IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.335 of 2005 Between: Sri Yanamadala Gopalakrishna Murthy. ... PETITIONER AND The Authorised Offier, Land Reforms, Nuzividu and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. A. V. SIVAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ARBITRATION The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is by the declarant under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Act’). While the petitioner is a declarant in C.C.No.1036/NZD/75, he had declared his agricultural holdings based on which the final determination under Section 9 of the Act was made. It is not necessary to give details as to various proceedings taken by the petitioner with respect to the said determination, keeping in view, the short issue involved in this revision. 2. While the determination of holdings had become final, at the stage of surrender, it was noticed that as against Sy.No.345/2 admeasuring Ac.3.42 cents and Sy.No.344/1 admeasuring Ac.4.38 cents of Repalle Village, Nuzvid Mandal, though the petitioner had declared the said land as dry land, the computation with regard to the one of the lands i.e. Sy.No.345/2 admeasuring Ac.3.42 cents is made as if it is a wet land. The petitioner, therefore, made an application under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules framed under the Act for correction of the arithmetical mistake in calculating the standard holding relating to the said survey number. The said application was rejected by the primary tribunal on 28.03.1994. It appears that the petitioner filed a writ petition being WP.No.8960 of 1994 questioning the same before this Court but the said writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of four weeks. An appeal, accordingly, was filed as LRA.No.4 of 2002 before the Lands Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Eluru. Under the impugned order dated 10.01.2005, the tribunal rejected the appeal, primarily, on the ground that the petitioner having not raised any such objection either during the determination proceedings or in the appeals or revisions carried out against the said determination proceedings, now it is not open for the petitioner to raise the said contention at the stage of surrender. The tribunal relied upon a decision of this Court in PONNAM CHANDRASEKHARARAO v. STATE OF AP [1999 (4) ALT 133] and rejected the said appeal. Questioning the said appellate order, the present revision is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated to the Court on the basis of the certified copy of the declaration of the petitioner that the lands in Sy.No.345/2 as well as Sy.No.344/1 admeasuring Ac.3.42 cents and Ac.4.38 cents respectively are dry lands. He has also placed the certified copy of the verification report before this Court, which shows that at page No.8 of the verification report, both the survey numbers were shows as dry land as per the description in column 4 of the table found on that page. However, in column 9 of the said table the standard holding is worked out at 0.1710. He submits that the error was committed in the said computation inasmuch as since the said survey number is dry land and the standard holding, which had to be worked out would have been 0.0855 and on account of the error committed by the authorities in computing the proportionate standard holding, the holding of the petitioner has doubled so far as Sy.No.345/2 is concerned. He has placed reliance upon a decision of this court in VANGAPALLI SUDHAKAR RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1] for the proposition that for the purpose of exercise of power under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules there is no period of limitation prescribed and the said provision is intended for rectification of clerical or arithmetical mistakes due to accidental slip or omission and is made in the interest of declarants and it should be interpreted very widely. The said decision also states that such errors can be rectified at any time even if the mistake is noticed at the stage of surrender. Reliance is also placed on another decision of this Court in MARYAM DEVIKARANI v. STATE OF AP[2] where the learned single Judge of this Court held that though as a general rule declarant is not entitled to raise any new point after final determination of the holding under Section 9 of the Act, if the material on record clearly discloses that the acquisition of the land was erroneous, the tribunal was justified in rectifying the said error under Rule 16(5) of the Rules. 5. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader relies upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in PONNAM CHANDRASEKHARARAO v. STATE OF AP[3] (referred to above) for the proposition that once the determination is complete and no objections are raised, it is not open for the declarant to raise new point and reopen the holding. He also submits that the declarant had never objected to the acquisition even though the determination proceedings were spread over to the appellate and revisional Court also. 6. In the light of the above, the point for consideration is whether the application of the petitioner under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules is required to be adjudicated on merits. 7. The ratio of the decisions in VANGAPALLI SUDHAKAR RAO’s case (1 supra) and MARYAM DEVIKARANI’s case (2 supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the said rule operates in limited field where the arithmetical or clerical errors are found in the orders passed in the determination proceedings. On the facts of this case, it is clear that the declaration as well as the verification report treats the land as a dry land. The Act, therefore, mandates that a dry land must be computed as a dry land and the declarant is entitled to the statutory ceiling limit by treating the land as dry land. Thus, even if the authorities had determined such dry land as wetland for the purpose of calculating the standard holding that by itself cannot be an estoppel as there cannot be any estoppel against statute. Even otherwise the decisions referred to above clearly show that the very purpose of this Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules would be defeated if even mistakes are not allowed to be rectified, especially in view of the ratio in the above decisions that the said rule is to be widely interpreted. It is true that the petitioner has not raised any such objections regarding classification of the said particular survey number and standard holding. It is to be appreciated that classification of the land as dry land is even now not in dispute inasmuch as the verification report also treats the aforesaid survey number as dry land. The error only occurred in calculating the standard holding relating to the said survey number. The said error being purely arithmetical can always be corrected under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules. The lower appellate tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application on the basis of the decision in PONNAM CHANDRASEKHARARAO’s case (3 supra) inasmuch as that was a case where the wife of the declarant claimed to be legally wedded wife of the declarant before the final determination and after the determination proceedings and at the stage of surrender, the application under Rule 16(5) (b) of the Rules was moved by taking a stand that she is not the legally wedded wife of the declarant. This Court, therefore, rightly held that it is not open for the declarant to take a stand of such a nature at the stage of surrender and he cannot be allowed to take a new plea. The present case is not a case where a new plea is sought to be urged and in fact, the classification of the land is based upon the record of the proceedings themselves and as such, the calculation of standard holding being ex facie found to be erroneous, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The application filed by the petitioner shall go back to the primary tribunal for its due consideration on merits and if the petitioner satisfies the primary tribunal that the said survey number was to be treated and computed as dry land and did not have any irrigation facilities for five Fasli years as required under the Act, the primary tribunal shall appropriately calculate the standard holding relevant to the extent of the said Sy.No.345/2 and pass further appropriate orders in accordance with law. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 9, 2010 DSK [1] 2001 (4) ALD 90 [2] 1999 (4) ALD 109 [3] 1999 (4) ALT 133