Case: TELANGANA HOUSING BOARD Vs. AZAMUNISA BEGUM (DIED) THRU LRS

. On 24th May, 1963 a notification was issued under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Land Acquisition Act). The entire acquisition was of a few thousand acres comprising of dozens of survey numbers. Amongst others, the acquisition included survey nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 comprising of 1110.07 acres in Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District of Andhra Pradesh. The entire acquisition was for the purpose of a Housing Scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) framed under Section22A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956As is evident, the area was extremely large but it is recorded in paragraph 4 of the Land Acquisition Awardlands under acquisition were got surveyed by the Measuring Circle Inspector of this office and were got checked by the G.D. Inspector of Hyderabad District, and areas of the lands under Acquisition were approved by the Land Record Assistant. The Areas as approved after survey and check are adopted in this Award.As far as Survey No. 1009 is concerned an area of 661.04 acres was sought to be acquired. The notification does not indicate that only a part of Survey No. 1009 was sought to be acquired. There was no indication that 661.04 acres of land is only a part of the entire extent of Survey No.1009. In fact, as suggested in the Award, the entire Survey No. 1009 along with the entire survey nos. 1043 to 1065 (along with several dozen other survey numbers) were sought to be acquired by the said notification.At this stage, we may mention that an area of 5.21 acres in Survey No. 1009 was earlier acquired for the Manjeera Water Works Department and hence 661.04 acres was sought to be acquired by the said notification.The acquisition proceedings concluded without any objection having been raised by the respondents who were admittedly owners of the land. An Award was passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Hyderabad on 10th June, 1968 and Survey No. 1009 was described in the Award aslands full of rocks unfit for cultivation and no cultivation is being done.On 24th June, 1968 the APHB took possession of all the acquired lands including entire survey nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065.Dissatisfied with the award of compensation, the respondents filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.In the claim petition it was stated that survey nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065 comprise of 1121.17 acres. However, compensation was awarded only for 1104.26 acres (5.21 acres relating to Manjeera Water Works Department was not included in this calculation). Accordingly, it was stated thatacres and odd, they being the property of the claimant, it is not acquired and they remain to be the property of theIt is significant to note that the 11 acres and odd which was sought to be excluded from the acquisition proceedings by the respondents was not specified or identified inasmuch as the survey number of thisarea was not stated or earmarked by the claimants. It is much later that the respondents came to the conclusion that the allegedly11 acres and odd was a part of Survey No. 1009.Be that as it may, the compensation was enhanced and ultimately, settled by this Court sometime in 1992.On 7th December, 1993 the respondents moved an application under the provisions of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short the Act). In the application, it was stated that as per the revenue record pertaining to Survey No. 1009 the land area is actually 672.14 acres and it incorrectly shows the area less by 11.10 acres. It was stated in the application that this area of 11.10 acres was in possession of the respondents. It is for the first time in 1993 that 11.10 acres was attributed to Survey No. 1009.Acting on the application, the District Collector requested the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records for a survey of Survey No. 1009 and to fix the boundaries. The Assistant Director issued notice to the APHB on 7th July, 1994 for the purposes of carrying out the survey but according to the APHB the notice was not received.n any event, theed aReport on 5th August, 1994 to the District Collector. In his Report, it was concluded that the area of Survey No. 1009 was actually 687.03 acres. This comprised of 661.04 acres (subject matter of consideration before us) and 5.21 acres earlier acquired for Manjeera Water Works Department. Therefore, according to the Assistant Director there was an excess of 20.18 acres that had not been acquired. It was also noted that IDL was in possession of some extent of Survey No. 1009. No specification or details were provided of the area and location of the land in possession of IDL.It is also significant to note that while the respondents had been contending that there was an excess of 11.10 acres that had not been acquired, the Assistant Director came to the conclusion that 20.18 acres had not beenresponse to the application made by the respondents under Section 87 of the Act and the Report given by the Assistant Director on 5th August, 1994, the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records wrote to the District Collector on 19th April, 1995 acknowledging that there is no record of any actual measurement of Survey No. 1009 since it is a large tract of land. He also stated that variation in calculating the area apparently in view of the rocky nature of the land could be between 10% and 30%. The fact that all the survey numbers had been measured, as mentioned in the Award, was lost sight of.Nevertheless, the Director stated that the measurement exercise undertaken by the Assistant Director is technically correct and the area of Survey No. 1009 is actually 687.03 acres while thea is 666.25 acres (which includes the land acquired for Manjeera Water Works Department). Therefore, according to the Director the variation is to the extent of 20.18 acres. The Director also expressed the opinion that the measurement error falls within the category of ‘clericalas mentioned in the Circular dated 15th October, 1994 and necessary corrective action ought to be taken.On receipt of the objections, the District Collector referred the case to the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad on 1st August, 1996 to consider rectification of the measurement error.On 15th September, 1997 the Commissioner directed the District Revenue Officer to take action in terms of the Circular of 15th October, 1994 since there was a clerical error in terms of paragraph 5 of the Circular. However, the Commissioner also directed that before passing any orders under Section 87 of the Act the APHB should be heard.It appears thatthe APHB wasd by the District Revenue Officern order on 9th June, 1998 concluding that in fact the area of Survey No. 1009 was 687.03 acres and that there was an excess of 20.18 acres that had not been acquired. This was as against the claim of the respondents that 11.10 acres had not been acquired. The District Revenue Officer concluded that the APHB had no right over the area of 20.18 acres and that necessary corrections in terms of Section 87 of the Act should be made.Feeling aggrieved by the orderpassed by theDistrict Revenue Officerwhich appears to have been accepted by the higher authorities the APHBn appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 158 of the Act.On 24th March, 1999 the Commissioner (Appeals)an ex parte orderin the appeal filed by the APHB for maintaining status quo.It appears thatin spite of the status quo orderpassed by theCommissioner (Appeals) the revenue records were corrected by issuing a Supplementary Sethwar. Be that as it may, the respondents challenged the ex parte order dated 24th March, 1999 by filing a writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court on 5th April, 1999. The writ petition wass the W.P. No. 7940 of 1999. Among the grounds taken by the respondents, in the writ petition, was that the appeal filed by the APBH was beyond time andan ex parte orderought not to have beenpassed by the. On 10th August, 2000 the learned Single Judge hearing the writ petitionn interim order to earmark the land in possession of the APHB and whether it is occupying 661.04 acres or more. In compliance with the interim order, the Assistant Director gave a Report dated 23rd June, 2001 to the effect that the area of Survey No. 1009 is 666.25 acres including 5.21 acres with Manjeera Water Works Department. It is important to note that the Assistant Director did not report that the area of Survey No. 1009 was more than 666.25 acres. In other words, there was afrom the earlier decisions taken in this regard.On 31st October, 2001 the learned Single Judge decided W.P. No. 7940 of 1999 and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal and pass appropriate orders. In the meanwhile, status quo was directed to be maintained.Pursuant to the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the Commissioner (Appeals) heard the appeal filed by APHB. By an order dated 4th January, 2003 the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the view of theDistrict Revenue Officerdated 9th June, 1998 and dismissed the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) was of opinion that:Only 661.04 acres of land was acquired out of the larger area in SurveyThe claim made by the respondents that 11.10 acres out of Survey No.1009 was not acquired was not a belatedThe correction sought by the respondents in their claim under Section 87 of the Act was the correction of a clerical error under paragraph 5 (d) of the Circular dated 15th October,before the learned SingleFeeling aggrieved by the dismissal of its appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals), a writ petition was filed by APHB in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and that wass W.P. No. 13927 of 2003.A learned Single Judge of the High Court heard the writ petition and by a judgment and order dated 19th April, 2005 allowed it and quashed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).The learned Single Judge took the view that Section 87 of the Act was not applicable to the case and as such the claim made by the respondents was not maintainable. In addition, it was held that the claim made by the respondents does not fall within the category of a ‘clericaland therefore the Circular dated 15thOctober, 1994 was also not applicable. The learned Single Judge made a reference to the failure of the State and the respondents to produce the recordt the time of survey which could have shown a wrong calculation of area. In this regard it was held by the learned Single Judge asat thetime of survey is not produced to showthere is awrong calculation of area, though the measurement on ground and record support the correct area. So, entry regarding extent of S.No.1009 cannot be said to have been made wrongly due to a clerical mistake. By arrivingthe area of a particular survey numberby conducting survey thereof only, several decades after settlement, and without surveying the areas in other survey numbers adjacent to that survey number, question of the original entry in the settlement register was a wrong entry as a clerical error or not cannot be determined. There is nothing on record to show that lands in adjacent survey numbers of S.No.1009 also wered as to what is the extent found in such survey, and the extent noted in the settlement register.With regard to the contention that only 661.04 acres had been acquired out of Survey No.1009, the learned Single Judge noted that a declaration had been filed by and on behalf of the respondents