http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SETH BALKISHAN NATHANI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/1963

BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. BENCH: SUBBARAO, K. DAYAL, RAGHUBAR MUDHOLKAR, J.R.

CITATION:  1967 AIR  394            1964 SCR  (1) 793

ACT: Land Reform-Execution of perpetual patta and entries in  the subsequent  Revenue  Records--Recognition  as  Pattadar  and settlement  of  assessments  by  Deputy  Commissioner   Land Reforms-Nistar  Officer  correcting  records  and  reopening orders  of the Deputy  Commissioner-Jurisdiction-The  Madhya Pradeah  Abolition of Proprietary Rights  (Estates,  Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh 1 of 1951), ss. 3 (2),  4 (2), 13 (1), 15 (1), 40-The Central  Provinces  Land Revenue Act, 1947 (C. P. Act II of 1947) ss. 45 (1) (2) (4), 46, 47 (1) (2).

HEADNOTE: Respondent No. 1 in both the appeals was the proprietor  and lambardar  of two Mouzas.  He executed perpetual  pattas  in favour of the other respondents.  With regard to one of  the Mouzas  in  the  subsequent  annual  papers  the  Mouza  was recorded as occupancy Tenancy Holding of respondents 2 and 4 to 6. Similar recordings were made with regard to t he other Mouza  in  the names of respondents 2 to 6.  Thereafter  the Madhya  Pradesh  Abolition of Proprietary  Rights  (Estates, Mahals,  Alienated  Lands) Act, 1950, came  into  force  and under  s.  3  of  the Act the estate  of  respondent  I  was notified.  The Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms acting under s.  40 of the Act recognised respondent as the pattadar  and settled  the  assessment payable by him in  respect  of  the first  of  the  Mouzas.   Subsequently  the  Nistar  Officer started proceedings for correction of old annual papers with a  view  to  reopen  the earlier order  made  under  s.  40. Respondent  No.  1  raised  an  objection  that  he  had  no jurisdiction  to  do so which objection was  rejected.   The appeal filed by the respondent before the Revenue Board  was also  rejected.  With regard to the other Mouza  the  Nistar Officer made an order that the transfers made by  respondent I  was bogus and that the landlord was not  cultivating  the land.  The respondents then filed writ petitions in the High Court  against  the said two orders of the  Nistar  Officer. The  High  Court held that the Nistar Officer had  no  power either under s. 15 (3) of the Act or under s. 47 (1) 794 of  the  Central  Provinces Land  Revenue  Act,  1917.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

present appeals are by way of special leave. It was contended before this Court that (1) under s. 47  (1) of the Land Revenue Act the Nistar Officer bad  jurisdiction to  correct entries made for earlier years in  a  subsequent year  on the ground of mistake and (2) the said officer  has also  jurisdiction to review under s. 15 (3) of the Act  the order made by him under s. 40 thereof. Held, that neither s. 13 nor s. 15 (3) has any relevance  in the  context  of an order made by  the  Deputy  Commissioner under s. 40 thereof. Section  47  (1) of the Central Provinces Land  Revenue  Act does not cover a case of correction of the entries on the ground of mistake. Mangloo  v.  Board  of  Revenue, 1. L.  R.  1954  Nag.  143, approved. Nistar  Officer has no jurisdiction to correct  the  entries with a view to reopen the matter already closed under s.  40 of the Act.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  370  and 371 of 1960. Appeals  by special leave from the judgment and order  dated March  8, 1956, of the former High Court of " judicature  at Nagpur  (now  High Court of Madhya Pradesh at  jabalpur)  in Misc.  Writ Petitions Nos. 22 and 274 of 1955.      B.   Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.      G.   B.  Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and  0. C. Mathur, for respondents Nos. 2 to 6. 1963.  January 30.  The judgment of the Court was  delivered by SUBBA  RAO, J.-These two appeals by special leave are  filed against the common judgment of a  795 Full Bench of the High Court of judicature at Nagpur in writ petitions  Nos.  92  of  1955  and  274  of  1956  filed  by respondents 1, 3 to 6 herein in the said court. The  facts  in Appeal No. 370 of 1960 may be  stated  first. Respondent 1, Seth Balkishan Nathani, was the proprietor and lambardar  of Mouza Sonpairi in Tahsil and District  Raipur. On January 14, 1947. he executed perpetual pattas in  favour of his wife, Vashodabai, since deceased, and respondents  4, 5  and  6 in respect of khudkasht and grass lands  of  Mouzz Sonpairi.  In Tabdili jamabandi of the year 1946-47 the said lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy Holdings of the said respondents 4 to 6 and respondent 2, Govindlal Nathani, the legal representative of Vashodabai.  The same entry  was found  in the jamabandis of the subsequent years The  Madhya Pradesh  Abolition of Proprietary Right,, (Estates,  Mahals, Alienated  Lands) Act, 1956 (1 of 1951), hereinafter  called the  Act, came into force on January 22, 1951.   Thereafter, in  due  course the estate of the said proprietor  was  duly notified  under  s. 3 of the Act.  On March  25,  1952,  the Deputy Commissioner, Laid Reforms, acting under S. 40 of the Act,  recognized the said Balkishan Nathani as the  pattadar and  settled  the assessment payable by him  in  respect  of Khasra  Nos. 28912 and 366/7 of Mouza Sonpairi.   No  appeal was preferred against that order.  Thereafter, appellant  2, the  Nistar  Officer  cum  Additional  Deputy   Commissioner Raipur,  started proceedings against the respondent for  the correction of old annual papers in MouzSonpairi. with a view to reopen the earlier order made under s. 40 of the Act,  as the  earlier  order was passed on the basis of  the  entries

