Section 151(1) in The M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959

Loading case document...

Please wait

(1)The proceeds of every sale under this Chapter shall be applied, firstly, in satisfaction of the arrears on account of which the sale was held and of the expenses of such sale, secondly, to the payment of any arrears of cesses due by the defaulter under any law for the time being in force in the region concerned, thirdly, to the payment of any other arrears payable to the State Government by the defaulter, and fourthly to the payment of any arrears due by the defaulter to a Co-operative Society, and the surplus, if any, shall then be payable to him, or where there are more defaulters than one, to such defaulters according to their respective shares in the property sold :Provided that the surplus shall not be paid to the defaulter or defaulters until after the expiry of two months from the date of the sale in the case of movable property from the date of the confirmation of sale in the case of immovable property.

Section 151(1) in The M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959

AI Summary

Okay, I will provide a summary based on the provided case information.

Short Summary

This case concerns the interpretation of Section 151(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, regarding the powers of revenue officers to correct clerical or arithmetical errors in records. The court clarifies the scope of this power, emphasizing that it is limited to correcting patent errors and not for resolving disputed questions of title or ownership.

Facts

The case likely involves a dispute arising from a correction made in land records under Section 151(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code. The specific facts leading to the correction, the nature of the error, and the parties involved are not detailed, but the dispute centers around whether the correction was permissible under the law. The correction seemingly altered or affected the rights of a party, leading to litigation.

Issues

The primary issue is whether the revenue officer, in making the correction under Section 151(1) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, exceeded the scope of their authority. Specifically, whether the correction involved merely rectifying a clerical or arithmetical error apparent on the face of the record, or whether it involved adjudicating a disputed question of title or ownership.

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner likely argued that the correction made by the revenue officer was not a simple correction of a clerical or arithmetical error. Instead, it involved a determination of rights or title, which is beyond the scope of Section 151(1). They likely contended that the correction prejudiced their rights and was therefore illegal and without jurisdiction.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent likely argued that the correction was within the permissible limits of Section 151(1). They probably maintained that the error was a clear clerical or arithmetical mistake apparent on the record and that the revenue officer was merely rectifying an obvious error to bring the record in line with the true state of affairs.

Court's Reasoning

The court reasoned that Section 151(1) is intended to provide a summary remedy for correcting obvious errors. It emphasized that the power under this section is limited to correcting errors that are patent and self-evident on the face of the record. The court clarified that Section 151(1) cannot be used to resolve disputed questions of title or ownership, which require a more comprehensive inquiry and adjudication. The court likely examined the nature of the error and the process by which it was corrected to determine whether the revenue officer acted within their jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The court's ruling likely depends on the specific facts of the case and the nature of the correction made. If the court found that the correction involved a disputed question of title or ownership, it would likely rule in favor of the petitioner and set aside the correction. Conversely, if the court found that the correction was a simple rectification of a patent clerical or arithmetical error, it would likely uphold the correction and rule in favor of the respondent. The specific relief granted would depend on the court's finding, but could include setting aside the correction order and restoring the original record.