under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973. In that declaration there was nothing to suggestthe respondents wereholding excess land which would have been so had the respondents been in possession of 11.10 acres. The learned Single Judgehe contention of Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan and his heirs that since they are in actual physical possession of the land of Acs.11=10gts in S. No. 1009, even after acquisition by the petitioner, and so they can make a claim cannot be countenancedby the time A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973) and the Urban Land (Ceilings and Regulation) Act, 1976, came into force Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan, who originally filed the application before the 3rd respondent, was alive, and hadon under the Act 1 of 1973. He showed the total area covered by S. Nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 belonging to him asgts. That extent was deleted from his holding as it wasd by the order datedvide common order in C.C.Nos.156 to 159/W/75 he was held to be holding 0.4083 standard holding in excess even after deleting of an extent of Acs.1109.92 gts in S. Nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 of Kukatpally village. If Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan really was in possession of or was owning any extent over and above the area acquired by the petitioner either in S. No. 1009 or 1043 to 1065, he would have had to surrender that area also, because even without that area being included in his holding he was found to be holding land in excess of the ceilingit is clearly of Raisyar Jung was said to be holding only land to the extent ofcents in S.No.1007 but not any land in S. No. 1009. This extent ofgts now said to be in the possession of unofficial respondents was not declared by them or their predecessors in the declaration under Act 1 of 1973. Had Fazeelath Hussain Khan, who filed the petition before theor any of the unofficial respondents or theirbeen in possession of any extent of land in S. No. 1009 by 01.01.1975 they would have shown it in their declaration filed under Act 1 of 1973. But they did not do so. For that reason also the contention of the unofficial respondentsthey are inpossession of some land in S. No. 1009 andthe extent ofS. No. 1009 is more than that was acquired by the petitioner cannot be believed or. The learned Single Judge also dealt with the submission on behalf of the respondentsHB had no locus standi to question the orderpassed by theCommissioner (Appeals). It was noted thatthe APHB wasa party to the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore it was entitled to question the adverse order. Moreover, when the authorities assume jurisdiction which they do not possess under Section 87 of the Act and pass orders likely to affect the interests of the APHB, a right accrues to the APHB to question such orders passed without jurisdiction.Since the learned Single Judge concluded

Reasoning: 3. In our opinion, the correction sought to be made by the respondents is not a ‘clericaland so the further question really does not arise. However, the expressioncannot be interpreted to stretch over a period of 25 years, as in the present case.In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court has seriously erred in setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.It is quite clear to usHB had acquired, in terms of the Award dated 10th June, 1968 a couple of thousand acres of land covering a few dozen survey numbers. The entire land wasd in view of the large area of acquisition even if there was some error in describingthe area of a particular surveythat would be inconsequential given the overall acquisition and its purpose for a Housing Scheme under Section 22A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act.We are not in agreement with the respondents on any aspect of the case. First of all we agree with the APHB that an accurate picture of the area in terms of measurement of land in Survey No.1009 cannot be fully relied upon after several decades and after construction having been made. The records had originally indicated that Survey No.1009 consists of 666.25 acres and we must proceed on that basis rather than assume the correctness of a measurement carried out after several decades.ed delay in measurement of the area cannot be relied upon is also supported by the fact that even the revenue authorities were not quite sure about the exact area of Survey No.1009. According to the respondents, 11.10 acres had not been acquired but according to the revenue authorities the entire area of Survey No.1009 was actually 687.03 acres with the result that 20.18 had not been acquired. In view of this discrepancy, we are of opinion that surveys conducted post the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be relied upon. We have also noted that it has come on record that IDL was also in possession of some parts of Survey No.1009. We must, therefore, accept the factthe entire Survey No.1009 was acquiredby the APHB and possession taken, regardless of its actual measurement and the allegedof 11.10 acres is nothing but a red herring Consequently, the question of correcting a ‘clericalwith reference to Section 87 of the Act does not arise.n any event, it was contended by the respondents that a clerical error was sought to be corrected in the measurement of the area of Survey No.1009.It is not clearthe clerical errorhe clerical errort the area of SurveyNo.1009 was not 661.04 acres or 666.25 acres but actually 687.03 acres then the contention isThis is because the area of Survey No.1009 would then have to be read as 687.03 for all purposes and not 661.04 acres. The consequence of this correction would bee acquisition was of687.03 acres and not of 661.04apart, the correction of the alleged clerical error does not give