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

found   in  Tabdil’  jamabandi  of  the  year  1946-47   and subsequent  year,,  Respondent 1,  Seth  Balkishan  Nathani, raised a. objection that appellant 2 had no jurisdiction  to initiate the proceedings.  Appellant 2 overruled the 796 objection and made the following order :               "On  the  next hearing, 5,  witnesses  may  be               produced  for proving cultivation.  The  names               of the purchasers, to whom the lands have been               sold,  be  obtained from the  Patwari,  and  a               notice be served on them that they should file               their  statements as well as should bring  the               sale-deeds along with them.  Hearing fixed for               date  4-8-1954.  The non-applicants  may  file               other evidence, which they wish to file." it  will  be  seen  from the  said  order  that  the  second Appellant  purported  to  make an inquiry in  regard  to  he factum  of cultivation as well as the validity of  he  sale- deeds whereunder respondent 1 created interests in the other respondents.   Respondent  I preferred an appeal  from  that order to the Board of Revenue, Madhya Pradesh, but the  same was Dismissed on the ground that it was premature. hereupon, the  respondents filed the writ petition No. 22 of  1955  in the High Court of Madhya pradesh. Civil Appeal No. 371 of 1960 relates to patti To. 1 of Mouza Kachna in Tahsil and District kaipur.  Respondent I was  the Proprietor and ambardar of the said Mouza.  On February  19, 1948,  the  said Seth Balkishan Nathani  executed  perpetual pattas  in respect of the said lands in favour of  the  same respondents as in the other appeal.  In he annual papers the said  lands were recorded as the Occupancy Tenancy  Holdings of respondents 2 to 6. on December 8, 1954, appellant 2 made an inspection of the said lands and made the following order on December 9, 1954:       "      x      x       x       x        X       x .lm15 2.  There  were found to be obvious mistakes  in  Government documents-Khasra,Jamabandi and Tabdilat. Mistakes  797 discharged  (discovered) by me in Patwari papers  have  been corrected. 3.   Ex-proprietors (1) Balkishan Nathani and others and (2) Narayanrao  made  absolutely bogus transfers  in  favour  of their family members, namely, (i). (a) Kamlabai, (b) Pana Bai, (c)  Yashoda bai, (d) Chhote Bai of Nathani family. (ii)Kamla Bai Chitnavis, wife of Narayanrao, ex-proprietor. Patwari  entered names without cultivation and  agricultural possession against Land Record Manual, Volume 1. 4.   Mistakes  found in patwari records have been  corrected by me after spot inspection.  These papers be now filed." It  will  be  seen  from the  said  order  that  the  second appellant  found that the transfers made by respondent I  in favour of the other respondents were bogus and that he  also corrected  the  entries in the annual papers to  the  effect that the landlord was not cultivating the lands as  recorded in the earlier papers.  The respondents filed writ  petition No.  274 of 1955 in the High Court to quash the said  order. A  Full Bench of the High Court held that neither s. 15  (3) of  the  Act  nor s. 47 (1) of the  Central  Provinces  Land Revenue  Act, 1917 (C.  P. Act No. II of 1917),  hereinafter called the Land Revenue Act, conferred a power-on the Nistar officer  to  review orders already made in  respect  of  the factum  of  cultivation or the occupancy  rights  recognized under  the  relevant provisions of the said  Acts.   In  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

