Om Prakash Saini Decd thr. L.Rs. vs Land Acquisition Collector and Others

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—The challenge by means of this appeal is to the statement recorded by the Reference Court on 29.5.1998. By the impugned statement, the late Appellant had admitted before the Reference Court, his liability for repayment of compensation with respect to land of which he was not the owner. On the basis of the statement, an order was also thereafter passed on the same day, i.e., 29th May, 1998.

In my opinion, the appeal is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is settled law right from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, that if a factual aspect is recorded in judicial records/proceedings, then, the only way to get such factual narration corrected, which is said to be incorrect, is only by making an application before the Court which records that particular fact. Not only that, the Supreme Court has said that an application for correction of the alleged factual statement must be made within a short period of time when the matter is fresh in the mind of the Court which records the factual aspect. This judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramdas Srinivas Naik (supra) has been followed thereafter in over half a dozen judgments of the Supreme Court and the last judgment being State of Assam Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, .

In view of the above, the present appeal cannot be a method to change a factual aspect which was recorded way back on 29th May, 1998.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant said that this Court should call for the records of the writ petition filed by the Appellant challenging the recording of the statement which was disposed of giving liberty to file these proceedings, and in which, it is alleged that no reply was filed. I have already stated above that substantive proceedings cannot be a method and manner to challenge a factual statement/aspect recorded by a Court. The reason for the decisions of the Supreme Court on this aspect is quite clear in that it is not possible for a Court to arrive at a finding on an alleged disputed fact unless the alleged disputed fact is brought to the notice, in all fairness, to the Court which has recorded the same.

In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal which is misconceived. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

CM Nos. 2292/2010, 2290/2010

Since the main appeal has been dismissed these applications have become infructuous and are dismissed accordingly. The interim order passed on 17th May, 2010 stands vacated. Trial Court record be sent back.