Land
Commissioner Vs. Manjiya Pillai [1994] INSC 201 (30 March 1994)
Agrawal, S.C. (J) Agrawal, S.C. (J) Sahai, R.M. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (2) 464
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.
This appeal arises out of proceedings taken under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms
(Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961. Section 50 of the said Act makes
provision for determination of compensation for the surplus land acquired by
the Government under the provisions of the said Act. The provisions of Section
50 which are relevant for our purposes are contained in sub-sections (9) and
(IO) which read as under:
"(9).
The authorised officer may, if he is satisfied either of his own motion or on
the application of any of the parties that a bona fide mistake has been made in
regard to any entry in the draft assessment roll or in the assessment roll as
published finally make necessary correction therein and on such correction
being made, the provisions of sub- sections (3) to (8) shall, as far as may be,
apply thereto.
(10)
Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (9), the authorised officer
may at any time correct either of his own motion or on the application of any
of the parties any clerical or arithmetical mistake in regard to any entry in
the draft assessment roll or in the assessment roll as published finally."
2. An
extent of 8.49 acres of land in Siramel Kudi Village, Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District was declared as
surplus and the amount of compensation for the same was determined as Rs
9353.04p. In accordance with the said determination the final assessment roll
under Section 50(9) of the Act was published on 5-6-1974. Subsequently it was brought to the notice of the authorised
officer that an extent of 3.67 acres of the said surplus land was lying waste
continuously for five years prior to the date of the publication of the
notification under Section 18(1) of the said Act and on that basis the authorised
officer, exercising the power under Section 50(9) of the Act, reduced the
amount of compensation to Rs 4387.68p on the view that a bona fide mistake had
been committed in the determination of the compensation earlier. The said order
of the authorised officer was upheld in revision by the Land Commissioner but
on a writ petition filed by the respondent the learned Single Judge of the
Madras High Court set aside the said order on the view that under Section 50
the authorised officer could not reopen an assessment that has been finalised
and determined as per Schedule III except on the ground of a clerical or arithmetical
mistake and that a bona fide mistake in regard to any entry cannot take within
its amplitude correction of mistakes on merits. In taking the said view the
learned Single Judge has placed reliance on an earlier judgment of a Single
Judge of the High Court in R.V. Appaswamy v. Authorised Officer (Land Reforms) Kovilpattil.
The
learned Single Judge has also observed that the 1 (1982)1MLJ219 466 proceedings
for determination of the compensation had been completed and finalised in 1974
and they were sought to be reopened after a lapse of five years. The said view
of the learned Single Judge has been confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of
the High Court.
3. We
have heard learned counsel for the parties, mainly on the question whether
expression "bona fide mistake" in Section 50(9) should be construed
as confined to clerical or arithmetical mistakes only. Having regard to the
provisions contained in Section 50(10) which expressly makes provision for
correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes, we are unable to construe the
expression "bona fide mistake" in sub-section (9) of Section 50 to
mean that it is confined to clerical or arithmetical mistake. Such a
construction would render the provisions of Section 50(9) otiose. In our
opinion" it would be permissible for the competent authority to exercise
the power conferred under Section 50(9) in cases where a bona fide mistake has
been committed while passing orders on merits. We are, therefore, unable to
agree with the view of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Division
Bench of the High Court in this regard and the said view is, therefore, set
aside. But having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, we
are not inclined to interfere with the ultimate order that has been passed by
the High Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
4. We
have been informed that costs have already been paid in accordance with the
order passed by this Court on 13-12- 1989. No further directions are,
therefore, necessary in this regard.
Back