result, it allowed 798 the  two writ petitions quashing the proceedings started  by the  Nistar  officer in the case of Mouza Sonpairi  and  the order  dated December 9, 1954, passed by him in the case  of Mouza  Kachna  and  prohibiting  him  from  taking   further proceedings which may affect the occupancy tenancy rights of the  petitioners  in the lands in dispute.   Hence  the  two appeals. Mr.  Sen, learned counsel for the appellants, raised  before us  the  following two points : (1) Under s. 47 (1)  of  the Land  Revenue  Act the Nistar officer  has  jurisdiction  to correct entries made for earlier years in a subsequent  year on the ground of mistake ; and (2) the said officer has also jurisdiction to review under s. 15 (3) of the Act the  order made by him under s. 40 thereof. Mr. Pai, learned counsel for the respondents, argued at  the outset that the appeals have abated for two reasons, namely, (1)  the  second petitioner died after  the  arguments  were heard  by  the  High  Court  and  before  the  judgment  was delivered  and the petition filed by the appellants  to  set aside abatement was dismissed, and (2) the second respondent in  the  appeals died on March 7, 1956 and  the  application filed  on June 28, 1957, to set aside the abatement  and  to bring  his legal representatives on record was out of  time. On the merits, he sought to sustain the judgment of the High Court for the reasons mentioned therein. As  we are inclined to agree with the view expressed by  the High  Court  on  the two questions  raised  by  the  learned counsel  for the appellants, we do not propose  to  consider the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel  for the respondents. The  two  questions  raised  in  this  case  are  in  a  way interrelated and the answer to them depends  799 upon  the construction of the relevant sections of  the  Act and  the- Land Revenue Act.  It would be convenient to  read the relevant provisions.               The  Madhya Pradesh Abolition  of  Proprietary               Rights,  (Estates,  Mahals,  Alienated  Lands)               Act, 1950 (Act 1 of 1951).               Section   3.   (2)  After  the  issue   of   a               notification  under subsection (1),  no  right               shall be acquired in or over land to which the               said    notification   relates,   except    by               succession  or  under a grant or  contract  in               writing  made or entered into by or on  behalf               of  the  State : and no  fresh  clearings  for               cultivation or for any other purpose shall  be               made  in such land except in  accordance  with               such  rules  as  may  be  made  by  the  State               Government in this behalf.               Section  4. (2) Notwithstanding anything  con-               tained  in  sub-section  (1),  the  proprietor               shall continue to retain the possession of his               homestead,  homefarm land, and in the  Central               Provinces also of land brought under  cultiva-               tion by him after the agricultural year  1948-               49 but before the date of vesting.               Section 13. (1) On receipt of the statement of               claim, or if no such claim is received  within               the   prescribed  period,   the   Compensation               Officer shall, after making such enquiry as he               thinks  fit and giving an opportunity  to  the               claimant  to  be heard, decide the  amount  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             compensation due to the claimant and record in               a  statement  in  the  prescribed  form,   the               details  of the land which shall vest  in  the               State Government after its acquisition in lieu               of  the payment of such compensation and  such               other details as may be prescribed.               800               Section  15. (1) Any person aggrieved  by  the               decision  given  or  the  record  made   under               section  13  by the Compensation  Officer  may               appeal          to         the          Deputy               Commissioner...............                     x     x      x      x      x      x               (3)   The  Compensation  Officer,  the  Deputy               Commissioner  or the Settlement  Commissioner,               may,  either  on  his own  motion  or  on  the               application filed within the prescribed period               by  any  party  interested,  review  an  order               passed  by  himself  or  his  predecessors  in               office  and  pass  such  order  in   reference               thereto as he thinks fit.                     x      x     x      x      x      x               Section     40.  (as amended  on  October  22,               1951).               (1)   Any  land not included in home-farm  but               brought  under cultivation by  the  proprietor               after  the agricultural year 1948-49 shall  be               held  by  him in the rights  of  an  occupancy               tenant.               (2)   Any person becoming an occupancy  tenant               under rule I shall be a tenant of the State.               (3)   The Deputy Commissioner shall  determine               the  rent on the land and it shall be  payable               from   the   date  of  the  vesting   of   the               proprietary rights.               Section 84. Except where the provision of this               Act provide otherwise, from every decision  or               order  of a Revenue Officer under this Act  or               the rules made thereunder, an appeal shall lie               as if such decision or order has been passed       801               by  such  officer under the  Central  Province               Land  Revenue  Act, 1917, or  the  Berar  Land               Revenue Code, 1928, as the case may be.               The Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917.               Section  45. (1) A record-of-rights  for  each               mahal or estate shall be prepared or  revised,               as the case may be, by the Settlement  Officer               at settlement and, for such mahals or  estates               as the Provincial Government may direct, by  a               Revenue  Officer empowered by  the  Provincial               Government in that behalf during the  currency               of a settlement..               (2)   The  record-of-rights of a  mahal  shall               consist of the following documents               (a)   Khewat    or   statement   of    persons               possessing  proprietary rights in  the  mahal,               including  inferior proprietors or lessees  or               mortgagees   in  possession,  specifying   the               nature and extent of the interest of each               (b)   Khasra or field-book, in which shall  be               entered  the names of all persons  cultivating               or  occupying land, the right in which  it  is               held, and the rent, if any payable;               (c)   jamabandi or list of persons cultivating

