The Notice on the Chavdi: Two Marathi Drafts and One Ambiguous Application
The Talathi of Wadgaon circle, Karad taluka, must paste a Marathi notice on the village chavdi about a fresh measurement of Gat No. 214 (area 1.20 ha). The SDO remanded the boundary case, and eleven khatedars are affected. Two clerks submit drafts. Draft A: “सदर जमिनीची हद्द मोजणी दिनांक १२ जुलै रोजी सकाळी १०:०० वाजता करण्यात येईल. सर्व संबंधित खातेदारांनी आपल्या कागदपत्रांसह उपस्थित राहावे.” Draft B: “सदर जमीन हद्द मोजणी दिनांक १२ जुलै रोजी सकाळी १० वाजता करण्यात येणार आहे. संबंधित खातेदारांनी उपस्थित रहावे.” Meanwhile the objecting farmer, Shankar Pawar, has filed a one-line application: “माझ्या जमिनीतील विहिरीची जमीन मी विकली नाही, ती माझ्याच ताब्यात राहील.” The clerk who read it aloud at the chavdi announced that Pawar had sold the well. Pawar now says the announcement was wrong and threatens to go to the SDO. The notice must be pasted before 6 p.m. today.
1. Which draft should be pasted, and on what grammatical grounds?
Read the worked answer
Paste Draft A.
- Vibhakti: Draft B's “जमीन हद्द मोजणी” strings two nouns together with no genitive, so a reader cannot tell whether “जमीन” is what is being measured or part of a name. Draft A's “जमिनीची हद्द मोजणी” supplies the षष्ठी marker ची (स्त्रीलिंग, एकवचन) and follows the pattern used in tahsil notices.
- Spelling and register: “रहावे” in B is a misspelling of “राहावे” (from राहणे). The impersonal imperative राहावे is the correct official register: it obliges everyone without addressing one person.
- Completeness: A tells khatedars to bring their documents. With eleven parties, the measurement will otherwise fail for want of the map and sale deeds.
- Time: “१०:०० वाजता” removes any doubt between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. Draft B is shorter, but a notice with a missing vibhakti and a spelling error invites an objection and a fresh postponement.
2. Was the clerk's reading of Pawar's application defensible? Redraft the sentence and name the device you use to remove the ambiguity.
Read the worked answer
No. The reading was not defensible. The sentence contains two genitives in a row - “जमिनीतील” (locative) and “विहिरीची” (genitive) - so “विहिरीची जमीन” can mean either the well and its site, or the land in which the well stands. “ती … राहील” adds a second doubt, because ती can point to जमीन or to विहीर. Redraft: “माझ्या मालकीच्या जमिनीतील विहीर व विहिरीभोवतीची तीन मीटर जागा यांचा माझ्या विक्री-खतात समावेश नाही. सदर विहीर व जागा माझ्याच ताब्यात राहील.” Devices used: split one loose sentence into two; replace the ambiguous ती with the full noun phrase; use यांचा (neuter plural agreement) instead of a vague relative; and fix a measurable extent (तीन मीटर) so the exclusion can be marked on the ground. The chavdi announcement is not an order. Record Pawar's objection in writing and decide on the schedule of the sale deed, not on what a clerk read aloud.
3. Frame the closing line of the notice about absence, keeping it within what a Talathi may lawfully threaten.
Read the worked answer
A workable closing line: “ज्या खातेदारास नोटीस मिळूनही मोजणीच्या वेळी उपस्थित राहून हरकत नोंदवता आली नाही, तरी सदर मोजणी त्यांच्या अनुपस्थितीतही पार पडेल. त्यांची लेखी हरकत नंतर सुनावणीसाठी स्वीकारली जाईल.” Reasoning: the only consequence a notice may safely state is that the measurement will proceed ex parte - that is what keeps the case moving. A Talathi cannot declare that an absent party forfeits the land or loses all rights; that would be a threat beyond the Code and would make the notice itself challengeable. Keeping the door open for a written objection later is both fair and practical, because Pawar's objection will have to be recorded and sent up with the measurement report in any case.