STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus MAHARAU SRAWAN HATKAR

Citation: [1995] 2 S.C.R. 224 · Decided: 21-02-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
:A 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
1-
MAHARAU SRAWAN HATKAR 
·""--( 
FEBRUARY 21, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMSWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Requisition and Acquisition of Lan~and Acquisiton Act, 1894-Sec. 
26(2), 13-A, 23 and 28-Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984-S. 
23( 1-A) and 2 Sec. 28-Amending the decree of compensation by civil court 
r 
c without a reference-Enhancement of Award pursuant to Amendment Act, 
. 1984-/'ower of civil court . 
. ,, 
The re~pondents' land was acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land .. 
Acquisition Act 1894. Compensation was awarded by the La~4 ~quisition 
D 
Officer which was enhanced by' the Civil ·Jode' on· refe~nce. After the 
.,.. 
coming into force in 1984 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, the 
re,spondents applied to the Civil Judge for grant of enhanced solatium, 
additional compensation and interest under it. The Civil Judge granted 
the same. 
E 
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed but the High Court summarily 
dismissed the appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended 
that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the benefits under the 
Amendment Act as issues of compensation could only be determined upon 
a reference. The compensation award was a decree which was subject to 
F 
amendment only for clerical errors. The Court could not independently 
exercise power to enhance the compensation amount. The respondent 
agrued that the Civil Court bad inherent powers to grant· the benefits 
under the Amendment Act. 
Allowing the· appeal, this Court 
G 
----...:..
HELD : 1.1. In a case where the court had not enhanced the com· 
pensation on reference, the court was devoid of power to award any interest 
or spread the payment of interest under the provisions of the Amendment 
Act. (228-C] 
r 
H 
1.2. A decree having been made the clvil court could correct oniy 
224 
·• -
( 
\ 
STA1EOFMAHARASHTRAv. MS.HATKAR[N.P.SINGH,J.] 
. 225 
·clerical or arithmetical mistakes as envisaged expressly under Section 13A A 
of the Act or under Sec. of 152 CPC. (228-G] 
1.3. Though Section 151 CPC gave inherent power to the. Court, it 
was intended only to prevent ·abuse of the process of court or to meet the 
ends of justice. The present was not it caiie of such a nature. Further ~ince 
Sec. 23 was an express power under which. the civil court had been B 
conferred with the jurisdiction to determine compensa~ion the invocation 
of Sec. 151 CPC by necessary implication stood excluded. [228-H-229-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1800 of 
~ 
c 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.87 of the Bombay High 
Court in P.A. No. 169 of 1987. 
A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant. 
G.K. Bansal for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
D 
Since the respondent had not been represented, we requested E 
learned Advocate Shri G .K. Bansal to assist the Court which he accepted 
and has given good assistance for which we express our gratitude to him; 
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Bombay in First Appeal No. 169/87, dated 
24.4.1987. Notification under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for p 
short, 'the Act), was published on 13.8.1979 in the State Gazette acquiring 
the land for percolation tank in village Kasampura. The Land Acquisition 
Officer by his award dated 17.12.1981 awarded the compensation. At the 
instance of the claimants, on reference under s.18 of the Act, the Civil 
Judge, Sr. Division, Jalgaon in his award and decree d~ted 25.10.1983, 
enhanced the compensation. It would appear that no appeal was preferred. G 
After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1894 had come into 
force on September 24, 1984, the claimants made ati application to the 
reference court for awarding the enhanced solatium, additional compensa-
tion and interest under the Amendment Act. The Civil Judge by his order 
dated March 31, 1986 allowed the application and awarded as under : 
H 
226 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1995] 2 S.C.R. 
"(i) All the petitioners are entitled to the additional amount of 
compensation as calculated at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. from the 
date of notification or the date of dispossession, whichever is 
earlier to the date of Award on the entire market value, i.e. the 
market value as assessed by the Spl. L.A.O. and increased by this 
Court in thier respective cases. 
(ii) The petitioners are also entitled to the solatium at th~ rate 
of 30% on the en

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