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

             or occupying land in the village               x      x     x     x     x               (4)   The  documents specified in  sub-section               (2) shall be prepared in ’Such form and  shall               contain such additional particulars as may  be               prescribed by rules made under section 227.               802               Section 46.  On the application of any  person               interested  therein or of his own motion,  the               Deputy Commissioner may, without prejudice  to               other provisions of this Act, modify any entry               in the record-of-rights on one or more of  the               following grounds :-               (a)   that  all  persons  interested  in  such               entry wish to have it modified; or               (b)   that by a decree in a civil suit it  has               been declared to be erroneous; or               (c)   that, being founded on a decree or order               of a Civil Court or on the order of a  Revenue               Officer,  it is not, in accordance  with  such               decree or order; or               x      x     x     x     x     x               Section 47. (1) The Deputy -Commissioner shall               cause to be prepared, in accordance with rules               made   under  section  227,  for  each   Mahal               annually or at such longer intervals as may be               prescribed,  an amended set of  the  documents               mentioned  in  section  45,  sub-section  (2),               clauses (b), (c) and (d), and the documents so               prepared shall be called the "’annual papers".                (2) The Deputy Commissioner shall cause to be               recorded.- in accordance with rules made under               section 227, all’ charges that have taken lace               in respect of, and all transactions that  have               affected,  any of the proprietary  rights  and               interests in any land.               x    x     x      x     x     x     x The  scheme  of  the Act so far as it  is  relevant  to  the present enquiry may be summarized thus: On the  803 issue  of a notification by the State Government under s.  3 of  the Act in respect of an estate, all proprietary  rights in such estate vest in the State.  The Compensation Officer, on a claim made by the proprietor, after making the  enquiry prescribed  under  the-  said Act,  decides  the  amount  of compensation  due  to him and the details of the  land  that vests in the State.  But the Act saves some interests in the proprietor  from its total operation : one of such is  lands in  the Central Provinces brought under cultivation  by  the proprietor  after the agricultural year 1948-49, but  before the date of the vesting (see s. 4 (2) of the Act) . Under s. 40 (1) of the Act, such a land shall be held by him in  the  rights  of an occupancy tenant;  under  sub-s.  (2) thereof  he becomes a tenant of the State; and under  sub-s. (3) the Deputy Commissioner shall determine the rent on  the land and it shall be payable from the date of the vesting of the  proprietary  rights.   Section 84 confers  a  right  of appeal on an aggrieved party against the order of the Deputy Commissioner  to  the  prescribed authority.   There  is  no provision   in   the  Act  which   authorizes   the   Deputy Commissioner to review an order made by him under. the  said sub-section and, therefore, an order made by him, subject to appeal, becomes final.  It is, therefore, manifest that  the order made by the Deputy Commissioner in respect of lands in question  determining  the  rent  on  the  basis  that   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

