The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that finding that there exists error by the revenue authorities does not confer jurisdiction upon the Revenue Authorities to correct their records. Since their records were based on the registered sale deed and the settlement deed, those instruments first need to be corrected, then only the revenue records could have been corrected. To get these instruments rectified, the petitioner had to approach a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the land in question was settled in the favour of Babu Bipin Bihari Choudhary via a registered settlement deed and the plot numbers were mentioned as 381 and 382. Thereafter, the land was sold to Babu Ram Singh and one Bihari Lal Jalan via a sale deed and there also the plot number was mentioned as 381 and 382. Furthermore, Babu Ram Singh sold the land to the son of Bihari Lal Jalan vide the registered sale deed. In the said sale deed also the plot numbers were mentioned as 381 and 382. Co-sharers of the property filed a partition suit being Partition Suit in the Court in respect of the joint family property including the aforesaid property. The suit was compromised. Later on, the Petitioner got to know that the actual plot numbers of the land were in fact 391, 392, and 393, but it was wrongly mentioned in all the registered sale deeds, settlement deeds, and in Court documents as 381 and 382. The application was filed by the Petitioner before the circle officer in order to correct the plot numbers in the revenue records and the said application was allowed. Then, the Petitioner filed an application before the deputy commissioner in order to ensure that any portion of the plots are not allowed to be sold by any registered deed, and the same was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner should first get the registered deed corrected. Aggrieved by this, the present writ petition is filed.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that as the revenue records have already been corrected the respondents shouldn’t have withdrawn the restraint order. It was furthermore submitted that the Deputy Commissioner didn’t apply his mind and solely based the decision on the opinion of the Government Pleader. Also, in terms of Section 3 of the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Circle Officer has got power to make corrections of any wrong entries.
Contentions of the Respondent
The Respondents submitted that the Petitioner cannot get relief unless the error is corrected in the registered instruments. It was furthermore submitted that the circle officer got no powers under the Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 to change the same unless and until the deed is corrected by the competent authority.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that according to section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, a suit may be filed to have an instrument corrected if, as a result of a mutual mistake, the parties' real intent is not expressed. According to the petitioner, there was a mutual mistake that resulted in an error regarding the plot numbers in the registered instruments. The petitioner will not be benefitted until and unless the aforementioned instrument is amended and the plot numbers in the deeds and in the instruments are updated. A statement stating that the plot numbers are incorrectly recorded in all documents and instruments must be made and amended. Additionally, there has to be another declaration to the effect that what is the correct plot numbers. These declarations can be made only after proper evidence is led, since these issues are factual. These declarations can only be given by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and none else.
It was furthermore observed that the Revenue Authorities lack the authority to make corrections to the revenue records if the settlement or sale deed is not amended. It's true that the Revenue Authorities inquired into the matter and discovered that the recording was incorrect, but this does not give them the authority to rectify their records. Since the registered sale deed and the settlement deed served as the foundation for their records, those instruments must be amended before the revenue records may be updated. The petitioner has to approach a competent civil court under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 in order to have these instruments corrected.
The court noted that without any rectification in the instruments, the revenue records cannot be corrected. The anomaly will remain, as the instrument will show a particular plot number, whereas the revenue records corresponding to such an instrument will reflect another plot number. This is merely one reason the instrument needs to be corrected before making any correction in the revenue record.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that Once the petitioner gets a decree in terms of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner or the Registering Authority and bring to the notice of the authorities about the correction made in the parent instrument by which the petitioner is claiming title over the property in question.
The observations of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Case Title: Makhan Lal Jalan V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1208 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Yogesh Modi, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, AC to SC IV
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
