C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 1 of 31    

REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4632-4638 OF 2018  

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.21856-21862 OF 2010)  

Telangana Housing Board                      ......Appellant  

versus  

Azamunnisa Begum (Died) Thru. Lrs. & Ors.          ....Respondents    

J U D G M E N T  

Madan B. Lokur, J.  

Leave granted.  

1. The question for our consideration relates to the interpretation of  

Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act,  

1317 Fasli and the meaning of the expression ‘clerical error’.  The further  

question is whether a ‘clerical error’ can be corrected “at any time” or  

only within a reasonable time.  

2. In our opinion, the correction sought to be made by the respondents  

is not a ‘clerical error’ and so the further question really does not arise.   

However, the expression “at any time’ cannot be interpreted to stretch  

over a period of 25 years, as in the present case.   

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 2 of 31    

Land Acquisition Proceedings  

3. On 24th May, 1963 a notification was issued under the provisions  

of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Land Acquisition  

Act).  The entire acquisition was of a few thousand acres comprising of  

dozens of survey numbers.   Amongst others, the acquisition included  

survey nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 comprising of 1110.07 acres in  

Kukatpally Village, Balanagar Mandal in Ranga Reddy District of  

Andhra Pradesh.  The entire acquisition was for the purpose of a Housing  

Scheme of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board (APHB) framed under  

Section 22-A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act, 1956.  

4. As is evident, the area was extremely large but it is recorded in  

paragraph 4 of the Land Acquisition Award that:  

“The lands under acquisition were got surveyed by the Measuring  

Circle Inspector of this office and were got checked by the G.D.  

Inspector of Hyderabad District, and areas of the lands under  

Acquisition were approved by the Land Record Assistant.  The  

Areas as approved after survey and check are adopted in this  

Award.”   

5. As far as Survey No. 1009 is concerned an area of 661.04 acres  

was sought to be acquired.  The notification does not indicate that only a  

part of Survey No. 1009 was sought to be acquired.  There was no  

indication that 661.04 acres of land is only a part of the entire extent of  

Survey No.1009.    In fact, as suggested in the Award, the entire Survey  

No. 1009 along with the entire survey nos. 1043 to 1065 (along with

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 3 of 31    

several dozen other survey numbers) were sought to be acquired by the  

said notification.  

6. In paragraph 29 (b) of the Land Acquisition Award it is further  

stated:  

“The Special Deputy Collector Patancheru has informed vide his  

Lr. No.B1/341/67 dated 6.8.67 that he has acquired 5 acres 21  

guntas out of survey number 1009 measuring 666.25 acres of  

Kukatpally village.  The area tallies on the spot hence an area 5  

acres 21 guntas is deleted from the area of survey no.1009 of  

Kukatpally and award is being passed for the balance area of  

661.64 acres out of survey number 1009.”    

7. At this stage, we may mention that an area of 5.21 acres in Survey  

No. 1009 was earlier acquired for the Manjeera Water Works Department  

and hence 661.04 acres was sought to be acquired by the said notification.  

8. The acquisition proceedings concluded without any objection  

having been raised by the respondents who were admittedly owners of the  

land.  An Award was passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Land  

Acquisition, Andhra Pradesh Housing Board, Hyderabad on 10th June,  

1968 and Survey No. 1009 was described in the Award as “dry lands full  

of rocks unfit for cultivation and no cultivation is being done.”  

9. On 24th June, 1968 the APHB took possession of all the acquired  

lands including entire survey nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065.  

10. Dissatisfied with the award of compensation, the respondents filed  

a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.  In the claim

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 4 of 31    

petition it was stated that survey nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065 comprise of  

1121.17 acres.   However, compensation was awarded only for 1104.26  

acres (5.21 acres relating to Manjeera Water Works Department was not  

included in this calculation).  Accordingly, it was stated that “11 acres  

and odd, they being the property of the claimant, it is not acquired and  

they remain to be the property of the claimant.”  It is significant to note  

that the 11 acres and odd which was sought to be excluded from the  

acquisition proceedings by the respondents was not specified or identified  

inasmuch as the survey number of this un-acquired area was not stated or  

earmarked by the claimants.  It is much later that the respondents came to  

the conclusion that the allegedly un-acquired 11 acres and odd was a part  

of Survey No. 1009.  

11. Be that as it may, the compensation was enhanced and ultimately,  

settled by this Court sometime in 1992.  We are not concerned with the  

details of the compensation proceedings any further but have mentioned it  

only for the purpose of indicating that:  

i) The entire area of survey nos. 1009 and 1043 to 1065 was  

acquired.  The acquisition consisted of huge areas and  

physical measurements were carried out, surveyed, checked  

and approved as per the revenue records.

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 5 of 31    

ii) Possession of the entire land was taken by the APHB for a  

Housing Scheme.  

iii) Although the respondents made a submission that 11 acres  

and odd was not acquired, this area was not identified or  

specified as being a part of any particular survey number or  

even earmarked.  