proprietor was an occupancy tenant had become final.  If so, the  Nistar  Officer, i. e., the second  appellant,  had  no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reopening the order made  in  respect of Mouza Sonpairi or in making  the  order reviewing the earlier order made by him in respect of  Mouza Kachna,  for the said, orders had become final and there  is no  provision  under the Act for reviewing  them.   But  the learned counsel for the appellants contends that s. 1 5  (3) of  the  Act confers such a power.  Under s. 15.(3)  of  the Act, the 804 authority concerned can review an order made by him under s. 13  of the Act.  Section 13 of the Act deals with ’an  order made  by  the Compensation Officer deciding  the  amount  of compensation  due  to  .the  claimant  and  recording  in  a statement  in  the prescribed form the details of  the  land which shall vest in the State.  Neither s. 13 nor s. 15  (3) has  any  relevance in the context of an order made  by  the Deputy Commissioner under s. 40 of the Act. This  conclusion  would  be sufficient. to  dispose  of  the appeals.   But, as an argument was made on the  construction of  s.  47 (1) of the Land Revenue Act and as the  game  was considered by the High Court, we shall also deal with it. The argument based upon the said provision is relevant  more to  the  nature  of the evidence  available  to  the  Deputy Commissioner  to come to a decision under s. 40 of  the  Act than  to the validity or the finality of the order  made  by him thereunder.  The question that a Deputy Commissioner has to decide by necessary implication under s. 40 of the Act is whether  the  proprietor has cultivated the land  after  the agricultural  year  1948-49 and before the  vesting  of  the estate  in the State.  One of the most important  pieces  of evidence that will be available to him is the annual  papers prepared  under  s. 47 of the Land Revenue Act.  It  is  not disputed  that in the annual papers prepared earlier it  was shown  that  the  proprietor was cultivating  the  lands  in question  after  1948-49.  But it is said that under  s.  47 (1),  the Deputy Commissioner can correct the said entry  in the  year 1952 and 1954 as he purports to do, so as to  make the  entry to the effect that between 1949 and the  date  of the  investigation the proprietor was not in cultivation  of the  land.  This argument, if we may say so, is contrary  to the  scope and tenor of the relevant provisions of the  Land Revenue Act and the rules made thereunder.  Under ss. 45, 46 and 47 the  805 Provisions whereof we have extracted earlier, the  procedure prescribed is as follows : A record of rights shall  consist of Khewat, Khasra, jamabandi and other papers; and they  arc prepared in the manner prescribed by the rules made under s. 227.  On the application of any person interested therein or of  his own motion, the Deputy Commissioner may modify.  any entry in the record-of-rights on specified grounds,  namely, that  all persons interested in such entry wish to  have  it modified,  that  by  a decree in a civil,suit  it  has  been declared to be erroneous, that, being founded on a decree or order of a civil court or on the order of a Revenue Officer, it is not in accordance with such’ decree or order, and that being so founded, such decree or order has subsequently been varied on appeal, revision or review.  It will be seen  that a  mistake  in a Khasra or jamabandi of an earlier  year  in regard  to the factum of cultivation by a particular  person is  not  a ground for modification under s. 46 of  the  Land Revenue Act.  Section 47 empowers the Deputy Commissioner to cause to be prepared annually or at such longer intervals as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

