Correction in Revenue Authority Judgment: Supreme Court Modifies Order

The Supreme Court of India issued a correction to its earlier judgment dated 24 September 2021 in the case concerning the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of Maharashtra State. This modification was made in response to a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 1770 of 2021) filed by the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev Nohwar. The Court substituted the term “Collector of Stamps, Mumbai” with “Collector of Stamps, Pune, Rural” in paragraph 32 of the original judgment, ensuring the accurate designation of the responsible revenue authority.

The Supreme Court’s decision to modify the judgment reflects the significance of maintaining accuracy in legal pronouncements, particularly when it pertains to government authorities and their jurisdictions. Such corrections ensure that the directives issued by the Court are implemented effectively and without administrative confusion.

Background of the Case

The case originally involved a dispute over stamp duty and related revenue matters under the purview of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of Maharashtra. The appellant, Mr. Rajeev Nohwar, had contested a decision concerning the assessment and collection of stamp duty. The matter was adjudicated by the Supreme Court, which delivered its verdict on 24 September 2021. However, it was later discovered that the judgment contained an erroneous reference to the “Collector of Stamps, Mumbai” instead of the appropriate authority in “Pune, Rural.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/suzlon-energy-ltd-vs-jayanthi-supreme-court-ruling-on-compensation-for-land-use-in-power-infrastructure/

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner, represented by advocates Mr. Varun Singh, Mr. Gaurav Nair, and Ms. Pranati Bhatnagar, argued that the incorrect designation of the revenue authority could lead to jurisdictional confusion and improper enforcement of the Court’s decision. They sought clarification and rectification of this error to ensure that the proper authority was held responsible for executing the directives of the judgment.

Respondent’s Argument

The respondents, represented by Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, and Mr. Sachin Patil, did not oppose the correction but maintained that the substantive findings of the Court remained unaffected. The focus was solely on rectifying the misidentification of the revenue authority to prevent administrative complications.

Supreme Court’s Observation

Upon reviewing the petition, the Supreme Court bench comprising Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna acknowledged the clerical error in its earlier ruling. The Court held that:

“In paragraph 32 of the judgment of this Court dated 24 September 2021, the expression ‘Collector of Stamps, Mumbai’ shall stand substituted by the expression ‘Collector of Stamps, Pune, Rural.’ The order shall stand corrected accordingly.”

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-sets-aside-karnataka-high-courts-injunction-in-bengaluru-property-dispute/

The Court further stated that since the correction was merely a clerical modification, it did not alter the substantive conclusions of the judgment. The Miscellaneous Application was accordingly disposed of.

Implications of the Correction

The correction made by the Supreme Court has the following implications:

• Administrative Clarity: By correctly identifying the responsible authority, the implementation of the judgment can proceed without confusion regarding jurisdiction.
• Legal Accuracy: The modification ensures that official legal records accurately reflect the Court’s intent.
• Precedent for Future Cases: This case highlights the importance of seeking clarifications in case of clerical errors in judgments, ensuring that such issues do not hinder justice.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court’s ruling emphasizes the importance of precision in judicial orders. Although the modification was minor, it plays a crucial role in the proper execution of the Court’s directives. The judgment, as corrected, now accurately reflects the authority responsible for compliance.

With this decision, the case of Rajeev Nohwar v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra has reached its conclusion, ensuring that all legal and administrative actions align with the Supreme Court’s revised ruling.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/assa-singh-vs-shanti-parshad-supreme-court-rules-on-ejectment-and-civil-court-jurisdiction/

Petitioner Name: Rajeev Nohwar.
Respondent Name: Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharashtra State, Pune & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 18-11-2021.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: rajeev-nohwar-vs-chief-controlling-re-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-18-11-2021.pdf