A YERRAYYAMMA Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER L R NARASIPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act 1973 (herein after referred ts the Act) to revise the order of the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal Visakhapatnam, confirming the order of the Land Reforms Tribunal Narsipatnam, rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner under Rule 16(5) and Rule 10 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Rules 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules') framed under the Act.

(2.) After enquiry under the Act, the Land Reforms Tribunal found that the petitioner was in excess of 1620 standard holding and directed that the same should be surrendered, and that order has become final. Subsequently when a notice was given to the petitioner for surrendering the land he filed a petition under Rule 16 (5) and Rule 10 (c) of the Rules stating that by mistake the extents of the Land in survey Nos. 180 and 262 Kothagudem and Survey No.32 of Dharmavaram village were given as Act.13-50,1045 and 5-00 respectively while the actual extents are Ac.10-00Ac. 6-00 and Ac.3-00 rcspectively that on account of the aforesaid mistake an error had crept into the determination of the extent of the holding of the petitioner and that the same should be rectified. This petition was dismissed by the Land Reforms Tribunal on the ground thar there was no accidental omisison or error in the Tribunal's ordered dated 16-10-1975. On appeal, the Appellate Tribunal confirmed the order stating that the correction could not be effected as it would amount to reviewing the order of the Tribunal and that the Tribunal had no power to review its order under the provisions of the Act or Rules. The Appellate Tribunal also further took the view that no appeal lay against an order refusing to amend the order. So far as the petition for correction of the error is concerned, it is contended by Sri S. Venkata Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sub-Rule-5(b) of Rule 16 of the Rules is similar to section 152 CPC and therefore any error or mistake which has crept into the order of the Tribunal can be corrected even subsequent to the passing of the order of the Tribunal. Earlier sub-rule (5) (b) of Rule 16 of the Rules fread is follows:

(3.) The Appellate Tribunal took the view that language of the unamended rule permits only correction of any mistake arising out of any accidental error or omission in a decision or incidental or ancillary order of the Tribunal that the mistake committed by the petitioner in giving the extents of the land declaration cannot be said to be an error or omission in the decision of the Tribunal and therefore Rule 16(6) (b) was not applicable and such an error could not be corrected under Rule 16(6) (b) as It stood then. But the above rule has undergone a complete change after the amendment and is in pari materia with section 152 CPC. Section 152 CPC reads as follows :- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in Judgments decree or orders or error arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or of any of the parties. With regard to the correction of errors occurring in judgments and decrees in civil suits, it has been held that any clerical or arithmetical mistakes occuring in the plaint or plaint schedules or other documents could be corrected even after the decree had become final by exercising powers under section 152 CPC. In a recent decision of this court in Kalkonda Pandu Rangaiah vs Kalkonda Krishnaiah (1) Venkatrama Sastry J. held as follows :