Proceedings relating to Section 87 of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land  

Revenue Act, 1317 F.  

12. On 7th December, 1993 the respondents moved an application  

under the provisions of Section 87 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana  

Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli (for short the Act).  In the  

application, it was stated that as per the revenue record pertaining to  

Survey No. 1009 the land area is actually 672.14 acres and it incorrectly  

shows the area less by 11.10 acres.  It was stated in the application that  

this area of 11.10 acres was in possession of the respondents.  It is for the  

first time in 1993 that 11.10 acres was attributed to Survey No. 1009.   

Section 87 of the Act reads as follows:-  

“Settlement Officer to correct clerical and other errors  admitted by all parties and application for correction of name  

to be made within two years:  

The Director of Settlements and on making over the settlement  

records to the Collector, the Collector may, at any time, correct or  

cause to be corrected any clerical error or errors admitted by the  

party concerned.  

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 6 of 31    

The aforesaid officer shall hear all applications made within two  

years after the introduction of the settlement, for the correction of  

any wrong entry of a pattadar’s name in the register referred to in  

the preceding section and if satisfied about the error whether such  

error has been made through negligence, fraud, or collusion shall  

correct the same, notwithstanding that the party concerned does  

not admit the error but no such application shall be entertained  

after two years, unless reasonable cause is shown to the said  

officer for the delay, and in such cases if any error is proved it  

shall not be corrected without obtaining the sanction of the  

Government.”  

13. Acting on the application, the District Collector requested the  

Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records for a survey of Survey No.  

1009 and to fix the boundaries.  The Assistant Director issued notice to  

the APHB on 7th July, 1994 for the purposes of carrying out the survey  

but according to the APHB the notice was not received.  In our opinion,  

the non-receipt of the notice is hardly of any relevance.  

14. In any event, the Assistant Director submitted a Report on 5th  

August, 1994 to the District Collector.  In his Report, it was concluded  

that the area of Survey No. 1009 was actually 687.03 acres. This  

comprised of 661.04 acres (subject matter of consideration before us) and  

5.21 acres earlier acquired for Manjeera Water Works Department.   

Therefore, according to the Assistant Director there was an excess of  

20.18 acres that had not been acquired.  It was also noted that IDL was in  

possession of some extent of Survey No. 1009.  No specification or  

details were provided of the area and location of the land in possession of  

IDL.   

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 7 of 31    

15. It is also significant to note that while the respondents had been  

contending that there was an excess of 11.10 acres that had not been  

acquired, the Assistant Director came to the conclusion that 20.18 acres  

had not been acquired.    

16. At this stage, we may take a slight diversion and refer to a Circular  

dated 15th October, 1994 issued by the Commissioner of Survey,  

Settlements and Land Records.  This Circular concerns itself with Section  

87 of the Act it seeks to explain a ‘clerical error’ that could be rectified.    

17.  The relevant portions of the Circular dated 15th October, 1994 are  

paragraphs 4 and 5 and they read as follows:-  

“Clarification: There is no time limit for entertaining clerical  

errors, and District: Revenue Officer is competent to entertain  

clerical errors. The time limit is prescribed only for errors other  

than clerical errors. For rectification of errors other than clerical  

errors condonation of delay is required, for which District:  

Revenue Officer alone is competent. However the District:  

Revenue Officer is not competent to carryout correction other  

than clerical errors without the approval of the Commissioner,  

Survey, Settlement and Land Records.  

Clarification: Section 87 of the Land Revenue Act 1317 Fasli  

does not provide definition of clerical errors and errors other than  

clerical errors. The clerical errors are minor errors which do not  

involve alteration in area, change of classification, or change of  

name of the pattedar.   

A few examples of errors, which come under the category of  

clerical errors, are furnished below:-  

a. Name of the Pattedar misspelt.  b. Inter-change of survey numbers.  c. Survey no. missing in the survey map.  d. Area is calculated wrongly though measurement on  

 ground and records support the correct area.

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 8 of 31    

Since the definition of clerical error and errors other than clerical  

errors is not there in the Act, it is not proper to leave it to the  

judgment of Assistant Director Survey and Land Records  

whether particular survey error falls under the category of clerical  

error or errors other than clerical error.  Therefore, the Assistant  

Director, Survey and Land Records shall send detailed technical  

report to Director, Survey Settlement and Land Records,  

regarding proposed error.  This is purely a technical and non-

statutory function.  The report so sent shall be examined at  

Directorate whether the error falls under the category of clerical  

error or error other than clerical error and the fact will be  

communicated to Assistant Director Survey and Land Records.   

On obtaining clearance from the Directorate, the Assistant  

Director shall send the file to District Revenue Officer to dispose  

of the case at District Revenue Officers level under Section 87 of  

the Land Revenue Act, if the error is a clerical error.  If the error  

is other than clerical error, the District Revenue Officer, shall  

send proposals to Commissioner Survey Settlement and Land  

Records duly condoning the delay as per rules for disposal of the  

case by Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records,  

under Section 87-A of Land Revenue Act 1317 fasli.”  

