Ankam Reddy Yerrayyamma vs The Authorised Officer, (Land Reforms) Narasipatnam Visakhapatnam Dist.

Ramachandra Rao

This is a petition u/s 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 (herein after referred as the Act) to revise the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal Visakhapatnam, confirming the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal Narsipatnam, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 16(5) and Rule 10 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules'') framed under the Act. After enquiry under the Act, the Land Reforms Tribunal found that the petitioner was in excess of 1620 standard holding and directed that the same should be surrendered, and that order has become final. Subsequently when a notice was given to the petitioner for surrendering the land he filed a petition under Rule 16 (5) and Rule 10 (c) of the Rules stating that by mistake the extents of the Land in survey Nos. 180 and 262 Kothagudem and Survey No. 32 of Dharmavaram village were given as Act. 13-50, 1045 and 5-00 respectively while the actual extents are Ac.10.00 Ac. 6-00 and Ac.3-00 respectively that on account of the aforesaid mistake an error had crept into the determination of the extent of the holding of the petitioner and that the same should be rectified. This petition was dismissed by the Land Reforms Tribunal on the ground than there was no accidental omission or error in the Tribunal''s ordered dated 16-10-1975. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal conferred the order stating that the correction could not be effected as it would amount to reviewing the order of the Tribunal and that the Tribunal had no power to review its order under the provisions of the Act or Rules. The Appellate Tribunal also further took the view that no appeal lay against an order refusing to amend the order.

So far as the petition for correction of the error is concerned, it is contended by Sri S. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sub-Rule-5(b) of Rule 16 of the Rules it similar to section 152 CPC and therefore any error or mistake which has crept into the order of the Tribunal can be corrected even subsequent to the passing of the order of the Tribunal. Earlier sub-rule (5) (b) of Rule 16 of the Rules fread as follows:--

to correct any mistake arising out of any accidental error or omission in a decision or incidental or ancillary order of such officer or authority.

The above rule has been amended by G.O.Ms. No. 403 Revenue (G) dated 6-4-1976 and the amended rule reads as follows:--

to correct any clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

The Appellate Tribunal took the view that language of the unamended rule permits only correction of any mistake arising out of any accidental error or omission in a decision or incidental or ancillary order of the Tribunal that the mistake committed by the petitioner in giving the extents of the land declaration cannot be said to be an error or omission in the decision of the Tribunal and therefore Rule 16(6) (b) was not applicable and such an error could not be corrected under Rule 16(6) (b) as it stood then. But the above rule has undergone a complete change after the amendment and is in pari materia with section 152 CPC Section 152 CPC reads as follows :-

Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in Judgments decree or orders or error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or of any of the parties.

With regard to the correction of errors occurring in judgments and decrees in civil suits, it has been held that any clerical or arithmetical mistakes occurring in the plaint or plaint schedules or other documents could be corrected even after the decree had become final by exercising powers u/s 152 CPC. In a recent decision of this court in Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah vs Kalkonda Krishnaiah 1973 (2) An. W.R. 253 Venkatrama Sastry J. held as follows : A suit still continues even after preliminary decree and it is only after passing final decree the suit can be said to have terminated. It is certainly therefore, open to courts to amend a plaint and decree schedules at any stage before passing of final decree.

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 u/s 152, Civil Procedure Code. In such cases even the document on the basis of which the suit was filed may be amended either in a suit u/s 31 of the Specific Relief Act or in a proper case even by an application under sec. 152, CPC 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 into 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 Sec. 152, CPC filed in a pending suit even after a preliminary decree is passed therein, is an a fortiorari case.

In view of the amended rule 16 (5) (b) the language of which is similar to section 152 CPC., I think any mistake which had crept into the declaration of the holding of the declarant or the excess area over the ceiling limit by the Tribunal on account of accidental slip or omission by the declarant can be corrected. No doubt, by the date of the application filed before the Land Reforms Tribunal the previous rule was in force, but in view of the amended rule which has come into force on 6-4-76, the petition filed for rectification of the error has to be considered on merits by the Land Reforms Tribunal.

The second objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal cannot also lie sustained. Sub-section 3 of the Sec. 20 of the Act provides that an appeal shall be against an order passed by the Tribunal or the Revenue Divisional Officer to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days. The view of the Appellate Tribunal that the appeal lies to the Appellate Tribunal only against an order passed by the Land Reforms Tribunal under sections 9 and 10 of the Act and no appeal lies against any other order does not seem to be correct. The expression ''an order'' passed by the Tribunal would take any final order passed by the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal observed that section 21 of the Act, provides for a revision to the High Court from any order, whereas sub-section 3 of sec. 20 of the Act provides for an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal only against ''an order'' and therefore, a restricted meaning should be given to the expression ''an order'' in Sub-Section 3 of section 20 of the Act. But I do not think there is any substantial difference between the expression ''an order'' and the expression ''any order''. On the other hand, the language of Sub-section 3 of section 20 of the Act does not impose any limitations with regard to right of appeal against an order of the Tribunal. In the circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the order rejecting the application filed under Rule 16(5)(b) of the Rules is appelable. In this view both the orders of the Tribunals below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Land Reforms Tribunal to entertain the petition CC 933/NPM. and dispose of the same on merits and according to law. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Advocate''s fee Rs. 100/-.