Telangana Housing Board vs Azamunisa Begum (Died) Thru Lrs .

4. As is evident, the area was extremely large but it is recorded in paragraph 4 of the Land Acquisition Award that:

13. 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. In our opinion, the non-receipt of the notice is hardly of any relevance.

21. 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.

19. Nevertheless, the Director stated that the measurement exercise C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010) Page 8 of 31 undertaken by the Assistant Director is technically correct and the area of Survey No. 1009 is actually 687.03 acres while the recorded area 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 ‘clerical error’ as mentioned in the Circular dated 15th October, 1994 and necessary corrective action ought to be taken.

46. That the unexplained 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 fact that the entire Survey No.1009 was acquired by the APHB and possession taken, regardless of its actual measurement and the alleged non-acquisition of 11.10 acres is nothing but a red herring. Consequently, the question of correcting a ‘clerical error’ with reference to Section 87 of the Act does not arise.

A clerical error

Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.”

Interference on facts

Conclusion

70. In view of the above conclusions, the judgment and order passed C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010) Page 30 of 31 by the Division Bench is set aside and the appeals filed by the Telangana Housing Board are allowed. No costs.

.............................................J (Madan B. Lokur) New Delhi; ...........................................J May 1, 2018 (Deepak Gupta) C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010) Page 31 of 31