JAYA CHANDRA MOHAPATRA versus LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RAYAGADA

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 22-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

JAYA CHANDRA MOHAPATRA 
A 
v. 
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, RAY A GAD A 
NOVEMBER 22, 2004 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : 
Ss. 47, 151 and 152, Order 47 r.1-Reference court exercising 
jurisdiction under Land Acquisition Act-Power to review its earlier order-
C 
Reference court enhancing compensation but not granting benefits of Act 
68 of 1984-Application by claimant-Benefits partly granted-On further 
application for clarification, reference court granting further benefits under 
Act 68 of 1984-State not questioning the order but executing court allowing 
objection of the State that reference court not further review its decree- D 
Held, there is no bar on reference court to review its earlier order if there 
· exists an error apparent on the fact of the record-Executing court has 
no jurisdiction to go behind the decree passed by a competent court of 
law-State having allowed the decree to attain finality, estoppel by records 
comes into play-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Ss. 18, 23(1-A), 23(2), 26 
and 28-Estoppe/-Estoppel by records. 
E 
Certain lands of the appellant were acquired under the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was passed in 1981. The reference 
court by its order dated 27.11.1990 though enhanced the compensation, 
but did not grant the claimant the benefits of the Amending Act, 1984. F 
Later, on the applications filed by the appellant the solatium was enhanced 
to 30% and benefit under s. 28 of the Act was allowed by the reference 
court. The appellant filed a further application purported to be under 
s. 151 read with s. 152 as also Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 for necessary clarification as regards non-awarding of 
benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act. The reference court G 
by order dated 8.10.1996 allowed the benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 
23(2) of the Act. The State did not question the said order. However, 
the executing court allowed the objection of the respondent holding that 
the decree having been once amended, the same 'became final and the 
reference court had no jurisdiction to amend the decree further so as H 
235 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
to grant the benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Ac~. The 
High Court upheld the order. Aggrieved, the claimant filed the present 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. In law there does not exist any bar on a reference court 
to review its earlier order if there exists an error apparent on the face of 
the record in terms of Order 17, Rule l of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908. The reference court admittedly had not granted to the appellant the 
benefit in terms of Sections 23(1) and 23(2) as also Section 28 of the Land 
C Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 ofl984 to which the appellant 
was entitled. The Act 68 ofl 984 is a beneficial statute and thus, the benefits 
arising thereunder cannot ordinarily be denied to a claimant except on 
strong and cogent reasons. [240-B-C; 239-G-H; 240-C] 
Savitri Cairae v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Anr., [2003) 6 
D sec 255, relied on. 
1.2. A decree passed by a competent court of law can be suitably 
am~nded. A decree so amended on an application filed by the claimant for 
review thereof becomes final. In the instant case the order dated 8.10.1996 
passed by the reference court has attained finality by reason whereofthe 
E original decree stood amended. The executing court could not have gone 
behind the decree. It did not have any jurisdiction to go into the question 
as to where the reference court was correct in passing the order dated 
8.10.1996 amending the decree or not. If the State was aggrieved by and 
dissatisfied therewith it could have taken the matter by filing an 
F 
appropriate application before the High Court. But keeping in view the 
fa_ct that the decree was allowed to attain finality, the executing court 
could not have permitted the State to agitate the said question before it by 
filing.an application und_er Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure or 
otherwise. In a case of this nature, the principle of estoppel by records 
shall come into play. The executing court is directed to proceed in terms 
G of fhe amended decree. [241 ~B-C, A-B, C-D, E] 
Bai Shankriben (Dead) by Natwar Melsingh and Ors. v. Special Land 
Acquisition Officer and Anr., [1996) 4 SCC 533, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 7518-

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.