Corrections log · सुधार सूची
What we got wrong
Every substantive correction made to the Academy, with what the page said before, what it says now, and how the error came to light. Published rather than quietly edited, because a reference work that cannot admit an error is not a reference work.
Why this page exists. The Academy runs an automated test suite of nearly eight
thousand assertions across every page. It catches broken structure, missing compliance text, wrong counts and dead
links. It cannot catch a page that is well-formed and wrong. The first entry below is exactly that case, and it is
published here rather than fixed silently.
State edition — Rajasthan: conversion charges, exempt uses and who approves
6 October 2026 · view the page
- What it said
- That the conversion charge basis is “commonly described as a rate per square metre, varying by area slab, location and population band”; that “a proviso to Rule 4” deems land converted for small industrial, institutional, medical and public-utility uses up to one acre and for food processing up to ten hectares; and that the State Government converts “where the area exceeds 1,00,000 square metres”.
- What it says now
- The charge row separates urban and rural land: under Rule 7 of the 2007 rural rules the charge is worked out with reference to the DLC rate, and the 2026 rural rules are reported to set the premium as a percentage of the DLC rate. The uses that need no conversion permission are cited to Rules 6 and 6A, as in the consolidated text. The single area figure is replaced by the plain statement that Rule 9 tiers the authority by purpose and area, from the Tehsildar to the State Government, because the thresholds differ by purpose and have been changed by amendment. A row on the 2026 rural rules was added.
- How it surfaced
- Updating the site for the rural conversion rules reported on 4 October 2026. The page disagreed with our rule-by-rule explainer of the 2007 rules, which was written from the consolidated text to December 2023.
Case law — State of Haryana v. Mukesh Kumar
26 September 2026 · view the page
- What it said
- That the Court held “the State cannot perfect title over a citizen's land by pleading adverse possession”, that the doctrine “is to be applied with great caution”, and that the law “required reconsideration”; the decision date was given only as 2011.
- What it says now
- The Court dismissed Haryana's special leave petition with costs, said that government departments, public undertakings and above all the police should not be permitted to take citizens' land by claiming adverse possession, and recommended that the Union of India consider abolishing or amending the law of adverse possession. Decided 30 September 2011, Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma JJ. The case law index and the Haryana state page were changed to match.
- How it surfaced
- A line-by-line check of every case summary against a copy of the judgment or a legal publisher's report of it, done for the land judgments register.
Case law — dates, benches and a later ruling
26 September 2026 · view the library
- What it said
- Gulab Kothari was given as decided by a Division Bench at Jaipur; Vidya Devi and Ravinder Kaur Grewal carried only a year; Suraj Lamp described its application to older transactions as unsettled.
- What it says now
- Gulab Kothari: principal seat at Jodhpur, Sangeet Lodha and Arun Bhansali JJ. Vidya Devi: 8 January 2020, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi JJ. Ravinder Kaur Grewal: 7 August 2019, with the three judges named. Suraj Lamp: adds that Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain (1 November 2023) held it states the existing law and is not merely prospective.
- How it surfaced
- The same check. None of these changes the holding a page teaches, except that the Suraj Lamp point is now settled.
L3-02 — Conversion under section 90-A
29 July 2026 · view the page
- What it said
- The lesson described section 90-A as “the general provision” for permitting non-agricultural use and section 90-B as “the provision applying where the land falls within an area to which a master plan applies”, and presented the two as a live choice depending on the parcel's location.
- What it says now
- Section 90-A is the operative provision today. The Rajasthan High Court has referred to section 90-B “as it stood at the relevant time” and section 90-A “as it stands today”, indicating 90-B belongs to an earlier statutory position. What actually varies by parcel is whether the urban or the rural conversion rules apply. The lesson heading, body, glossary and one quiz question were rewritten, and a note was added recording that the 2007 rural conversion rules were amended by notification dated 29 April 2026.
- How it surfaced
- Found during research for the market-data build. Nothing in the automated QA suite could have caught it — the page was internally consistent and passed every structural test. It was simply wrong on the law. This entry is the reason this log exists.
Report an error
ग़लती बताएँ
If anything on this site is wrong, out of date, or has been overtaken by an amendment or a later judgment, tell us. Message +91 92502 13833 on WhatsApp or write to support@agrizameen.com. Quote the page and, if you can, what the correct position is and where it comes from. Corrections to legal and regulatory content are the ones we most want to hear about.
Nothing on this site is legal, tax or investment advice, and no correction log substitutes for advice from a licensed advocate on your own facts.