LexUNION OF INDIA versus SMT. PRATAP KAUR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
·' ... A . UNION 9F INDIA v. SMT. PRATAP KAUR 'cDEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. ETC. JANUARY 27, 1995 [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) I , . . I . Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 26 and 13-A as amended by Act 68 of 1984-Detennination of compensation under clause firstly of sub-s. ( 1) of s.23-High Court in exercise of appellate power identified belting-Civil C Court ceased to have power to alter award except to correct clerical or arith- matical errors-identification of land-Not a clerical or arithmatical mistake under section.13-A or section 152 CPC. 0 -~- - A notification under section 4(1) or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published acquiring a large extent or land. In the determination or D · compensation, the Division Bench or the High Court, while exercising Its ·appellate power, Identified belting upto a depth or 500 metres and directed payment or compensation for that land at Rs. 90,000 per acre. Sub- . · sequently, the. respondents flied an application before the Additional Dis: __ Irle! Judge for demarcation and award of compensation to the 500 metres .E as ordered by the. High Court. Accepting the 'applications, the District . Judge awarded compensation @ R!i; 90,000 per acre to the area coming mthin the belt of 500 metres as ordered by the High Court. The appellants challenged. the order or the District Judge by filing revision. The High Court dismissed the revision In llmlne. The review petitions also stood ·. F dismissed. Hence these appeais. ' - · The question raised I~ these appeals Was whether the Dlstrl~t Judge . had power and Jurisdiction to award compensation@ Rs. 90,000 per acre to the area coming mthin the belt or 500 metres as ordered by the Division . . -Bench or the High Court. . G -Allomng the appeal, this Court -._ HELD : l;l. A. Conjoint reading or ss. 26 and _13-A or the Land Acquisition Act clearly Indicates that while making the award and deter· - .mining the compensation. under clause. firstly or sub-s. (1) or s.23 the H . Collector h~djurlsdlctlon t~ determine the ~ompensatlon Including belting . .. - . - . . • 670. . . U.0.1. v. PRAT AP KAUR 671 for the purpose of determining market value and corr~ct clerical and A arithmetical mistakes committed in making the award. The High Court had exercised appellate power under s. 54 of the Act. Appellate power is co· extensive with that of the Civil Court. Therefore, the High Court, while exercising the appellate power, could also decide belting. [674·B·C] ·1.2. The Division Bench in the LPA while determining the compen· B sation, under clause firstly of sub·s. (1) s. 23, had identified belting upto a depth of 500 metres and directed payment of compensation for that land at 90,000 per acre. When the High Court exercised the appellate power, without any order of remand or calling for a finding, the District Judge was devoid of power or jurisdiction to correct any error either under s.13·A C of the Act or under s.152 CPC, that too beyond the limitation prescribed under s.13-A itself. The identification of the land is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake within the meaning of s.13·A or s.152 CPC. It is an independent exercise of the power for the purpose of determination of the compensation under clause firstly of sub·s. (1) s. 23 of the Act. With making the award under s.26 of the Act, the Civil Court ceased to have D power to alter the award except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The action of the Additional District Judge was an independent one without reference or an order of remand or the High Court calling a finding from it. The Civil Court, therefore, was devoid of jurisdiction and power to pass the impugned award or order. [674·D·F] E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Clivil Appeal Nos. 3179-81, 3182- 87 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.92 & 21.5.93 of the Punjab & Ha;yana in C.R. No. 23019/92, R.A. No. 20Cil/93 and C.M .. No. F 2262/93, R.A. No. 14Cil/93, C.R. No. 3170/92, R.A. No. 16~1I/93, lSCil/93, 17CII, 18CII, 19CII/93, C.R. Nos. 3171•75 of 1992. N.N. Goswamy, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Naveen Prakash, for Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. G Arun J aitley and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. H 672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R. A The appeal~ by special leave arise from the judgment and Order dated 14.5.95 and 20.11.92 of the High
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.