Inadvertent errors in acquisition records cannot defeat legal heirs’ substantive right to compensation.

Land bearing Block/Survey No. 193, admeasuring 0 Hectare, 71 Are and 66 Square Metres at Village Heduva (Rajgar), Mehsana, was originally owned by Raval Varvabhai Hirabhai. It was successively transferred through registered sale deeds, ultimately to Patel Mukeshbhai Bachubhai on 6 August 2007. The corresponding revenue entry was mutated on 30 November 2007. Mukeshbhai died on 21 October 2008, after which the names of his legal heirs were entered in the revenue record.

The land was acquired for construction of the Mehsana Bypass Road. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19 May 2008, and the award under Section 11 was passed on 27 April 2010. Due to an apparent mistake, the award continued to mention the erstwhile owner, Raval Varvabhai Hirabhai, as an interested person, although the land had already been sold to Mukeshbhai before the acquisition notification.

The petitioner sought correction of the award. Although the Land Acquisition Officer made corrections, Raval Varvabhai’s name was inadvertently retained along with the petitioner’s name. The petitioner thereafter pursued a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was decided by the Reference Court on 28 December 2017. The judgment also mistakenly mentioned “Gitaben Mukeshbhai” instead of legal heir “Mittalben Mukeshbhai,” and retained Raval Varvabhai’s name.

The petitioner’s application under Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 17 of 2020 seeking correction of the judgment was rejected by the Reference Court on 1 October 2021, principally on the grounds that the statutory provision had not been specified and that the application was delayed. The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Reference Court was justified in refusing to correct the names appearing in its judgment and award despite documentary material showing that the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title was the owner of the acquired land and that the impugned entries resulted from inadvertent mistakes?

2. Whether the petitioner, as the legal heir of the owner recorded at the time of acquisition, was entitled to receive the compensation deposited in respect of the acquired land?

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which the High Court may exercise supervisory jurisdiction to correct jurisdictional or legally unsustainable orders of subordinate courts.

The acquisition proceedings were considered under Sections 4, 11 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4 concerns the acquisition notification, Section 11 the award by the Land Acquisition Officer, and Section 18 the claimant’s right to seek a reference regarding the award.

The Court applied the principle that a bona fide and apparent mistake in the record should not defeat a party’s substantive right to compensation, particularly where registered title documents, certified revenue entries, and the acquiring authority’s own records establish the correct interested person.

The Court found that Mukeshbhai had acquired the land through a registered sale deed dated 6 August 2007, before the Section 4 notification dated 19 May 2008, and that the transaction was reflected in certified revenue records. Consequently, Raval Varvabhai was no longer the owner or occupant when acquisition proceedings commenced.

The Court further noted that the Land Acquisition Officer had already attempted to correct the award, that the heirs of Raval Varvabhai had expressly stated that they had no interest in the property or objection to payment to the petitioner, and that “Gitaben” and “Mittalben” were the same legal heir, with the latter’s name having already been corrected in the revenue record.

Since the errors arose from inadvertence in proceedings involving several acquired parcels and a common judgment, refusing correction merely because the application did not specify the statutory provision or was filed after some delay would allow a procedural mistake to defeat the petitioner’s substantive entitlement. The impugned order was therefore legally unsustainable under the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction.

The petitioner’s application was allowed, and the name of Respondent No. 4, Patel Gitaben Mukeshbhai, was directed to be deleted from the Reference Court’s judgment dated 28 December 2017. The Reference Court was directed to disburse the compensation deposited by the acquiring authority in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. Rule was made absolute to that extent.