Summary
The Supreme Court held that the entire disputed survey number had been acquired for the Housing Board’s scheme and that a later claim to additional unacquired acreage was not correction of a clerical error. It required contested remeasurement and substantive alteration of settled rights. Section 87’s words “at any time” did not justify an unexplained twenty-five-year delay, particularly after third-party housing rights arose. The Board had standing to challenge the correction proceedings. Its appeals were allowed.
Issues
- Whether the claimed increase in survey area was a clerical error correctable under section 87.
- Whether correction could be sought after an unexplained twenty-five-year delay.
- Whether the Housing Board had standing and courts could intervene despite revenue findings.
Provisions considered
- Section 87, Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 FasliThe correction power did not extend to reopening substantive acquisition rights through disputed survey and re-survey under the guise of clerical correction. The absence of a specified limit did not dispense with reasonable-time requirements on these facts. (¶¶ 12, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 67)
Held
- The acquisition award, recorded measurements and possession established acquisition of the whole survey number, not an unspecified portion leaving residual land with the former owners. The claimed excess acreage was never adequately identified during the original proceedings. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 57, 65, 66)
- A clerical or arithmetic error is an accidental slip or obvious calculation mistake, not a disputed substantive revision requiring fresh survey and argument. The changing claims of excess area and need for survey and re-survey did not fit that category. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53)
- The administrative circular could not expand clerical correction beyond the legally recognised meaning. Contemporaneous administrative interpretation did not prevail when inconsistent with the law governing such errors. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56)
- Even where a power has no express limitation period, it must be invoked within a reasonable time assessed on the circumstances. An unexplained delay of at least twenty-five years was unreasonable here, especially after development and creation of third-party rights. The Court did not prescribe a universal numerical period. (¶¶ 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 67)
- The Housing Board was directly affected and responsible for protecting housing-scheme beneficiaries, giving it standing before the revenue appellate authority and courts. Judicial intervention was also permissible because the authorities had misdirected themselves in law and exercised jurisdiction they lacked. (¶¶ 63, 64, 69)
- Although ceiling-law declarations had been discussed in the record, the Court expressly declined to base its decision on them because the Board had not relied on those proceedings. (¶ 68)
Result
Housing Board’s appeals allowed; Division Bench judgment and order set aside. Entire survey number held acquired, alleged clerical correction rejected and belated claim denied. No costs.