2904 2025 TUESDAY Court : MB-07 Item : DL-03 Bench : SINGLE Matter : WPA Status : DISMISSED ID : 266057 AR : NANDY IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE WPA 708 OF 2022 MAJIBAR RAHAMAN VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. MR. BARUN KUMAR SAMANTA, ADVOCATE ……for the Petitioner 1. In the present case, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the concerned respondent to make the necessary correction and rectification of the error in the measurement of the area of land that has crept into the deed of sale dated 09.12.2005. 2. Mr. Samanta, learned advocate for the petitioner, submits that both in the recital and in the schedule of the deed, the measurement of the actual area of land purchased by the vendee, the petitioner herein, was inadvertently recorded as 0.02 sataks (decimals) instead of 0.0233 sataks (decimals). Drawing attention to the L.R. record of rights, he contends that the said record correctly reflects the actual area of land as measuring 0.0233 sataks. 3. He further submits that immediately upon detecting the said error, the petitioner approached the concerned Additional District Sub-Registrar, Malda, requesting necessary correction of the error. However, despite receipt of such representation, no effective steps have been taken in response thereto, thereby prompting the petitioner to file the present writ petition. 4. The recital of a deed of sale, along with the schedule of land appended thereto, reflects the actual area of land purchased by the vendee under P a g e | 2 the said deed. The record of rights cannot be regarded as a conclusive document of proof of title. 5. However, I am not persuaded to accept the petitioner’s contention that if, at the time of scribing, execution, or registration of a deed, any error inadvertently creeps in, the only recourse available is to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of a writ of mandamus. 6. No provision, either under the Registration Act or any applicable Rules and Regulations, has been placed before me to demonstrate that the Deputy Inspector General of Registration or the Additional District Sub-Registrar has the authority to unilaterally effect such correction solely on the basis of a prayer by one party to the deed, which is admittedly a bipartite agreement and/or instrument. Furthermore, no plausible explanation has been offered as to why no step has been taken to execute and register a deed of rectification. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the petitioner’s contention. 7. In view thereof, I am of the considered view that no interference is warranted in this writ-petition and accordingly WPA 708 of 2022 is dismissed. 8. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner from taking appropriate steps for rectification of that error in accordance with law. (PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.) P a g e | 3