Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1215 (TS)

G. Rangamma v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

2025-10-14

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 07.09.2010 passed vide Memo No.9733/SS-1/2008-2 by the respondent No.1, Principal Secretary to Government, wherein and whereby dismissed the appeal preferred by the father of the petitioner against the order dated 28.01.2008 vide Lr.No.A3/338/2004, passed by the Director, Survey and Land Records, in the present writ petition. 2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioners claims to be the absolute owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village, Golconda Mandal, Hyderabad District, having acquired the same by way of succession from their ancestors. During the life time of their father, they were eking out their livelihood by doing agriculture in the said land. In the year 2003, their neighbourers surveyed their lands and fixed its boundaries. As such, petitioners’ father made an application to the Mandal Revenue Officer to demarcate their extent of land and fix the boundaries. The Mandal Surveyor, Golconda Mandal, conducted survey in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village and orally informed that an extent of Acs.2.02 gts., and odd land is available in Sy.No.151, but as per Pahani and Wasoolbakhi, it is recorded as Ac.1.19 guntas on the said survey number. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued Memo dated 21.05.2004 in File No.D.1945/2003 admitting the fact that the total extent of land in Sy.No.151 physically did not tally with the area recorded in the Tippon available in their office and directed the applicant to approach the competent authority for demarcation of actual area. Consequently, the father of the petitioners made an application on 25.05.2004 and 29.05.2004 before the respondents No.2 and 3, District Revenue Officer and Deputy Director, respectively, with a request to rectify the actual extent of Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.151 which is in their physical possession in all revenue records by deleting the extent of Ac.1.19 guntas. Upon which, the respondents No.2 and 3 conducted survey and fixed the boundaries of Sy.No.151 and conducted panchanama on 28.08.2004 measured the land in their physical possession to an extent of Acs.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.151 as per Tippon. 3. Upon which, the respondents No.2 and 3 conducted survey and fixed the boundaries of Sy.No.151 and conducted panchanama on 28.08.2004 measured the land in their physical possession to an extent of Acs.2.02 guntas in Sy.No.151 as per Tippon. 3. While so, after conducting survey, the respondents No.2 and 3 instead of issuing orders for rectifying the clerical error, kept the matter pending for four years and the respondent No.3 issued the Memo dated 28.01.2008 contending that the error cannot be treated as clerical and it is not a fit case to be entertained under Section 87 of The A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317F since it is filed after a lapse of Fifty years. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 himself requested the respondent No.2 under Lr.No.A3/338/2004 dated 23.09.2005 as the error is a calculation error which can be classified as clerical. Assailing the same, father of the petitioner preferred an Appeal on 18.02.2008 before the respondent No.1 and as the same could not be taken up for hearing, had filed W.P. No.28318 of 2008. This Court by an order dated 29.12.2008 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the appeal bearing No.9733/SS-1/2008-1, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Based on the said order, the respondent No.1 considered and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 07.09.2010 on the ground of delay under Section 87 of the A.P. (T.A.) Land Records Act, 1317F and thus the orders passed by the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, in Memo No.A3/338/04 dated 28.01.2008 were confirmed. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 07.09.2010, petitioners, being the legal heirs of the Applicant/ petitioner, filed the present writ petition. 4. While denying the writ averments, respondent No.1 filed counter affidavit and substantiated the contents of the impugned order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 and submitted that the respondent No.1 rightly dismissed the appeal. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are the absolute owners and possessors of land in Sy.No.151 acquired through their ancestors. During the course of survey, it was found that the land available in Sy.No.151 is Acs.2.02 guntas and odd but as per Pahani, Wasool Baki it is recorded as Ac.1.19 guntas on the said survey number. During the course of survey, it was found that the land available in Sy.No.151 is Acs.2.02 guntas and odd but as per Pahani, Wasool Baki it is recorded as Ac.1.19 guntas on the said survey number. