LexTHE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. versus NILMANI SAHU AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.
v.
NILMANI SAHU AND ANR.
OCTOBER 7, 1996
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Ss.151 and 152-Amendment of decree--Compe11sation-awarded by
C Land ,{~quisitio11 Officer under La11d Acquisitio11 Act for land alo11gwith trees
standi11g thereQn, became final upto the stage of appeal u/s. 54 of Land
Acquisition Act before the High Court-Applicatio11 filed for correctio11 of
decree passed by High Cowt-Single Judge allowing the applicatio11 and
awarding much higher compensation-Held, the view taken by Single Judge
is most attrocious-1he decree granted by reference cowt stood upheld and
D became final in appeal u/s. 54 of the Act-In amendment of the decree the
High Court could not go behind the order and correct the valuation-High
Court grossly erred in reconsidering the matter and coming to a fresh con-
clusio11 as to the number of the trees and value thereof under the guise of
correcting arithmetical mistake-Order of Single Judge of the High Court is
E set aside.
Land Acq111sition Act, 1894 :
S.23(1)-Compensation for land acquired with trees standing there-
on-Valuation of trees as de(ennined by Land Acquisition Officer confimied
F by reference court, and High Court in appeal u/s. 54--Application for correc-
tion of decree-Single Judge of High Court allowing the application and
awarding much highercompensation-Held the Single Judge committed gross
e1Tor in reconsidering the matter and coming to fresh conclusion as to the
number and the valuation of the trees under the guise of correcting arithmeti-
G cal mistake.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13223-24
of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.94 and 31.8.95 of the
H Patna High Court in F.A. No. 45/80 and L.P.A. No. 133of1995.
236
STATEv. N.SAHU
237
B.B. Singh for the Appellants.
A
S.B. Upadhyay for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
B
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division C
Bench of the High Court of Patna in LPA No. 133 of 1995 dated November
28, 1994.
The admitted facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on December 10, 1964. A large
extent ofland admeasurlng 43.14 acres was acquired together with the trees D
standing thereon. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award dated April
3, 1979 determined the value of the trees at Rs. 2466. On reference under
Section 18, the civil Court upheld the valuation given to the trees by award
and decree dated March 27, 1980. In furtherance thereof, the appellants
have paid the compensation together with solatium and interest thereon on
September 6, 1991, i.e., a sum of Rs. 15,000 and odd and it was accepted E
by the respondents. When an appeal was filed against the reference Court's
award and decree, the High Court, in the first instance, had adjudged the
valuation of the trees and recorded the finding, considered the question in
paragraph 23 and had held that the contention that the compensation for
the value of trees fixed was meagre and unsustainable. At that time, the
claim was not less than Rs. 14 lacs and odd. In support thereof, a self
procured letter addressed by a merchant was brought on record and
pressed for consideration of the value for trees. The High Court had
considered it and rejected the evidence as not reliable and, therefore, it
F
was held that "It can be safely said that it was a procured document. Then
again, the report of the Kanungo who had gone to see the land, show that G
incorrect information about the number of the trees was given. As a matter
of fact, on one of the occasions he had noticed that main part of the land
was submerged under water. The number of trees supplied to him was
found to be highly exaggerated. This officer independently verified the
number of those trees for which the compensation was payable. In jungle,
it is a matter or common experience a large number of plants grow which H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R.
A in fact, are useless, save and except the same at best can be used for fuel.
B
Under these circumstances, it cannot be accepted. In the circumstances,
value of the trees given by the respondent-State, has got to be accepted."
The order thus has b'ecome final. An application came to be filed under
Sections 151 and 1Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.