18. In response to the application made by the respondents under  

Section 87 of the Act and the Report given by the Assistant Director on  

5th August, 1994, the Director of Settlements, Survey and Land Records  

wrote to the District Collector on 19th April, 1995 acknowledging that  

there is no record of any actual measurement of Survey No. 1009 since it  

is a large tract of land.  He also stated that variation in calculating the area  

apparently in view of the rocky nature of the land could be between 10%  

and 30%.  The fact that all the survey numbers had been measured, as  

mentioned in the Award, was lost sight of.  

19. Nevertheless, the Director stated that the measurement exercise

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 9 of 31    

undertaken by the Assistant Director is technically correct and the area of  

Survey No. 1009 is actually 687.03 acres while the recorded area is  

666.25 acres (which includes the land acquired for Manjeera Water  

Works Department).  Therefore, according to the Director the variation is  

to the extent of 20.18 acres.  The Director also expressed the opinion that  

the measurement error falls within the category of ‘clerical error’ as  

mentioned in the Circular dated 15th October, 1994 and necessary  

corrective action ought to be taken.  

20. It is not clear how the APHB learnt of the Report of the Assistant  

Director and its acceptance by the Director but in any event, on 10th June,  

1996 objections were raised by the APHB before the District Collector to  

the Report and the decision to correct the revenue records.  

21. On receipt of the objections, the District Collector referred the case  

to the Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land Records,  

Hyderabad on 1st August, 1996 to consider rectification of the  

measurement error.    

22. On 15th September, 1997 the Commissioner directed the District  

Revenue Officer to take action in terms of the Circular of 15th October,  

1994 since there was a clerical error in terms of paragraph 5 of the  

Circular.  However, the Commissioner also directed that before passing  

any orders under Section 87 of the Act the APHB should be heard.  

23. It appears that the APHB was thereafter heard by the District

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 10 of 31    

Revenue Officer who then passed an order on 9th June, 1998 concluding  

that in fact the area of Survey No. 1009 was 687.03 acres and that there  

was an excess of 20.18 acres that had not been acquired.  This was as  

against the claim of the respondents that 11.10 acres had not been  

acquired.  The District Revenue Officer concluded that the APHB had no  

right over the area of 20.18 acres and that necessary corrections in terms  

of Section 87 of the Act should be made.  

24. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the District Revenue  

Officer which appears to have been accepted by the higher authorities the  

APHB filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section  

158 of the Act.  This Section reads as follows:  

“Appeal from order of Revenue Officer- (1) Except as  otherwise provided in this Act for any other law for the time  

being in force, an appeal shall lie against any decision or order  

passed by a Revenue Officer under this Act or any other law for  

the time being in force, to his immediate superior officer whether  

such decision or order may have been passed in the exercise of  

original jurisdiction or on appeal.    

(2) Subject to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana  

Area) Board of Revenue Regulation, 1358 F., (Regulation LX of  

1358F.) an appeal shall lie to the Government from any decision  

or order passed by a Collector or Settlement Commissioner  

except in the case of any decision or order passed by such officer  

on second or third appeal.  

(3) and (4)   xxx           xxxxxx  

25. On 24th March, 1999 the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an ex  

parte order in the appeal filed by the APHB for maintaining status quo.

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 11 of 31    

26. It appears that in spite of the status quo order passed by the  

Commissioner (Appeals) the revenue records were corrected by issuing a  

Supplementary Sethwar.  Be that as it may, the respondents challenged  

the ex parte order dated 24th March, 1999 by filing a writ petition in the  

Andhra Pradesh High Court on 5th April, 1999.  The writ petition was  

numbered as the W.P. No. 7940 of 1999.  Among the grounds taken by  

the respondents, in the writ petition, was that the appeal filed by the  

APBH was beyond time and an ex parte order ought not to have been  

passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).  

27. On 10th August, 2000 the learned Single Judge hearing the writ  

petition passed an interim order to earmark the land in possession of the  

APHB and whether it is occupying 661.04 acres or more. In compliance  

with the interim order, the Assistant Director gave a Report dated 23rd  

June, 2001 to the effect that the area of Survey No. 1009 is 666.25 acres  

including 5.21 acres with Manjeera Water Works Department. It is  

important to note that the Assistant Director did not report that the area of  

Survey No. 1009 was more than 666.25 acres.  In other words, there was  

a turn-around from the earlier decisions taken in this regard.   It was  

reported as follows:  

“After fixing the boundaries as stated above the land available within  

such boundaries surveyed with the help of theodolite (traverse  

survey) and arrived the total area as Ac.666.25 gts. which is tallied  

with the recorded area of survey no. 1009 as per survey records.  The  

survey work is concluded on 11.6.2001.

