S.26 Specific Relief Act | Without Any Rectification In Registered Instruments, Revenue Records Can't Be Corrected: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court while expounding on Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, has emphasized that rectification of an instrument is imperative if the true intention of the parties is not reflected due to mutual mistake.

Justice Ananda Sen, observed, “Since their records were based on the registered sale deed and the settlement deed, those instrument first needs 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. In this case without getting an appropriate relief in terms of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, the petitioner got the revenue records corrected. This was not the correct procedure. So far as the enquiry report is concerned, the same can be a piece of evidence in favour of the petitioner in the suit filed under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act.”

The case revolves around a piece of land initially settled in the name of Babu Bipin Bihari Choudhary, documented through a registered settlement deed, with the plot numbers denoted as 381 and 382. Subsequently, this land was sold to Babu Ram Singh and Bihari Lal Jalan via a sale deed, wherein the plot numbers remained the same. Further transactions, including the sale from Babu Ram Singh to the son of Bihari Lal Jalan, continued with the same plot numbers.

Later, during a partition suit concerning the joint family property, which included the aforementioned land, it was revealed that the actual plot numbers were 391, 392, and 393. This discrepancy was present in all registered documents, including sale deeds and court records, where the plot numbers were consistently mentioned as 381 and 382.

In an attempt to rectify the error, the petitioner applied to the circle officer to amend the plot numbers in the revenue records, which was approved. However, when the petitioner sought assurance from the deputy commissioner that no further portions of the plots would be sold via registered deed until the correction was made, the request was denied. The deputy commissioner insisted on correcting the registered deed first.

Dissatisfied with this response, the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking redress.

The petitioner's counsel argued that since the revenue records had already been corrected, the respondents had no basis to withdraw the restraint order. Additionally, it was argued that the Deputy Commissioner's decision lacked independent assessment as it solely relied on the Government Pleader's opinion. Furthermore, it was pointed out that according to Section 3 of the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Circle Officer has the authority to rectify any erroneous entries.

Alternatively, the Respondents argued that the Petitioner cannot obtain relief unless the error is rectified in the registered instruments. They further contended that the circle officer lacks the authority under the Bihar Tenant's Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 to make changes unless the deed is corrected by the appropriate authority.

The Court noted, “As per the provision in this Section, if due to mutual mistake of the parties, in any instrument, their real intention is not expressed, a suit may be instituted to have the instrument rectified. In this case, as per the petitioner, a mistake has cropped up in the registered instruments, in relation to the plot numbers, was due to mutual mistakes. Until and unless the said instrument is rectified and the plot numbers in the deeds and in the instruments are corrected, the petitioner will not be benefited.”

While pointing out the petitioner's contention that the revenue records have already been corrected by the revenue officers, the Court opined that the said correction could not have been carried out without the mother document being corrected. Without getting the settlement deed, sale deed, being corrected, the Revenue Authorities do not derive any power to correct the revenue records, it said.

“It is true that the Revenue Authorities undertook an enquiry and found that there is error in the recording but that finding does not confer jurisdiction upon the Revenue Authorities to correct their records,” the Court added.

The Court thus directed the petitioner to approach an appropriate Civil Court of Competent Jurisdiction in terms of Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act and get the instruments rectified.

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, it said.

“It will be open to the authorities to allow the petitioner to deal with the land title of which he is claiming through the settlement deeds, sale deeds and the decree,” the Court stated while disposing of the petition.

Case Title: Makhan Lal Jalan V. The State of Jharkhand

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 75

Click Here To Read The Judgement