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the Memo No.D.1945/2003, dated 21.05.2004 wherein the Mandal Revenue Officer has informed that during the demarcation of land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh Village, it was reported that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh village is not tallying with the area recorded in the Tippan available in the office and directed the petitioner to approach the competent authority for demarcation of said area. Consequently, petitioners made an application with a request to rectify the actual extent of Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.151 in all the revenue records i.e. Pahanies etc. After conducting survey and panchanama, respondents No.2 and 3 instead of issuing order for rectifying the clerical error, issued Memo dated 28.01.2008 stating that the error cannot be treated as clerical and it is not a fit case to entertain under Section 87 of the Act, 1317 F, since it is filed after lapse of fifty years. Assailing the same, petitioners preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1, who passed the impugned order confirming the Memo dated 28.01.2008. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Circular dated 15.10.1994 issued by the Commissioner, Survey and Settlement in Land Records, Hyderabad, and would submit that in the said circular, it is clarified that there is no limit for entertaining clerical errors and the District Revenue Officer is competent enough to entertain correction of clerical errors. The respondents, instead of making rectification of clerical errors in the revenue records, have erroneously rejected for rectification. 7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has reiterated the contents of the impugned order and substantiated their stand. 8. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though the land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimpabh village Gokonda Mandal, Hyderabad, is physically available to an extent of Acs.2.10 guntas which is in their occupation from decades, however, in the revenue records it is recorded as Ac.1.19 guntas. 8. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though the land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimpabh village Gokonda Mandal, Hyderabad, is physically available to an extent of Acs.2.10 guntas which is in their occupation from decades, however, in the revenue records it is recorded as Ac.1.19 guntas. It is their further case that even after conducting survey and coming to know the said variation in the extent of the subject land, as being clerical error, the respondents have dismissed the application of the petitioners’ father for considering the clerical error on the ground of delay under Section 87 of the A.P. (TA) Survey and Land Records. 9. For better appreciation, Section 87 of the Act is extracted for reference: “87. Settlement Officer to correct clerical and other errors admitted by all parties and application for correction of name to be made within two years:- [The Director of Settlements and on making over the settlement records to the Collector, the Collector may, at any time, correct or cause to be corrected any clerical error or errors admitted by the party concerned.] The aforesaid officer shall hear all applications made within two years after the introduction of the settlement, for the correction of any wrong entry of a pattadar’s name in the register referred to in the preceding section and if satisfied about the error whether such error has been made through negligence, fraud, or collusion shall correct the same, notwithstanding that the party concerned does not admit the error, but no such application shall be entertained after two years, unless reasonable cause is shown to the said officer for the delay, and in such cases if any error is proved it shall not be corrected without obtaining the sanction of the [Government].” 10. In the instant case, the application was made by the father of the petitioners in the year 2003 to the Mandal Revenue Officer to demarcate the extent of land in their possession and fix the boundaries. After conducting survey, petitioners’ father was orally informed that the land available in Sy.No.151 is Acs.2.02 guntas and odd but as per the Pahani and Wasool Baki, it is recorded as Ac.1.19 guntas on the said survey number. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued Memo dated 21.05.2004 stating as under. After conducting survey, petitioners’ father was orally informed that the land available in Sy.No.151 is Acs.2.02 guntas and odd but as per the Pahani and Wasool Baki, it is recorded as Ac.1.19 guntas on the said survey number. Thereafter, the Mandal Revenue Officer had issued Memo dated 21.05.2004 stating as under. “Sri Mangali Rama Kishtaiah S/o. Yellaiah is hereby informed that during the demarcation of land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh Village it is reported by the Mandal Surveyor that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh Village is not tallied with the area recorded in the tippan available in this office. He is therefore directed to approach the competent authority for demarcation of said area.” 11. In view of the above, the petitioners’ made applications on 25.05.2004 and 29.05.2004 before the respondents No.2 and 3 with a request to rectify the actual extent of Acs.2.10 guntas in Sy.No.151 in all the revenue records. After conducting survey, the Deputy Director, Inspector of Survey, issued Memo dated 28.01.2008, which reads as under. “With reference to the letter 2nd cited, the applicant Sri Mangali Rama Kistaiah is hereby informed that the permission sought for correction of area in respect of Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village, Golconda Mandal, is hereby rejected due to the following reasons. 1. The error cannot be treated as clerical error due to the reason that the old records of Wasool Baqi also shows the extent of Survey Number is Ac.1.19 Gts including Potekharab. 2. It is not a fit case to be entertained under the provision of 87 of A.P.