LexBAI SHAKRIBEN (DEAD) BY NATWAR MELSINGH AND ORS. versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BAI SHAKRIBEN (DEAD) BY NATWAR MELSINGH AND ORS. A v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR. MAY 6, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.] B Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Ss. 23(1-A), 23(2) and 2S-Award made by Land Acquisition Officer on 19.5.1981J--Reference court enhanced compensation by its award and C decree dated 20.8.1983-Claimant not availing appellant remedy and allowing the decree to become finaf-Claimants filing applications under Order 47 Rule 1 and s. 151 CPC for amendment of decree to award benefits of the provisions as amended by Act 68 of 1984-Held, omission to award addition- al amounts u/s. 23(1-A), enhanced compensation u/s. 28 and solatium u/s. 23(2) are not clerical or arithmetical mistake crept in the award passed by D reference courl but amounts to non award-Reference court was in en·or in entertaining the application. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : S. 151, Order 47, Rule I-Land Acquisition proceedings-Claimants allowing award and decree of reference court dated 20.8.1983 to become final-Later filing applications for amendment of decree to allow benefits u/ss.23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of Land Acquisition Act-Held, executing court or reference court cannot go behind the decree which became final to amend it by exercising power under Order 47, Rule 1 ands. 151. State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, [1995] 3 SCC 316 and Urban Improvement Tntst, Jodhpur v. Gokul Narain & Anr., JT (1996) 4 SC 446, relied on. E F Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754 and Raja Shatrun- G ji v. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, (1971] Supp. SCR 433, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8284-8315 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.95 of the Gujarat High H 369 370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS IJ996\ SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A Court in F.A. No. 1303-17 and 1322-93, 163-77 and 182 of 1994. D.A. Dave and M» Mecnakshi Arora for the Appellants. Ms. Nandini \.lukherjee and Mrs. H. Wahi for State . B K. Parasaran, P.S. Shroff, Sunil Dogra, S.S. Shroff for the Respon- c D E F G dents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. Notification under Section 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act (1 of 1984) for short, the 'Act') was published on January 2, 1975. The Land Acquisition ()flicer in his <nvard under Section 11 deterrninc<l the compcn~ sation on May 19, 1980. On reference under Section 18 the Asstt. Judge enhanced the cun1pensatiun by his ;_nvard and decree made under Section 26 on August 20, 1983. Thereafter the Stale carried the matter in appeal but the claimants did not. The High Court by judgment dated August 22, 1984 dismis;e·d the appeals. Subsequently, the appellants came to file applications under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC for amendment of the decree to award benefits of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Central Act 68of1984. Though the Court has amended the decree. the High Court in revision set aside the order by judgment and order dated October 11, 1'!95 made in F.A. Nos. 1303-1317 and batch. Thus these appeals by special leave. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior coun~cl for the appellants, con- tended that in vie\v of the ratio laid do\Vn in Raja Shatna1ji v. Afoha1111nad Azmat Azim Khan. [ 1971 [ Supp. SCR 433, it must be held that the reference Court has jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC tu an1en<l the decree though the decree has become final. We are unable to accept the contention. The controversy is no longer res integru. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Malwrau Srawa11 Hatka1; (1995\ 3 SCC 316, had considered the sin1ilar situation. Therein, the a\vard of reference Court was on October 25, 1983, i.e. after the Amendment Act was introduced in the Parliament. Thereafter, the order became final after the Amendment H Act had come into force. Subsequently, an application was made for SHAKRIBEN v. SPL. LAND ACQN. OFFICER 371 awarding enhanced solatium, interest and the additional amount under the A aforesaid provisions. This Court had considered the controversy and held in paragraph 8 thus : 'Thus, it would be seen that a decree having .been made under Section 26(2), the civil court is left to correct only either clerical or arithmetical mistakes as envisaged expressly under Section 13-A of the by LAO Act or under Sect;on 152 CPC. Though Section 151 CPC gives inherent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.