errors after an unreasonable delay. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of timely action in resolving land disputes and the need for maintaining accurate land records. This judgment will serve as a precedent for future cases involving similar disputes and will have a significant impact on land administration and dispute resolution in Telangana and other regions with similar land revenue laws.

The judgment also highlights the importance of balancing the need to correct errors with the need to ensure certainty and finality in land records, especially when third-party rights have been created. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that land records should be reliable and that claims of errors should be made within a reasonable time to avoid disrupting settled land ownership and transactions.