(T.A.) L.R. Act 1317F since it is belated claim made after a lapse of 50 years, the calculations of the difference of area shows more than admissible limit. 3. The orders of the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in case of Khairuddin Ali Vs. State of A.P. 1999 (2) ALD 496 (DB) held that Section 87 permits the authorities completely only to correct clerical error or error admitted by the party concerned and also further empowers them to hear the applications made within two years after introduction of settlement of correction of any wrong entry of Pattadar’s name in the register prepared by the Survey Officer and correct such error. As such the request of the applicant cannot be considered.” 12. As such the request of the applicant cannot be considered.” 12. Aggrieved by the Memo dated 28.01.2008, the petitioners’ father preferred an appeal on 18.02.2008 before the respondent No.1 and the appeal was dismissed on 07.09.2010 vide Lr.No.B2/7884/ 2005, which reads as under. “I invite attention to the reference 1st cited and to inform that the permission sought for correction of area in respect of Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village Golconda Mandal is hereby rejected due to the following reasons. 1. The error cannot be treated as clerical error due to the reason that the old records of Wasool Baqui also shows the extent of Sy.No. is Ac.1.9 guntas including Photkharab. 2. It is not a fit case to be entertained under the provision of 87 of A.P. (T.A) LR Act 1317F since it is belated claim made after a lapse of 50 Years the calculations of the difference of area shows more then admissible limit. 3. The orders of the division bench of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in case of Khairuddin Ali v. State of A.P. 1999(2) ALD 496 (DB) held that Section 87 permit the authorities competent only to correct clerical error or error admitted by the party concerned and also further empowers them to hear the applications made within two years after introduction of settlement of correction of any wrong entry of pattadars name in the register prepared by the survey officer and correct such error. This is for information.” 13. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri Resu Mahender Reddy appearing for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents and perused the material made available on the record. 14. On a perusal of the Memo dated 21.05.2004, issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Golconda Mandal, which referred the Mandal Surveyor report dated 17.05.2004, it was informed to the applicant that during the demarcation of land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh village it is reported by the Mandal Surveyor that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh village has not tallied with the area recorded in the tippon available in the office. It is to be noted here that there is no specific finding as to what extent of area of land is not tallying. It is to be noted here that there is no specific finding as to what extent of area of land is not tallying. The respondents No.2 and 3 did not correct the extent of land as per the Revenue records with that even after verifying the extent of land as per ground position. 15. As per the communication filed in the writ material papers, the petitioner by letter dated 29.05.2004 by referring the File No.A3/338/04 dated 25.05.2004 connected application document, informed the respondent No.3, that the land in Kabja is to counterbalanced as per tippon and that there is a difference of Ac.0.30 gts., to the extent of Revenue records and Tippon and requested to correct the measurements in land records as per Tippon. Thereafter, on 28.08.2004, the Inspector of Survey, Hyderabad, Office of the Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, conducted survey in Sy.No.151, Ibrahim Bagh village and as per Panchanama dated 28.08.2024, recorded that as per Sethwar the land is admeasuring Ac.1.19 gts., and as per Wasool Baqui Register recorded as Ac.1.19 gts., and as per the Pass Book and Pahani Records recorded as As.1.19 gts., and as per Tippon on the ground it was found Acs.2.02 gts. The said Panchanama has been signed by the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the Collector, Hyderabad, vide letter No.B2/7884/2005 dated 09.10.2007 addressed to the respondent No.3 while referring to earlier correspondence informed that the permission sought for correction of area in respect of Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village, Golconda Mandal was rejected with the following reasons: 1. The error cannot be treated as clerical error due to the reason that the old records of Wasool Baqui also shows the extent of Sy.no. is Ac.1.9 gts including Photkharab. 2. It is not a fit case to be entertained under the provision of 87 of A.P. (T.A) LR Act 1317 F since it is belated claim made after a lapse of 50 years the calculations of the difference of area shows more then admissible limit. 3. is Ac.1.9 gts including Photkharab. 2. It is not a fit case to be entertained under the provision of 87 of A.P. (T.A) LR Act 1317 F since it is belated claim made after a lapse of 50 years the calculations of the difference of area shows more then admissible limit. 