may be prescribed, an amended set of the documents mentioned in cls. (b), (c) and (d) of sub-s. (2) of s. 45 of the  Land Revenue  Act, and the documents so prepared shall be  called the  "annual  papers".  The rules made under s. 227  of  the Land  Revenue  Act  are found in Ch.   III  of  the  Central Provinces Land Records Manual, Vol.I, pp. 13-16.  The  rules relevant  to the preparation of Khasra and jamabandi  direct the  Patwari to record such changes annually as he finds  to have taken place after local enquiry and actual  inspection. It  is, therefore clear that a record of-rights consists  of Khewat, Khasra, jamabandi etc. and till it is revised  again it will hold the field.  The entries therein can be modified only for the grounds mentioned in s. 46 of the Land  Revenue Act.   The Provisions of s. 47, if contrasted with those  of s. 46, make it clear that the said section intends to bring 806 the  said documents up-to-date by recording  the  subsequent changes  based  on  supervening events.  The  scope  of  the annual  papers is only to record the existing facts  on  the basis of spot inspection at the beginning of a fasli and  to record changes occurring during the course of the year after the  year is closed.  It is not the province of  the  annual papers  to  investigate  and decide on  the  correctness  of otherwise  of the entries made in the earlier annual  papers as on the date they were made. The said section came under judicial scrutiny of a  Division Bench  of  the  Nagpur High Court in  Mangloo  v.  Board  of Revenue (1).  The facts in that case were that on the  death of  one  Gaindoo  who was a tenant of  mouzu  Matia,  on  an application  made by his nephew and his widow,  their  names were  entered in the annual papers as joint tenants  of  the land by the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records; there- after,  the  widow  applied to the  Superintendent  of  Land Records  for  striking off the petitioner’s  name  from  the annual  papers and her application was allowed ; in  appeal, the Additional Deputy Commissioner declined to interfere  on the   ground  that  the  initial  order  of  the   Assistant Superintendent  of  Land Records was passed by  him  in  his executive  capacity and as such the Superintendent  of  Land Records  was  competent to modify it in  his  own  executive capacity;  the  second appeal , preferred to  the  Board  of Revenue was summarily rejected; and it was contended  before the  High  Court that the decision of the Board  of  Revenue contravened  the  provisions  of  s.  47(1),  read  with  s. 33(2)(c)  of the Central Provinces Land Revenue  Act,  1917. In  that  context,  the learned judges  of  the  High  Court considered the scope of S. 47(1) of the Land Revenue Act and the  rules made under s. 227 of the said Act,  and  observed thus :               "As   we read section 47(1) of the Act and the               rules  governing  it, we are of  opinion  that               these               (1)   I.L.R. 1954 Nag. 143, 146.                 807               provisions  deal only with the preparation  of               the   annual   papers  and  not   with   their               correction  if  the entries are  found  to  be               erroneous.  They are only enabling  provisions               which  import no restriction on the  power  of               the  Revenue Officers to correct the  mistakes               or remove any irregularities, committed in the               preparation of the annual papers.  Neither the               annual papers nor the corrected entries affect               any questions of title or vested interest,  of               any   party.   The  power  of  the.    Revenue

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

             Officers  in this regard, is analogous to  the               untrammelled right of a person to correct  his               private documents, which cannot be  questioned               in  a Court of law by any one whose  right  or               interest is not affected thereby." The learned counsel contends that the said passage comprises conflicting  ideas  inconsistent with each  other-the  first part  of it denying a right to correct the entries  and  the second  part permitting such corrections.  We cannot  accept this interpretation of the passage.  The learned judges were dealing  with two aspects of the question: one is the  scope of  the  preparation of the annual papers and the  other  is whether  correction  of  mistakes therein give  a  cause  of action to the person aggrieved.  The first they answered  by stating that s. 47(1) of the Land Revenue Act and the  rules made  under the said Act deal only with the  preparation  of the  annual  papers and not with their  corrections  if  the entries  are  found to be erroneous and the other  with  the right of a party affected by the correction of the  mistakes therein.  The observations made in regard to the scope of s. 47(1) are made clear by the discussion found earlier in  the judgment at p. 145.  After adverting to the provisions of s. 47   and  the  rules  made  under  the  Act  governing   the preparation of annual papers, learned judges observed :               "This would normally be done in the beginning               808               of the agricultural year which, under s.  2(1)               of  the  Act, commences’ on the first  day  of               June.    No   changes  in  the   entries   are               contemplated   during   the  course   of   the               agricultural year and the changes taking place               during   that  period  are  obviously  to   be               recorded after the year is closed.  The action               taken  by the Superintendent of  Land  Records               and   ratified   by  the   Additional   Deputy               Commissioner  has, therefore, no reference  to               the preparation of the annual papers under  s.               47(1  )  of the Act and we are not  shown  any               other provision of law which governs it." The  Division  Bench held that there was  no  provision  for correcting the wrong entries made in the annual papers,  for their scope is very limited.  This view was followed by  the Full Bench of the High Court in their judgment which is  now under  appeal.   The Full Bench confirmed the  view  of  the Division Bench in the following words :               "............... Section 47(1) of the  Central               Provinces   Land  Revenue   Act   contemplates               entering  only  such  changes  in  the  annual               papers as take place during the course of  the               agricultural  year.  That section,  therefore,               does  not  cover a case of correction  of  the               entries on the ground of mistake." We  entirely  agree with this view,.  It  follows  that  the Nistar  Officer  has  no jurisdiction to  correct  the  said entries  with  a view to reopen the  matter  already  closed under  s.  40  of the Act.  We, therefore,  agree  with  the conclusion arrived at by the High Court. In  the  result,  the appeals fail and  are  dismissed  with costs.  One set of hearing fees. Appeals dismissed. 809