Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Laxama Reddy And Ors. vs The State Of A.P. on 23 April, 1992
Equivalent citations: 1992(2)ALT169
JUDGMENT Iyyapu Panduranga Rao, J.
1. This Revision petition is directed against the order dated July 9,1991 of the Chairman, L.R.A.T. Sangareddy, rejecting the revision petitioners claim to correct the alleged clerical mistakes and determine the Standard Holding of each of the declarants in the interest of equity.
2. This matter originally came upto before A. Lakshmana Rao, J., while he was sitting single. Before the learned single Judge the decisions reported in-
A. Reddy Yerrayyamma v. Authorised Officer, 1976 (2) A.P.L.J. P.405, K. Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 (2) A.P.L.J. P. 347 and Chenchi Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1980 (1) A.P.L.J. P.257 were cited to impress upon the learned Judge that the point involved is nothing but a pure and simple clerical mistake and the same has to be corrected as prayed for. The learned Judge having heard the matter observed as follows:
"In the instant case, after the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal had become final, the declarants filed a petition under Rule 16(5)(b) for rectification of the mistake in the computation of their holdings. The Primary Tribunal as well as the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the petition holding that the alleged mistake in the computation of the holding was not raised earlier either before the Appellate Tribunal or this Court in the revision petition. In such circumstances, it has to be considered whether in the exercise of power under Rule 16(5)(b) the Tribunal can correct the alleged mistake in computation of holding after the decision declaring the holding had become final. This question is likely to arise in many cases. In my view, the views expressed by the learned Judges referred to above require reconsideration."
So observing, the learned Judge, directed the office to place the papers before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for posting the case before a Bench and accordingly, the said case came up before this Bench.
3. Before considering the point that arise for consideration, certain facts which are relevant, be noted.
One Lakshma Reddy had two sons Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy. Lakshma Reddy and his two sons Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy filed three separate declarations which were numbered respectively as C.C.1247/NPR/75, C.C.1248/NPR/75 and C.C.1246/NPR/75. Narasimha Reddy's brother-in-law one Rajendra Reddy also filed a declaration which was numbered as C.C.1249/NPR/75. The declarations of Lakshma Reddy and his two sons and Rajendra Reddy were considered and as per orders dated January 21, 1977 the Land Reforms Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Primary Tribunal') held that the father Lakshma Reddy was a non-surplus holder; Janardhana Reddy hold lands equivalent to 2.2343 Standard Holding in excess of the ceiling area which he is liable to surrender and Narasimha Reddy hold lands equivalent to 4.4300 Standard Holding in excess of the ceiling area which he is liable to surrender. Aggrieved by the said orders, while the father Lakshman Reddy filed L.R.A.T.No. 605/77; Janardhana Reddy filed L.R.A.T.No. 603/77 and Narasimha Reddy filed L.R.A.T.No. 604/77. The Primary Tribunal also held that Rajendra Reddy was not holding any land in excess of the ceiling area and he preferred L.R.A.T.No. 606/77. When the said appeals came up for consideration before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, it was contended before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal that certain lands standing in the name of Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy which were computed as the separate properties of the said individuals by the Primary Tribunal were not in fact the separate properties of the said individuals and they were purchased in their names from the joint family nucleus and consequently they have to be treated as the joint family properties of the father Lakshma Reddy and his sons Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy. The said contention was upheld by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and held that properties separately shown in the names of the sons Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy also be treated as part and parcel of the joint family properties.
4. Along with the three appeals referred to above, the appeal of Rajendra Reddy in L.R.A.T.No. 606/77 was also heard. In the said appeal, it was contended that O.2124 Standard Holding was included in the holding of Narasimha Reddy under Part II representing that the said property was the property of Amulya Devi wife of Narasimha Reddy, while in fact Amulya Devi did not inherit any property from her parental side. At this juncture it is to be noted that Rajendra Reddy's father Anji Reddy died leaving his wife Kowsalya Devi, a son Rajendra Reddy who is the declarant in C.C.1249/NPR/75 and a daughter Amulya Devi (wife of Narasimha Reddy) and it was averred that Anji Reddy gave all his properties only to his son Rajendra Reddy. The Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal having considered the matter held that since Anji Reddy died intestate, his properties devolved upon his son Rajendra Reddy, widow Kowsalya Devi and daughter Amulya Devi, Amulya Devi's share in the said property is 0.2124 Standard Holding and the same was correctly computed in the holding of her husband Narasimha Reddy who is the declarant in C.C.1246/NPR/75 and so holding L.R.A.T.No. 6068/77 was dismissed.