3. The orders of the division bench of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in case of Khairuddin Ali v. State of A.P. 1999 (2) ALD 496 (DB) held that Section 87 permit the authorities competent only to correct clerical error or error admitted by the party concerned and also further empowers them to hear the applications made within two years after introduction of settlement of correction of any wrong entry of pattadars name in the register prepared by the survey officer and correct such error. 16. In the material filed along with the affidavit, a copy of the Circular issued by the office of the Commissioner Survey Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, dated 15.10.1994, is filed. The said Circular refers to the rectification of settlement errors – scope and applicability of Section 87 of A.P. (TA) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F variations. In the said circular, clarifications were issued and one of the relevant clarifications refers to the time limit wherein it is clarified that there is no time limit for entertaining clerical errors, and District Revenue Officer is competent to entertain clerical errors. The time limit is prescribed only for errors other then clerical errors. For better appreciation, the said clarification is extracted hereunder: “Clarification:- There is no time limit for entertaining clerical errors, and District Revenue Officer is competent to entertain clerical errors. The time limit is prescribed only for errors other then clerical errors. For rectification of errors other then clerical errors condonation of delay is required, for which Dist. Revenue Officer alone is competent. However the Dist. Revenue Officer is not competent to carryout correction other than clerical errors without the approval of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records.” 17. The time limit is prescribed only for errors other then clerical errors. For rectification of errors other then clerical errors condonation of delay is required, for which Dist. Revenue Officer alone is competent. However the Dist. Revenue Officer is not competent to carryout correction other than clerical errors without the approval of the Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records.” 17. The respondent No.2 vide Memo Lr.No.A3/338/2004, dated 28.01.2008 held that the error cannot be treated as clerical error due to the reason that the old records of Wasool Baqi also shows the extent of Survey number is Ac.1.19 gts including Potekharab and that it is not a fit case to be entertained under the provision of 87 of A.P. (T.A.) L.R. Act 1317F since a belated claim was made after a lapse of 50 years and that the calculations of the difference of area shows more than admissible limit and also referred to the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Khairuddin Ali Vs. State of A.P. 1999 (2) ALD 496 (DB) , wherein it is held that Section 87 permits the authorities completely only to correct clerical error or error admitted by the party concerned and also further empowers them to hear the applications made within two years after introduction of settlement of correction of any wrong entry of Pattadar’s name in the register prepared by the Survey Officer and correct such error. Considering the said aspects, the request of the applicant was not considered. 18. It is further submitted that the respondents No.2 and 3 failed to consider the applications made immediately after noticing the variations with regard to ground positions and in the pahanies, faisal patti etc., to the extents in the tippons, pahanies, Wasool baki as clerical error and whereby such mistakes/errors can be examined and rectified as per the circular dated 15.10.1994 issued by the Commissioner, Survey and Settlement, Land Records of Hyderabad. 19. Further, on a perusal of the Memo dated 28.01.2008, issued by the Deputy Director, Inspector of Survey, there is no reference to the Panchanama dated 28.08.2004. The said fact was not addressed by the respondent No.1 in its counter. 19. Further, on a perusal of the Memo dated 28.01.2008, issued by the Deputy Director, Inspector of Survey, there is no reference to the Panchanama dated 28.08.2004. The said fact was not addressed by the respondent No.1 in its counter. Further, on a perusal of the letter dated 26.04.2005 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the Commissioner of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad, proposal was sent seeking clarification regarding nature of the error i.e. whether it is clerical or not. In the letter dated 23.09.2005, communicated by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 it is submitted that the Survey Settlement records i.e. Uttara Book and Pucca Book of Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh village has been verified with reference to tippon. The Uttara book of Sy.No.151 in which 18 waslas were shown as Shamil Wasala and 18 was taken as wazal. But actually 19 waslas have to be taken into shamil (plus) waslas. The missed waslas in pucca book was shown in red ink in the uttara sheet. Thus as per calculation, the area is coming to Ac.2.02 gts. The site has been inspected by the Inspector of Survey of the office on 28.08.2004 after issuing notices to the adjoining pattedars after demarcation of Sy.No.151 and with the help of tippon, the Inspector of Survey has conducted spot panchanama. The particulars of Survey Settlement records recorded as follows: No. Description Area (Acres) 1 Area as per Sethwar Ac.1.19 gts. 2 Area as per Wasool Baqui Ac.1.19 gts. 3 Area as per Wasool Baqui & PPB Ac.1.19 gts. 4 Area arrived as per Tippon Ac.2.02 gts. 5 Possession on ground Ac.2.02 gts. 20. From the above records, the respondent No.3 opined that the case