Sambhu Kar Vs. State of W.B.

- section 152: [s.b. sinha & dr. mukundakam sharma, jj] amendment of decree - decree in suit for possession -genuine and bona fide mistake regarding khasra number of suit property in decree held, where in the suit for possession, mistake had occurred in the decree regarding khasra number of the suit property due to wrong recording of khasra number in khasra giradwari and the decree holder was not responsible for the said clerical mistake, there is no reason as to why such a genuine and bona fide mistake cannot be allowed to be corrected by exercising powers under section 152. instead of directing decree-holder to seek remedy under section 152, in such a case, in order to cut short the litigation and to save precious time of the court as also to give quietus to the entire dispute, the court can direct in exercise of the powers under section 152 that the decree be corrected by giving the correct khasra number in place of erroneous khasra number. since the court exists to dispense justice, any mistake which is found to be clerical in nature should be allowed to be rectified by exercising inherent power vested in the court for sub serving the cause of justice. whatever is intended by the court while passing the order or decree must be properly reflected therein otherwise it would only be destructive of the principle of advancing the cause of justice. in such matters, the courts should not bind itself by the shackles of technicalities. section 34: [s.b.sinha & dr.mukundakam sharma,jj] acquisition of land for construction by fertilizer corporation of india - land later on found surplus and not utilized for fci and consequently returned to owner held, retransfer of land by fci has to be shared by both legal heirs of deceased owner. there is no acquiring of full ownership right in land by one of the co-sharer by any of manner and mode within meaning of section 34. there cannot be a case of granting mutation of entire land in favour of one co-sharer. khanna, j.1. this is a petition through jail by sambhu kar, who has been ordered by the district magistrate burdwen to be detained under section 3 of the maintenance of internal security act, 1971 (act 26 of 1971.)2. the order for detention was made by the district magistrate on november 23, 1971. in pursuance of that order, the petitioner was arrested on december 13, 1971. since then the petitioner has been in detention.3. i have heard mr. sobhagmal jain, who argued the case amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioner, and mr. chatterjee on behalf of the state of west bengal and am of the opinion that the detention of the petitioner is liable to be quashed on the short ground that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the west bengal government in dealing with the representation made by the petitioner against his detention. the affidavit of mr. nironnoy chakrabarty, which was filed in opposition to the petition on behalf of the state of west bengal, shows, that on december 29, 1971 the state 'government received a representation from the petitioner. the said representation was considered by the state government and was rejected on feb. 2, 1972. there thus elapsed a period of 35 days between the receipt of the petitioner's representation and its disposal by the state government. as the above delay had not been explained in the affidavit initially filed on behalf of the state government, this case was adjourned on may 24, 1972 till today to enable the state government to explain the delay mr. chatterjee on behalf of the government has stated today that no further affidavit has to be filed on behalf of the government. it would thus follow that the delay on the part of the state government in dealing with the representation made by the petitioner has remained unexplained. this delay, in my opinion, vitiates the detention of the petitioner. the matter has been considered in a number of cases and it has been held by reference to clause 5 of.....