VIPINCHANDRA VADILAL BAVISHI (D) BY LRS. AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 28-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 1 S.C.R. 283 
VIPINCHANDRA VADILAL BAVISHI (D) BY LRS. AND 
A 
ANOTHER 
v . 
. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 7434 of2012) 
JANUARY 28, 2016 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. 1976 - ss. 8, 9 
and JO - Handwritten corrigendum and the alleged panchnama -
Reliance upon - On the basis of handwritten corrigendum and 
panchnama, whether the land stood vested in the State - Held: 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 - Substituting different lands in place of the lands which 
have been notified by a statutory Notification uls. 10(1), (3) and 
(5) cannot be done by issuing a corrigendum unless the mandatory 
requirements contained in the said sections is complied with - Land 
holder cannot be divested from his land on the plea of clerical or 
arithmetical mistake liable to be corrected by issuing corrigendum 
- Judgment passed by.the High Court is set aside-::- Appellants-
landholders entitled to retain possession of the land comprised within 
Plot Nos. 36-43 as the same is n,ot vested in the State - Urban Land 
(Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 From perusal of the Urban Land (Ceiling and 
Regulation) Act, 1976, the provisions contained in Sections 8, 9 
and 10 have to be mandatorily complied with before the land is 
declared in excess of the ceiling limit. Section 8 empowers the 
authority to prepare a draft statement giving particulars of the 
I.and holders, vacant lands and such draft· statement is served 
upon the land holders inviting objections to the draft statement. 
Admittedly, in. the draft statement, neither the lands comprised 
within plot nos. 36 to 43 were shown as excess land nor objection 
was invited from the appellants. In the final statement prepared 
283 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
284 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] I S.C.R. 
under Section 9 of the Act, again the land of plot nos. 36 to 43 
was not shown as excess land beyond ceiling limit. A Notification 
under Section 10(1) was published showing the land of plot nos. 
1 to 16 as excess vacant land held by the appellants. Thereafter, 
th,e competent authority issued Notification under Section 10(3) 
which was published in the Gazette of the State declaring that the 
land of plot nos. 1 to 16 deemed to have been acquired by the 
State. In spite of the fact that the land in question being plot nos. 
36, to 43 of survey no. 71 was not the land under Notification 
issued under Section 10(1) and 10(3), the authority alleged to 
have proceeded under Section 10(5) for taking possession of the 
land. Further, no notice has been produced by the State to show 
that the appellants were asked to surrender or deliver the 
possession of plot nos. 36 to 43. Nor there is any evidence to 
show that the appellants ever refused or failed to comply with 
any notice issued under Section 10(5) of the Act. (Para 21)(293-
G··H; 294-A-D] 
1.2 From these facts and the documents available on record, 
it is evidently cleat· that neither the Notifications under Sections 
10(1), 10(2), 10(3) and 10(5) were issued in respect of plot nos. 
36 to 43 nor possession of those plots have been taken over by 
the respondents. Even the map attached to the letter dated 
2(1.6.1989 shows that the possession of plot nos. 1 to 16 were 
taken and not of plot nos. 36 to 43. (Para 20] (293-F-G] 
1.3 According to the respondent-State a handwritten 
corrigendum dated 26.6.1989 correcting plot numbers have been 
issued, but from the letter dated 18.8.2000, it is clear that the 
said handwritten corrigendum was never given effect to. In the 
letter dated 18.8.2000 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue 
Department to the Additional Collector, it was mentioned that 
possession of land of plot nos. 1 to 1.6 of survey no. 71 was taken 
over by the Government and when it came to the notice that the 
landholders were holding plot nos. 36 to 43, possession was taken 
over of those plots. The competent officer has sought sanction of 
the Government for publishing necessary corrigendum. It is also 
mentioned in the letter that sanction is required for showing plot 
nos. 36 to 43 by issuing a corrigendum. (Para 19] (293-C-E] 
1.4 Perusal of the documents reveals that the respondent-
State has not come with 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.