requires rectification of area in Sethwar and Wasool Baqui as per tippon and possession as a clerical error. Since the Ibrahim Bagh Village is not covered under detailed Town Survey and hence the old Survey records which are prepared under A.P. L.R. (T) Act 1317 Fasli are in force. Therefore, Section 87 of the L.R. (T) Act 1317 Fasli is applicable in this case for correction of area. As per Section 87 , the Collector/Joint Collector is competent to order correction of clerical error or errors admitted by parties received with in a period of (2) years after the survey and settlement records are made over to the District Administration. As per Section 87 , the Collector/Joint Collector is competent to order correction of clerical error or errors admitted by parties received with in a period of (2) years after the survey and settlement records are made over to the District Administration. Thereafter proposals are to be submitted to the Commissioner of Settlements, Survey and Land Records, A.P. Hyderabad (Commissioner SS & LRS) for according permission. The present case is received beyond (2) years from the date of announcement, and as per the circular instructions of the Commissioner of Settlement, S&LRs A.P. Hyderabad communicated in F1/4392/94 (D.OS) dated 15.10.1994 there is no time limit for entertaining clerical error and DRO/Joint Collector is competent to entertain petition under clerical error and forwarded the attested copies of the records of Wasool Baqui, Sethwar, area calculation as per Uthra Book, Calculation book, area as per sethwar and copy of Mogini book. It is further stated that the village was not covered under town survey and Telangana Survey Records are in force in Ibrahimbagh village. The error is a calculation error which can be classified as clerical error and the DRO, Hyderabad was requested to accord permission to carryout the correction in area in the Sethwar and Wasool Baqui of Sy.No.151 of Ibrahim Bagh village as clerical error and the DRO is competent to order correction in survey records of under Section 87 of TALR Act 1317 Fasli. It is observed that the said facts and communications were not dealt in the counter and also in the impugned order. 21. It is pertinent to note the fact that the respondent No.3 has earlier conducted Panchanama and recorded that as per Tipon on the ground found area was Acs.2.02 gts. The said fact was not considered by the respondent No.3 in his order dated 28.01.2008 and also by the respondent No.1, who failed to note the finding in the Panchanama of the respondent No.3. In the impugned order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by confirming the order passed by the respondent No.3 vide Memo dated 28.01.2008 with very same reasons. 22. In the impugned order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 wherein the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by confirming the order passed by the respondent No.3 vide Memo dated 28.01.2008 with very same reasons. 22. That apart, the petitioners in the writ affidavit at para No.5 submitted that the father of the petitioners made applications on 25.05.2004 and 29.05.2004 before the respondents No.2 and 3 with a request to rectify the actual extent of Acs.2.10 gts., in Sy.No.151 which is in their physical possession in all revenue records. Upon receipt of applications, the respondents No.2 and 3 conducted survey and fixed the boundaries of Sy.No.151 while conducting panchanama on 28.08.2004. The surveyor measured the land which is in physical possession recording the extent of Sy.No.151 as Acs.2.02 gts., as per tippon. 23. It is also pertinent to note here that the respondents did not consider the communications of the respondents No.3 to the respondent No.2 letter dated 23.09.2025 and the Panchanama dated 28.08.2004 and Circular dated 15.10.1994 in proper perspective. 24. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to remit the matter to the respondent No.1 for considering the case afresh by taking into consideration the entire records and communications pertaining to the Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village with respect to correction of error for extent of land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh by correlating the extent of the land as per ground position. 25. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07.09.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 is set aside with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider the case of the petitioners taking into consideration the various communications among the respondents No.2 and 3, correlating with panchanama dated 28.08.2004 and entire records pertaining to the Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh village with respect to correction of error with respect to the extent of land in Sy.No.151 of Ibrahimbagh, and pass appropriate orders afresh, in accordance with law, within a period of Three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 26. Since there is discrepancy in the records and the extent on ground position, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion either on the title or on the possession of the petitioners on the subject property 27. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 26. Since there is discrepancy in the records and the extent on ground position, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion either on the title or on the possession of the petitioners on the subject property 27. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.