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 12 of 31    

The details of land showing physical features within survey no.1009  

arrived after detailed survey are as under:-  

1. Land under the possession of Housing Board                Ac. Gts.  covered by built up area     288.00  

2. Open land under possession of   Housing Board      358.04  

3.  Land left for Graveyard/Burial ground    by the Housing Board                                                      15.00  

         ______  

          661.04  

4. Land under Manjeera Pipeline  (Water works Dept.)                         5.21  

           --------  

       Total area of survey no. 1009              666.25  

 ---------                                 

A sketch of survey no. 1009 showing the above details is prepared  

and submitted herewith.”  

28. On 31st October, 2001 the learned Single Judge decided W.P. No.  

7940 of 1999 and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear the appeal  

and pass appropriate orders.   In the meanwhile, status quo was directed  

to be maintained.   

29. Pursuant to the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the  

Commissioner (Appeals) heard the appeal filed by APHB.  By an order  

dated 4th January, 2003 the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the view of  

the District Revenue Officer dated 9th June, 1998 and dismissed the  

appeal.  The Commissioner (Appeals) was of opinion that:

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 13 of 31    

(i) Only 661.04 acres of land was acquired out of the larger area  

in Survey No.1009;  

(ii) The claim made by the respondents that 11.10 acres out of  

Survey No.1009 was not acquired was not a belated claim;  

(iii) The correction sought by the respondents in their claim  

under Section 87 of the Act was the correction of a clerical  

error under paragraph 5 (d) of the Circular dated 15th  

October, 1994.  

Proceedings before the learned Single Judge  

30. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of its appeal by the  

Commissioner (Appeals), a writ petition was filed by APHB in the  

Andhra Pradesh High Court and that was numbered as W.P. No. 13927 of  

2003.  

31. A learned Single Judge of the High Court heard the writ petition  

and by a judgment and order dated 19th April, 2005 allowed it and  

quashed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).  

32. The learned Single Judge took the view that Section 87 of the Act  

was not applicable to the case and as such the claim made by the  

respondents was not maintainable.  In addition, it was held that the claim  

made by the respondents does not fall within the category of a ‘clerical  

error’ and therefore the Circular dated 15th October, 1994 was also not

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 14 of 31    

applicable. The learned Single Judge made a reference to the failure of  

the State and the respondents to produce the record prepared at the time  

of survey which could have shown a wrong calculation of area.  In this  

regard it was held by the learned Single Judge as follows:  

“Record prepared at the time of survey is not produced to show  

that there is a wrong calculation of area, though the measurement  

on ground and record support the correct area. So, entry  

regarding extent of S.No.1009 cannot be said to have been made  

wrongly due to a clerical mistake. By arriving at the area of a  

particular survey number by conducting survey thereof only,  

several decades after settlement, and without surveying the areas  

in other survey numbers adjacent to that survey number, question  

of the original entry in the settlement register was a wrong entry  

as a clerical error or not cannot be determined. There is nothing  

on record to show that lands in adjacent survey numbers of  

S.No.1009 also were surveyed and as to what is the extent found  

in such survey, and the extent noted in the settlement register.”  

33. With regard to the contention that only 661.04 acres had been  

acquired out of Survey No.1009, the learned Single Judge noted that a  

declaration had been filed by and on behalf of the respondents under the  

provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural  

Holdings) Act, 1973. In that declaration there was nothing to suggest that  

the respondents were holding excess land which would have been so had  

the respondents been in possession of 11.10 acres.  The learned Single  

Judge observed as follows:-  

“The contention of Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan and his heirs that  

since they are in actual physical possession of the land of  

Acs.11=10gts in S. No. 1009, even after acquisition by the  

petitioner, and so they can make a claim cannot be countenanced

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 15 of 31    

because by the time A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural  

Holdings) Act, 1973 (Act 1 of 1973) and the Urban Land  

(Ceilings and Regulation) Act, 1976, came into force Mir  

Fazeelath Hussain Khan, who originally filed the application  

before the 3rd  respondent, was alive, and had filed a declaration  

under the Act 1 of 1973. He showed the total area covered by S.  

Nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 belonging to him as Acs.1109-92 gts.  

That extent was deleted from his holding as it was acquired and  

by the order dated 09-12-1976, vide common order in  

C.C.Nos.156 to 159/W/75 he was held to be holding 0.4083  

standard holding in excess even after deleting of an extent of  

Acs.1109.92 gts in S. Nos. 1009, 1043 to 1065 of Kukatpally  

village. If Mir Fazeelath Hussain Khan really was in possession  

of or was owning any extent over and above the area acquired by  

the petitioner either in S. No. 1009 or 1043 to 1065, he would  

have had to surrender that area also, because even without that  

area being included in his holding he was found to be holding  

land in excess of the ceiling area.”  

...........................................  