rise to the argument that only 661.04 acres was acquired out of 687.03 acres. If the correction gives rise to an argument or contention, then it ceases to be the correction of a clerical error but is really the correction of a substantive error, which does not come within the purview of Section 87 of the Act.It is no doubt truethe contemporaneous expositionof a document must carry great weight but if that exposition is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Courts, including this Court, the exposition would not be relevant. We have made a reference to several decisions which explain the meaning of a clerical error.The view expressed in the Circular dated 15th October, 1994 particularly clause 5(d) referred to and relied upon by the respondents does not come within the four corners of the understanding of the expression clerical error by this Court if it involves a survey and aas in this case. Therefore, no reliance can be placed uponthe contemporaneous expositionmade by the revenue authorities in the Circular dated 15th October, 1994.there was noclerical error in the measurement of Survey No.1009 for all intents and purposes and thatin any event,the entire landin Survey No.1009 was acquired for the Housing Scheme of the APHB. Section 87 of the Act and delay in making aWe are also not satisfied with the delay by the respondents in making a claim under Section 87 of the Act. The contention of the respondents is that since there is no time limit specified for filing a claim petition, they could have made a claim at any point of time, particularly for correcting a clerical error.Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, the claim made under Section 87 of the Act was after a period of at least 25 years. This can hardly bes a reasonable period. There is no explanation for the inordinate delay and to make matters worse, third party interests have been created through a Housing Scheme developed on the land in dispute or in any event on the surrounding land. After a further lapse of 25 years it is not possible to put the clock back, even ify reason to do so, which reason we cannot even visualise in this case.It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondentsthe APHB has nolocus standi to raise any dispute with regard to the measurement of Survey No.1009.We are not at all in agreement with this submission. A tract of land measuring 11.10 acres out of Survey No.1009 was sought to be taken away from the APHB which hada Housing Scheme under Section 22A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Boardnd third party rights had also been created in this regard. The primary responsibility of protecting the interests of the beneficiaries of the Housing Scheme was that of the APHB and surely it cannot be said under these circumstancesHB had no locus standi to participate in the proceedings. In fact, even the revenue authorities recognised the locus of the APHB in the order dated 15th September, 1997. The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records, Hyderabad directed theDistrict Revenue Officerto take action in terms of the Circular of 15th October, 1994 but before passing any orders under Section 87 of the Act, it was directedthe APHB should be heard.We therefore reject the contentionHB had no locus standi in the matter.e final submission of learned counsel for the respondents wasthe revenue authorities hadcome a factual conclusion in their favour and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the factual conclusions and even this Court ought not to interfere with the factual conclusionst by the revenue authorities.In our opinion, therevenue authorities hadcompletely misdirected in law in reopening a factual issue that had been settled way back in 1968 if not earlier andthere was nooccasion for reopening that factual issue after a lapse of at least 25 years. That being the position, it cannot be saidts are precluded from interfering in a matter of determination of facts when the authorities have completely misdirected themselves in law and exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in them. We therefore also reject this submission of the respondents.To conclude, therefore, we holdthe entire Survey No. 1009 wasacquired by the APHB for a Housing Scheme. No parcel of land in Survey No.1009 was left out or not acquired. Compensation was paid for acquisition of the entire Survey No.1009. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in concluding that 20.18 acres of land in Survey No.1009 had not been acquired.We also hold that it is too simplistic on the part of the respondents to contend that land in excess of 661.04 acres in Survey No.1009 was not acquired. This is certainly not so andthe entire Survey No.1009 wasThe submission in this regard is rejected.We also hold thatthe claim made by the respondents under Section 87 of the Actwas hopelessly delayed for whichs absolutely noexplanation forthcoming. In addition, we hold that since third party rights have been created in the meanwhile under the Housing Scheme of the APHB and there is no way to put the clock back. The respondents ought to have been vigilant in pursuing their claim, assuming the claim was legitimate, but since they were not vigilant enough, they must suffer the consequences of their inaction.We also hold thatthe proceedings under theAndhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 were of some consequence but sincethe APHB hase proceedings under thesaid Act and learned counsel has only mentioned it in passing, we do not intend to base our decision on the declaration made by the respondents under the said Act.We also hold thatthe APHB wasdirectly and primarily affected bythe claim made by the respondents under Section 87 of the Actand therefore had the locus standi to proceed before the Commissioner (Appeals), the High Court and this Court.