1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 5935/2006 (Raghuram Bhagwan Thakre vs. Addl. Commissioner and another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... Mr. Mardikar, Adv.for petitioner Smt. Wandile, AGP for Respondent no.1 Mr KS Narwade, Adv.for Respondent no.2 CORAM: SMT. V.A.NAIK,J. DATED: 21ST November, 2008. *** Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Additional Commissioner Amravati Division, Amravati dated 19.8.2006 in Revision Petition No. 75/RTS-64/2003-2004 dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioner. The Respondent-Bhojraj had filed an application before the Naib Tahsildar, Manora, for correcting an error in the entry recorded in favour of the petitioner. According to Bhojraj, field Survey No .66 of village Somthana was owned by one Harbaji. It was later on sub-divided and the dispute pertains to the entries in regard to field Survey No.66/2 and 66/3. It was the case of Bhojraj that the entry of the year 1935 clearly showed that both the lands, bearing Survey No. 66/3 belonging to Bhojraj and 66/2 belonging to 2 the petitioner admeasured approximately 15 acres. According to Bhojraj, the correct entries of the year 1935 were changed in the year 1936 behind the back of the predecessor-in- title of Bhojraj and field Survey No.66/2 was shown to be 20 acres ; 37 gunthas and field Survey No.66/3 was shown to be 11 acres. Since the mistake in the entries was noticed by the applicant in the year 2001, the application was filed for correction of the same. 3. On consideration of the documents on record, the Naib Tahsildar, Manora allowed the application filed by Bhojraj and corrected the entries as they exist in the year 1935. 4. The order passed in favour of the applicant was challenged by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer and then the Additional Collector in appeals. However, both the SDO and the Addl. Collector had dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioner. The Revision Application filed by the petitioner u/s 227 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was allowed by the Addl. Commissioner. Bhojraj challenged the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner in W.P. No.1384/2004 and this Court was pleased to quash and set aside the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner and the matter was remanded to the authority to decide in accordance with law. On remand, the Addl. Commissioner, Amravati, by the impugned order dated 19th August, 2006 dismissed the Revision filed by the petitioner. 3 5. The petitioner has not challenged the orders passed by the Naib Tahsildar, Sub- Divisional officer and the Addl. Collector but only challenged the order passed by the Addl. Commissioner on 19th August, 2006. 6. I have perused the impugned order dated 19th August, 2006 as also the orders passed by the Naib Tahsldidar, SDO as well as the Addl. Collector. Under section 155 of the Code of 1966 the Collector was empowered to correct any clerical error or any errors after giving notice to the parties concerned. There is nothing in Section 155 of the Code of 1966 to hold that the Collector can correct the errors only within a particular period as the provision itself stipulates that the Collector is empowered to correct the errors at any time. In this case, it is not disputed that the necessary correction was carried out after issuing notice to the petitioner and after considering the objections raised on behalf of the petitioner. All the authorities have concurrently held that the Talathi committed an error in changing the entries in the year 1936 without any authority and without following due process of law. According to the authorities, the record clearly showed that a mistake was committed in recording the entry in the year 1936 showing the extent of field Survey No. 66/2 to be 20A 37G and field survey No.66/3 to be 11 acres only. The Addl. Commissioner, Amravati observed in the impugned order that the 4 petitioner had himself made a statement before the authorities while claiming the benefit of Indira Aawas Yojana that he was rendered landless. On the basis of the evidence on record, it was held by all the authorities that the petitioner had no legal right to claim the ownership of 5 acres of land which was not a part of Survey No. 66/2 and which was part of being Survey No.66/3. 7. There is no error in the impugned order dated 19th August, 2006. It cannot be said that the authorities did not have jurisdiction u/s 155 of the Code of 1966 to correct or change the entries. The findings recorded by all the authorities are pure findings of fact and cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with no order as to cots. JUDGE sahare