“So, it is clear that the family of Raisyar Jung was said to be  

holding only land to the extent of Acs.349-63 cents in S.No.1007  

but not any land in S. No. 1009. This extent of Acs.11-10 gts now  

said to be in the possession of unofficial respondents was not  

declared by them or their predecessors in the declaration under  

Act 1 of 1973. Had Fazeelath Hussain Khan, who filed the  

petition before the District Revenue Officer, or any of the  

unofficial respondents or their predecessors-in-title, been in  

possession of any extent of land in S. No. 1009 by 01.01.1975  

they would have shown it in their declaration filed under Act 1 of  

1973. But they did not do so. For that reason also the contention  

of the unofficial respondents that they are in possession of some  

land in S. No. 1009 and that the extent of S. No. 1009 is more  

than that was acquired by the petitioner cannot be believed or  

accepted.”    

34.  The learned Single Judge also dealt with the submission on behalf  

of the respondents that the APHB had no locus standi to question the  

order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).  It was noted that the  

APHB was a party to the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals)

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 16 of 31    

and therefore it was entitled to question the adverse order.  Moreover,  

when the authorities assume jurisdiction which they do not possess under  

Section 87 of the Act and pass orders likely to affect the interests of the  

APHB, a right accrues to the APHB to question such orders passed  

without jurisdiction.     

35.  Since the learned Single Judge concluded that the orders passed by  

the District Revenue Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) were  

without jurisdiction, there was obviously no occasion to decide the  

question whether the claim filed by the respondents was belated or not.     

Proceedings before the Division Bench  

36. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned  

Single Judge on 19th April, 2005, writ appeals being W.A. No. 1311 of  

2005 and W.A. No. 1781 of 2005 were filed by the respondents  

challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge.  By the  

impugned judgment and order dated 25th September, 2009 the writ  

appeals were allowed by the Division Bench and it is under these  

circumstances that the present appeals are before us.       

37. The High Court allowed the writ appeals primarily on two  

submissions.  It was held by the Division Bench that a report of the  

survey authorities had confirmed that the area of land in Survey No. 1009  

was more than 661.04 acres.  Admittedly, only 661.04 acres had been

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 17 of 31    

acquired out of Survey No. 1009.  Therefore, the APHB was entitled to  

hold only 661.04 acres while the balance had not been acquired and  

therefore the ownership remained with the respondents.  According to the  

Division Bench, there was a clerical error in the measurement area of  

Survey No. 1009 and therefore paragraph 5(d) of the Circular dated 15th  

October, 1994 was applicable and the authorities were entitled to correct  

the calculation error.   

38. The second ground given by the Division Bench was with  

reference to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling  

on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973.  In this context, it was held that  

since the respondents were not holding the land, they could not have  

made a declaration as envisaged under the provisions of the said Act and  

in any event this was hardly of any relevance since Survey No. 1009  

indicates that the area of that survey number was greater than 661.04  

acres.  However, what is of significance is the conclusion arrived at by  

the Division Bench that the respondents were not in possession of 11.10  

acres in Survey No. 1009.  Possession of the entire Survey No. 1009 was  

with the APHB.  

Discussion  

39. In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court has seriously  

erred in setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.          

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 18 of 31    

40.  It is quite clear to us that the APHB had acquired, in terms of the  

Award dated 10th June, 1968 a couple of thousand acres of land covering  

a few dozen survey numbers.  The entire land was acquired and in view  

of the large area of acquisition even if there was some error in describing  

the area of a particular survey number, that would be inconsequential  

given the overall acquisition and its purpose for a Housing Scheme under  

Section 22A of the Andhra Pradesh Housing Board Act.  

41. In addition, it is quite clear from the extracted passages in the  

Award, that the entire land in Survey No.1009 was acquired by the  

APHB.  There cannot be any doubt in this regard, particularly since the  

APHB also took possession of the entire Survey No.1009.  

42. While it is correct that the respondents did submit in their claim  

petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that 11 acres  

and odd had not been acquired, there was absolutely no reference to any  

survey number in which this 11 acres and odd was located.  There was no  

clear identification of the land, no boundaries were mentioned nor was  

the land ear-marked in any manner and in fact even the exact  

measurement was not mentioned.   It appears to us that the respondents  

were taking a potshot in the dark to somehow or the other retain  

possession of some of the acquired land.   

43. If the respondents were convinced that 11 acres and odd had not

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 19 of 31    

been acquired by the APHB in 1968 it is not understandable why no  

follow up action taken by them.   They had an option, perhaps, of  

proceeding against the APHB for being in wrongful possession of 11  

acres and odd owned by the respondents and they certainly had the option  

of moving an application under Section 87 of the Act.  The respondents  

took neither of these steps on an urgent basis or any other step that might  

have been available to them in law.  

44. All that the respondents did was to wait for another 25 years and  

then move an application under Section 87 of the Act sometime in 1993.   

There was no change in the factual situation between 1968 and 1993  

except construction having been made by the APHB in pursuance of its  

Housing Scheme. The respondents have given absolutely no explanation  

for filing an application under Section 87 of the Act after such an  

enormous lapse of time.  What has been submitted is that there is no time  

limit for correcting a clerical error and that being so, the respondents  

cannot be non-suited on the ground of delay and laches.   