In view of the observations that some properties computed as separate properties of Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy were treated as joint family properties, the orders in C.C.1246/NPR/75, C.C.1248/NPR/75 and C.C.1247/NPR/75 were set aside, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal appeals were allowed and the cases were sent back to the Primary Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with the observations made therein. Subsequently, the holdings of Lakshma Reddy and his two sons Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy were re-fixed by the Primary Tribunal; and aggrieved by the same, Lakshma Reddy and his two sons Janardhana Reddy and Narasimha Reddy preferred L.R.A.Nos.33, 34 and 63/80 which were allowed in part as per orders dated August 8, 1985; Aggrieved by the said orders, the declarants filed revisions before this court. This Court considered the matters and disposed of the C.R.Ps. as per orders dated April 16, 1987. Alleging that the effect of Section 29(A) of Hindu Succession Act as amended by A.P. Amendment Act 1986 and the effect of Section 4(A) of A.P. Land Reforms Act, 1973 (herein after referred to as 'the Act') were not considered the father and two sons (hereinafter referred to as the declarants) filed Review C.M.P.Nos.2708/89, 2711/89 and 2714/89 and as per orders dated March 1, 1989 Justice Seetharam Reddy allowed the review petitions holding that the total excess for the family of all the three declarants is 6.1039 Standard Holding which they are liable to surrender. It is also in evidence that in pursuance of the findings of this court that the father and his two sons were holding lands equivalent to 6.1039 Standard Holding in excess of the ceiling area which is liable to be surrendered. It appears that proceedings under Section 10 of the Act were also seems to have been initiated as evidenced by the proceedings dated October 22,1991.
While so, the declarants filed a petition under date April 10, 1989 under Rule 16(5)(b) of the A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules, 1974 (in brief 'the Rules') alleging that land equivalent to 0.796 Standard Holding be excluded from the holding of the declarants in view of Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act and further alleging that there was a mistake while arriving at the holding of Lakshma Reddy, due to the said mistake and the mistake occurred in view of Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenancy Act are accidental mistakes which require correction. Having heard the said matter the Primary Tribunal dismissed the said application as per orders dated April 17, 1989 holding as follows:
"Now they have come up with a plea of wrong computation after a period of 9 years and they have not raised it in the legal battles held during these 9 years, simply to delay further action in these cases. However the record has been verified and found that no mistakes were committed in computation of holdings of Sri Lakshma Reddy as alleged in the petition."
Aggrieved by the said orders of the Primary Tribunal, the declarants approached the land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in L.R.A.No. 13/89 and the said Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal also as per orders dated July 9,1991 dismissed the same rejecting the contentions raised therein. Aggrieved by the said order, the declarants have approached this court.
5. In the grounds of revision except stating that the order of the appellate Tribunal is contrary to facts and law and is liable to be set aside, the only substantial point urged is covered by Ground No. 6 which reads as follows:
"The appellate Tribunal ought to have held that the lands in S.Nos. 42, 79, 109/7 in Chetlapotharam and Vailala villages are covered by boulders and hillocks and are to be deleted while computing the Standard holding of the petitioners."
Suffice to say that this point was not raised by the petitioners in their application dated April 10, 1989 basing on which the present revision petition is filed. Having not raised this point in the application dated April 10, 1989 the petitioners are not entitled to raise such a plea for the first time in the revision petition. Apart from that it is to be noted that when it is the contention of the declarants that the land covered by S.Nos. 42, 79, 109/7 of Chetlapotharam and Vailala villages are covered by boulders and hillocks and have to be deleted while computing the Standard Holding of the declarant, this is a point which they have to raise before the Primary tribunal, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and in the revision before the High Court. Wherein the correctness or otherwise of the holdings of the declarants was finalised. It is also to be noted that even in the review petitions wherein finally the holdings of the three declarants the father and two sons, were finalisied and held that they were holding lands equivalent to 6.1039 in excess of the ceiling area, this point was not raised and consequently it is not open for them to raise this point, now.
