Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pawan Kumar Srivastava for the respondent nos. 3 to 5.
The petitioner has come up before this Court questioning the order passed by the authorities below on the ground that they have proceeded without jurisdiction to reduce the area of the petitioner at the instance of the contesting respondents, that too even after a considerable lapse of time, for no valid reason. It is submitted that the sale deed categorically recites the area as 0.0809 hectares and the Settlement Officer Consolidation could not have modified or reduced the same.
I have perused the records and also the copy of the sale deed that has been placed before the Court. The recital contained is to the following effect:
^^xzke luxkWao ijxuk o ftyk Qrsgiqj p-la- 529 jdok 0-1778 gsDVs;j esa 0-0809 gsDVs;j tkfuc if'pe rFkk pd la[;k 528 I ls tkfuc mRrj] jdok 1½3 vkB foLokA^^ A perusal of the said recital in the sale deed clearly demonstrates that the intention of the vendor was for sale of 8 Biawas of land and the Settlement Officer Consolidation has simply translated it in terms of hectares namely 0.0648 hectares. The recital of the mathematical digits, which may be contradictory, is clarified by a clear expression in words as "Aath Biswa". This being unequivocal, there is no confusion about the area of transaction. The recital in words should be presumed to have been understood consciously and categorically by the vendor even if the digits created any doubt.
In ordinary parlance and transactions of this kind, where ever the recital of a measurement or amount in digits is followed by a pronouncement in words, the normal and common understanding thereof should lean in favour of the recital in words as the clear intention of the executor, unless proved to the contrary. The illustrations are financial transactions like recitals in cheques and draft or description of a date of birth. These are however presumptive and not conclusive subject to any further evidence being led in this regard.
In the opinion of the Court substantial justice was done and the petitioner has been restored to his original area purchased by him. In case the petitioner was aggrieved it was open to him either to have obtained a correction memo of the sale deed from the vendor or to have filed a declaratory suit for the redressal of his grievances. The matter does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed. In the event the petitioner files a civil suit the observations in this order shall not be read against the petitioner.
Dt.26.5.2011 mna