45. We are not in agreement with the respondents on any aspect of the  

case. First of all we agree with the APHB that an accurate picture of the  

area in terms of measurement of land in Survey No.1009 cannot be fully  

relied upon after several decades and after construction having been  

made. The records had originally indicated that Survey No.1009 consists

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 20 of 31    

of 666.25 acres and we must proceed on that basis rather than assume the  

correctness of a measurement carried out after several decades.    

46. That the unexplained delay in measurement of the area cannot be  

relied upon is also supported by the fact that even the revenue authorities  

were not quite sure about the exact area of Survey No.1009.  According  

to the respondents, 11.10 acres had not been acquired but according to the  

revenue authorities the entire area of Survey No.1009 was actually 687.03  

acres with the result that 20.18 had not been acquired.   In view of this  

discrepancy, we are of opinion that surveys conducted post the  

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be relied  

upon.  We have also noted that it has come on record that IDL was also in  

possession of some parts of Survey No.1009.  We must, therefore, accept  

the fact that the entire Survey No.1009 was acquired by the APHB and  

possession taken, regardless of its actual measurement and the alleged  

non-acquisition of 11.10 acres is nothing but a red herring.   

Consequently, the question of correcting a ‘clerical error’ with reference  

to Section 87 of the Act does not arise.    

A clerical error  

47. In any event, it was contended by the respondents that a clerical  

error was sought to be corrected in the measurement of the area of Survey  

No.1009.  It is not clear what the clerical error was.   If the clerical error

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 21 of 31    

was that the area of Survey No.1009 was not 661.04 acres or 666.25 acres  

but actually 687.03 acres then the contention is self-defeating.  This is  

because the area of Survey No.1009 would then have to be read as 687.03  

for all purposes and not 661.04 acres.  The consequence of this correction  

would be that the acquisition was of 687.03 acres and not of 661.04 acres.   

48. That apart, the correction of the alleged clerical error does not give  

rise to the argument that only 661.04 acres was acquired out of 687.03  

acres.  If the correction gives rise to an argument or contention, then it  

ceases to be the correction of a clerical error but is really the correction of  

a substantive error, which does not come within the purview of Section  

87 of the Act.   

49. Be that as it may, in M/s Tata Consulting Engineers v. Workmen1  

Pathak, J. adverted to a clerical error and held in paragraph 20 of the  

Report as follows:  

“The jurisdiction given to the [Industrial] Tribunal by Rule 31  

[Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957] is closely  

circumscribed.  It is only a clerical mistake or error which can be  

corrected, and the clerical mistake or error must arise from an  

accidental slip or omission in the award. An accidental slip or  

omission implies that something was intended and contrary to  

that intention what should not have been included has been  

included or what should have been included has been omitted. It  

must be a mistake or error amenable to clerical correction only. It  

must not be a mistake or error which calls for rectification by  

modification of the conscious adjudication on the issues  

involved.”  

                                                           1 1980 (Supp.) SCC 627

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 22 of 31    

50. Similarly, a clerical error was discussed in Sooraj Devi v. Pyare  

Lal. 2   In paragraph 4 of the Report, reference was made to Master  

Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa3 and it was held as follows:  

“A clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an  

accidental slip or omission of the court. It represents that which  

the court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face  

of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument  

or disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation,  

and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing.”  

51. More recently, in Vipinchandra Vadilal Bavishi (Dead) by Lrs. v.  

State of Gujarat 4 it was held in paragraph 26 of the Report as follows:  

“An arithmetical mistake is a mistake in calculation, while a  

clerical mistake is a mistake of writing or typing error occurring  

due to accidental slip or omissions or error due to careless  

mistake or omission. In our considered opinion, substituting  

different lands in place of the lands which have been notified by a  

statutory notification under Sections 10(1), 10(3) and 10(5)  

[Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976] cannot and  

shall not be done by issuing a corrigendum unless the mandatory  

requirements contained in the aforementioned sections is  

complied with. A landholder cannot be divested from his land on  

the plea of clerical or arithmetical mistake liable to be corrected  

by issuing corrigendum.”  

52. The Circular dated 15th October, 1994 clarifies a clerical error.   

Some examples have been given and one clarification is to the effect that  

a clerical error is where the area is calculated wrongly though  

measurement on the ground and the records support the correct area.   

                                                           2 (1981) 1 SCC 500  3AIR 1966 SC 1047  4 (2016) 4 SCC 531

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 23 of 31    

This clause is sought to be relied upon by the respondents.  It must be  

appreciated in this case that there is no question of a calculation error  

since no arithmetical error was committed as understood by this Court.   

The area of Survey No.1009 was measured and it was found to be 666.25  

acres (including the area acquired for Manjeera Water Works  

Department).   The survey by the Measuring Circle Inspector, the check  

by the G.D. Inspector and approved by the Land Record Assistant clearly  

indicate this.  This was sought to be ‘corrected’ by the respondents by  

claiming that the area of Survey No.1009 was much more.  A calculation  

error would be, in a situation such as the present, an error that would  

appear on the face of the document or the revenue records, as the case  

may be.  If there is a need to carry out a survey and a re-survey, the error  

cannot by any means, be described as a clerical error.  