6. Apart from the substantial point raised in Ground No. 6 no other substantial point was raised in any other grounds in the C.R.P. in question. On this ground alone this C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed.
7. It is to be further seen that in the application dated April 10,1989 which is the genesis of the present proceedings, two points are raised. Firstly, non-deletion of the lands covered by Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenancy Act and secondly, that there was a mistake while arriving at the holding of Lakshma Reddy, the father. It is to be seen as to whether there are any merits in the said contentions.
In the first instance it is to be seen that in the event of the Primary Tribunal, committing a mistake in not deleting the land covered by Section 38-E of the Telangana Tenancy Act, the declarants have to agitate the same in the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal or in the revision petition before the High Court. They have not chosen to do so. Having examined the entire material, the primary Tribunal has observed as follows:
"However the record has been verified and found that no mistake has been committed in computation of the holding of Sri Lakshma Reddy as alleged in the petition."
So factually, it is the finding of the Primary Tribunal that no mistake was committed while arriving at the holding of Sri Laxma Reddy. The same finding was reiterated by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal in its order under revision. In view of that we find no merits in the contention raised on behalf of the declarants/revision petitioners.
8. It is the contention of the revision petitioners that the relief sought for can be granted under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules which reads as follows:
16(5)(b) to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, either of its own motion or on the application of the parties."
9. Rule 16(5)(b) of the Act empowers the Revenue Divisional Officer, the District Collector, Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and it further provides that such a correction can be made either of its own motion or on the application of the parties. So the only question, is whether the relief prayed for is a simple clerical or arithmetical mistake. Now it is to be seen what a clerical or arithmetical mistake is.
Wharton defines a clerical error as an error in a document which can only be explained by considering it to be a slip or mistake of the party preparing or copying it. Literally, an error is said to be clerical error where it was made by a clerk or some subordinate agent but actually it means an error committed in the performance of clerical work whether by the court, the draftsman of the Act or by the clerk. Thus an error which cannot reasonably be attributed to the exercise of judicial consideration or discretion. Clerical errors are errors of form and not of substance being errors committed in the performance of work which in its nature is only clerical as opposed to judicial. Clerical errors include mistakes or omissions which are not the results of the exercise of a judicial or legislative function or the out come of a deliberate out come of reasoning and determination."
(Vide pages 359 and 360 of T.P. Mukerji's Law Lexicon Volume I, IV Edition.)
10. A 'mistake' is defined as follows in the New Webster's Dictionary, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition:
"to err in identifying, to select wrongly, to regard otherwise than as the facts warrant; to misjudge, misinterpret, or misevaluate, to be under a misapprehension or misconception."
11. The word 'arithmetic' is defined in Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983 as 'the science of numbers; the art of reckoning by figures; a treatise on reckoning." Thus it is evident that Arithmetical mistake is a mistake in reckoning the figures. For example when 4 is added to 5 it must be 9 and when it is said that it is 8 the same is an arithmetical mistake. Similarly a clerical error is a slip or a mistake of the party preparing or copying it. Though the definitions are not exhaustive keeping these principles in mind it is to be seen whether the case of the petitioner be treated as either arithmetical or clerical error.
12. K. Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2 supra) is a case where the holding of the petitioner therein was determined, the said order was allowed to become final and when surrender proceedings were initiated the petitioner contended that his holding was not determined in the light of the G.O.Ms.No. 813 (Revenue) dated 19-3-1975 (for short 'the G.O.') alleging that he was having lands at Chintalapudi taluk of West Godavari district which was declared as a drought prone area and hence the extent of standard holding should be increased by 12 1/2% and his holding was determined without taking into consideration the G.O. The said contention was repelled by the primary tribunal, the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and this High Court in revision and consequently the petitioner filed a writ petition. The same was converted as a review petition by his Lordship Justice Jeevan Reddy, (as he then was) and when the review petition came up for consideration it was argued on behalf of the Government that in a review application only a clerical or arithmetical mistakes can be taken into consideration and the question of non-consideration of the G.O. in question cannot be taken either as a clerical or as a arithmetical mistake. On the contra, on behalf of the review petitioner it was contended that when the Government have issued a G.O., irrespective of the fact whether the declarant was claiming the benefit under the G .O. or not, the authority was duty bound to take the said G.O. into consideration while arriving at the holding of the petitioner. Accepting the submission raised on behalf of the review petitioner, it was observed as follows:
"When the primary tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal have committed an error in not extending the benefit either by accidential slip or omission, Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules empowers either the Primary Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal to rectify that mistake either of its own motion or on the application of the parties."