53. What makes the situation worse insofar as the respondents are  

concerned is that according to them the error was to the extent of 11.10  

acres but on a survey having been conducted, the error was said to be to  

an extent of 20.18 acres.  Surely, such a discrepancy cannot be described  

as an accidental slip or a clerical mistake or a calculation error.  It can  

only be described as a major error which ought to have been rectified at  

the appropriate time in 1968 when the Award was passed or soon  

thereafter.  To notice and make much ado about such an error after at

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 24 of 31    

least 25 years cannot be understood as the correction of a clerical error.  

54. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to K.P. Varghese v.  

Income Tax Officer, Ernakulum and Another 5  to contend that the  

Circular dated 15th October, 1994 is a contemporaneous exposition of the  

true state of affairs as understood by the revenue authorities themselves  

and if they believed that a ‘clerical error’ ought to be interpreted in the  

manner described in the Circular, that interpretation must be accepted.   

The following passage was referred to and relied upon:  

“The rule of construction by reference to contemporanea  

expositio is a well-established rule for interpreting a statute by  

reference to the exposition it has received from contemporary  

authority, though it must give way where the language of the  

statute is plain and unambiguous. This rule has been succinctly  

and felicitously expressed in Crawford on Statutory  

Construction, (1940 Edn.) where it is stated in para 219 that  

“administrative construction (i.e. contemporaneous construction  

placed by administrative or executive officers charged with  

executing a statute) generally should be clearly wrong before it is  

overturned; such a construction, commonly referred to as  

practical construction, although non-controlling, is nevertheless  

entitled to considerable weight; it is highly persuasive””.    

55. Similarly, reference was also made to Desh Bandhu Gupta and  

Co. v. Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd.6The following passage  

was relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents.  

“The principle of contemporanea expositio (interpreting a statute  

or any other document by reference to the exposition it has  

received from contemporary authority) can be invoked though the  

                                                           5 AIR 1981 SC 1922”  6 AIR 1979 SC 1049

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 25 of 31    

same will not always be decisive of the question of construction  

(Maxwell 12th ed. p. 268).”     

56. It is no doubt true that the contemporaneous exposition of a  

document must carry great weight but if that exposition is not in  

consonance with the law laid down by the Courts, including this Court,  

the exposition would not be relevant.  We have made a reference to  

several decisions which explain the meaning of a clerical error.The view  

expressed in the Circular dated 15th October, 1994 particularly clause 5(d)  

referred to and relied upon by the respondents does not come within the  

four corners of the understanding of the expression clerical error by this  

Court if it involves a survey and a re-survey as in this case.   Therefore,  

no reliance can be placed upon the contemporaneous exposition made by  

the revenue authorities in the Circular dated 15th October, 1994.  

57. We conclude that there was no clerical error in the measurement of  

Survey No.1009 for all intents and purposes and that in any event, the  

entire land in Survey No.1009 was acquired for the Housing Scheme of  

the APHB.     

Section 87 of the Act and delay in making a claim  

58. We are also not satisfied with the delay by the respondents in  

making a claim under Section 87 of the Act.  The contention of the  

respondents is that since there is no time limit specified for filing a claim

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 26 of 31    

petition, they could have made a claim at any point of time, particularly  

for correcting a clerical error.  

59. It is now well settled that where no time-limit is specified,  

whatever is required to be done should be within a reasonable period.  In  

Collector v. P. Mangamma7it was held in paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:  

“A reasonable period would depend upon the factual  

circumstances of the case concerned. There cannot be any  

empirical formula to determine that question. The court/authority  

considering the question whether the period is reasonable or not  

has to take into account the surrounding circumstances and  

relevant factors to decide that question.  

In State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha8 it was observed that  

when even no period of limitation was prescribed, the power is to  

be exercised within a reasonable time and the limit of the  

reasonable time must be determined by the facts of the case and  

the nature of the order which was sought to be varied.........”.   

Reasonable, being a relative term is essentially what is rational  

according to the dictates of reason and not excessive or  

immoderate on the facts and circumstances of the particular  

case.”    

60. Similarly, in Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District v. D. Narsing  

Rao 9  the exercise of revisional jurisdiction where no time-limit is  

specified was considered and it was held in paragraph 31 of the Report as  

follows:  

“To sum up, delayed exercise of revisional jurisdiction is  

frowned upon because if actions or transactions were to remain  

forever open to challenge, it will mean avoidable and endless  

uncertainty in human affairs, which is not the policy of law.                                                              

7 (2003) 4 SCC 488 at page 491  8  (1969) 2 SCC 187   9(2015) 3 SCC 695

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 27 of 31    

Because, even when there is no period of limitation prescribed  

for exercise of such powers, the intervening delay, may have led  

to creation of third-party rights, that cannot be trampled by a  

belated exercise of a discretionary power especially when no  

cogent explanation for the delay is in sight. Rule of law it is said  

must run closely with the rule of life. Even in cases where the  

orders sought to be revised are fraudulent, the exercise of power  

must be within a reasonable period of the discovery of fraud.  