Considering the non-application of the G.O. the learned single judge observed-
"This is an error apparent on the face of the record."
The learned single judge further observed that the Rules of Procedure are intended only to advance the cause of justice rather than to impede the same and all that the court is to guard against is, that no prejudice has been done to or no surprise has been sprung upon the other party. The learned Judge further observed that the function of a court of law is not to embroil and fetter with norm and regid technicalities the bonafide parties who seek relief, but to see whether without violating any principles of law, the relief sought, could really be granted to an aggrieved person.
13. It is to be seen that in that case the holding of the declarant was fixed in accordance with law, the correctness or otherwise was agitated before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and subsequently in this court. Thus when once the holding of the declarant was fixed, it is not open for him to reagitate the same matter in another front namely in the surrender proceedings. The surrender proceedings are covered by Section 10 of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and anything over and above the same can never be considered in the surrender proceedings. So the application of the G.O. could not have been done by the learned single judge in the review application and having carefully examined the said case, we find that the said case is not laying the law correctly.
I. Chenchi Reddy v. State of A.P. (3 supra) is a case where the sole point that arose consideration is as follows:
"The sole point that arises in this revision is whether certain points with reference to the holding which were not initially raised but were subsequently sought to be raised at the time when the matter was remanded by the revision court should be allowed to be agitated."
The said question was answered as follows:
"I have no hesitation in holding that the revision petitioner is entitled to reagitate the points even at the time when the matter is sent back to the Tribunal on a ground which is quite extraneous to the new points."
Thus what arose in the said revision petition was the right to raise certain points which were not initially raised and the answer given was in the affirmative. But in the course of the order the learned Judge observed as follows:
"A reading of Sections 9 to 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 makes it also clear that till the land is vested with the Government, at two stages, namely, either at the primary enquiry or in the second enquiry namely, at the time of surrender, not only the declarants but also all those persons who are interested or otherwise adversely affected may appear on the scene and object to or agitate the matters before the Tribunals, and, therefore, till they are finally decided, and surrendered lands are accepted by the Government, it is left wide open to all the persons concerned to get the matters adjudicated upon. This is also evident from the provisions enacted in sub-rule (9) of Rule 16. Therefore, it is inherent in the very scheme of the things that matters even though for some reason or the other were not and could not be raised could nevertheless be raised and could be got decided by the respective forums provided under the statute till the excess land surrendered gets vested by way of acceptance or otherwise in the Government. In my opinion, the Act being expropriating in nature has to be beneficially constructed in favour of the declarants."
14. A careful reading of the above extracted passage clearly shows that the learned Judge opines that till the land is vested with the Government-either after the enquiry where the holding was determined or at the stage of surrender proceedings, objections can be raised by all the persons concerned to get the matter adjudicated upon and the learned Judge further observes that such a procedure is inherent in the very scheme of the things that matters even though for some reason or the other were not and could nevertheless be raised and could got decided. So holding, the learned Judge while observing that the revision petitioner was entitled to reagitate the points even at the time when the matter was sent back to the Tribunal on remand reclassify the lands. It is common knowledge that finality has to be attached to the judicial proceedings at every stage unless the finding is challenged in the appropriate forum. When the holding of the declarant was decided and when the said order was permitted to become final, it is not known as to how the same can be questioned in surrender proceedings and surrender proceedings shall be restricted only to the points that are permitted to be raised in the said proceedings. During the surrender proceedings also if the correctness or otherwise of the fixation of the holding of the declarant was permitted to question, there can never be any end or finality to the proceedings determining the holding of the declarant. By no stretch of imagitation reclassification of the lands be termed as either clerical or arithmetical mistakes from the meaning of the said words quoted supra. As such we find that the above decision is not laying the law correctly and consequently the same is over ruled.
15. A. Reddy Yerrayyamma v. Authorised Officer (1 supra) is a case where the provisions of Rule 16(5) of the Rules and Section 152 C.P.C. were considered. That was a case where the declarants holding was determined, proceedings were initiated regarding surrender of the excess land and at that stage it was found that the extents of certain lands were given incorrectly and consequently applications were made unsuccessfully before the primary tribunal as well as Land Reforms Tribunal to rectify the mistake and later the declarants approached the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction. This court on facts held that the declarants gave the extents of Survey No. 180 and 262 of Kottagudem and Survey No. 32 of Dharmavaram villages incorrectly in the declaration. It was argued before the High Court that on the analogy of Section 152 C.P.C. a clerical or arithmetical mistake crept in the declaration can also be rectified. Upholding the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the declarants therein Justice Ramachandra Rao (as he then was) observed as follows:
"Where clerical or arithmetical mistakes occur in copying the plaint schedules from the documents anterior to the suit the proceedings in the suit can always be corrected under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code. In such cases even the documents on the basis of which the suit was filed may be amended either in a suit under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act or in a proper case even by an application under Section 152 Civil Procedure Code provided it is a case of misdescription and not one of disputed identity. In such cases if Section 152 is invoked it would obviate a suit which may ultimately bring about the same result. In all cases where clerical or arithmetical errors crept in the plaint and as a consequence in the decrees as well, they can be rectified at any time even after a final decree. A case of such an amendment petition under Section 152 Civil Procedure Code filed in a pending suit even after a preliminary decree is passed therein, is as fortiorari case."
This was a case where the question of correction of arithmetical mistake in the declaration even after the determination of the holding was considered. As such, this case has no application to the facts of the case on hand. We find that this decision is correctly laying the law but the same has no application to the facts of this case.
16. Since much time has elapsed in this case after the fixation of the holdings of the declarants, the declarants shall file memo/memos indicating the lands agreed to be surrendered in accordance with law within one week for today which shall be considered by the authorities concerned in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and shall proceed further in the matter.
17. While taking leave of this case, we wish to express our anguish and displeasure about the way in which things have happened in this case before the Primary Tribunal as well as the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. It is to be seen that the declarants filed their declarations as early as in 1975 and initially the Primary Tribunal as per orders dated January 7.1, 1977 determined the holdings of the declarants. Aggrieved by the said orders, the declarants approached the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal which has determined the appeals as per orders dated December 30, 1977. Later the matter went back to the Primary Tribunal, subsequently to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal and then to the High Court as a revision and again as a review. Thus though for the first time, as early as in January 1977 the holding of the declarants was determined and the total excess was 7.6643 Standard Holdings, on some point or other when the matter was taken to the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal or to the High Court, unfortunately stay was granted regarding surrender of the entire land which is nothing less than a few hundred of acres in extent. It is true that whenever an appeal is filed stay may be granted when there is a prima facie case but that stay should be restricted to the subject matter of the appeal but not to the lands which have nothing to do with the subject matter of the appeal. To put the matters squarely, we wish to state that the Appellate Authority or the Revisional Authority should restrict the stay to the subject matter of the appeal or Revision as the case may be, while rejecting stay regarding the other property. It is to be noted that in this case right from the beginning i.e., right from January, 1977 the declarants have been continuing in possession and enjoyment of even according to Justice Seetarami Reddy 6.103 Standard Holding which is nothing less than about a four hundreds of acres of land which they are liable to surrender even after their holdings were determined and even though appeals or revisions or reviews were preferred regarding small extents of land only. The avowed objective of the Act is to distribute the surplus land in accordance with the provisions of the Act but by the casual attitude adopted by the appellate or revisional authorities, the declarants were permitted to continue in possession of the excess land, though the appeal or revision or the review has not covered the entire excess land held by the appellants.
18. In view of these circumstances, the Registrar (Administration) should place copy of this judgment before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for circulating copies of this judgment to all the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunals in the State to serve as a guideline.
19. With the above observations the Revision petition is dismissed. No costs.