Simply describing an act or transaction to be fraudulent will not  

extend the time for its correction to infinity; for otherwise the  

exercise of revisional power would itself be tantamount to a fraud  

upon the statute that vests such power in an authority.”  

61. Finally in Basanti Prasad v. Chairman, Bihar School  

Examination Board10  it was pointed out where third party rights are  

likely to be affected, the courts decline to interfere but if there is a  

necessity to interfere then the aggrieved person should be heard on  

merits.  

62. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, the claim  

made under Section 87 of the Act was after a period of at least 25 years.   

This can hardly be described as a reasonable period.  There is no  

explanation for the inordinate delay and to make matters worse, third  

party interests have been created through a Housing Scheme developed  

on the land in dispute or in any event on the surrounding land.  After a  

further lapse of 25 years it is not possible to put the clock back, even if  

there is any reason to do so, which reason we cannot even visualise in this  

case.  

                                                           10(2009) 6 SCC 791

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 28 of 31    

Locus standi  

63. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the  

APHB has no locus standi to raise any dispute with regard to the  

measurement of Survey No.1009.  We are not at all in agreement with  

this submission.  A tract of land measuring 11.10 acres out of Survey  

No.1009 was sought to be taken away from the APHB which had  

announced a Housing Scheme under Section 22A of the Andhra Pradesh  

Housing Board Act, 1956 and third party rights had also been created in  

this regard.  The primary responsibility of protecting the interests of the  

beneficiaries of the Housing Scheme was that of the APHB and surely it  

cannot be said under these circumstances that the APHB had no locus  

standi to participate in the proceedings.  In fact, even the revenue  

authorities recognised the locus of the APHB in the order dated 15th  

September, 1997.  The Commissioner of Survey, Settlements and Land  

Records, Hyderabad directed the District Revenue Officer to take action  

in terms of the Circular of 15th October, 1994 but before passing any  

orders under Section 87 of the Act, it was directed that the APHB should  

be heard.  We therefore reject the contention that the APHB had no locus  

standi in the matter.  

Interference on facts  

64. The final submission of learned counsel for the respondents was

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 29 of 31    

that the revenue authorities had come a factual conclusion in their favour  

and the High Court ought not to have interfered with the factual  

conclusions and even this Court ought not to interfere with the factual  

conclusions arrived at by the revenue authorities.  In our opinion, the  

revenue authorities had completely misdirected in law in reopening a  

factual issue that had been settled way back in 1968 if not earlier and  

there was no occasion for reopening that factual issue after a lapse of at  

least 25 years.  That being the position, it cannot be said that the courts  

are precluded from interfering in a matter of determination of facts when  

the authorities have completely misdirected themselves in law and  

exercised jurisdiction which did not vest in them.  We therefore also  

reject this submission of the respondents.  

Conclusion  

65. To conclude, therefore, we hold that the entire Survey No. 1009  

was acquired by the APHB for a Housing Scheme. No parcel of land in  

Survey No.1009 was left out or not acquired. Compensation was paid for  

acquisition of the entire Survey No.1009.  The Division Bench of the  

High Court erred in concluding that 20.18 acres of land in Survey  

No.1009 had not been acquired.   

66. We also hold that it is too simplistic on the part of the respondents  

to contend that land in excess of 661.04 acres in Survey No.1009 was not

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 30 of 31    

acquired.  This is certainly not so and the entire Survey No.1009 was  

acquired.  The submission in this regard is rejected.  

67. We also hold that the claim made by the respondents under Section  

87 of the Act was hopelessly delayed for which there is absolutely no  

explanation forthcoming.  In addition, we hold that since third party  

rights have been created in the meanwhile under the Housing Scheme of  

the APHB and there is no way to put the clock back.  The respondents  

ought to have been vigilant in pursuing their claim, assuming the claim  

was legitimate, but since they were not vigilant enough, they must suffer  

the consequences of their inaction.  

68. We also hold that the proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land  

Reforms (Ceiling of Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 were of some  

consequence but since the APHB has not relied upon the proceedings  

under the said Act and learned counsel has only mentioned it in passing,  

we do not intend to base our decision on the declaration made by the  

respondents under the said Act.  

69. We also hold that the APHB was directly and primarily affected by  

the claim made by the respondents under Section 87 of the Act and  

therefore had the locus standi to proceed before the Commissioner  

(Appeals), the High Court and this Court.  

70. In view of the above conclusions, the judgment and order passed

             C.A. Nos.______________/2018 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21856-21862 of 2010)                          Page 31 of 31    

by the Division Bench is set aside and the appeals filed by the Telangana  

Housing Board are allowed.  No costs.  

        .............................................J  

                (Madan B. Lokur)  

New Delhi;                ...........................................J  

May 1, 2018                                                             (Deepak Gupta)