Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
BAI SHAKRIBEN (DEAD) NATWAR MELSINGH & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/05/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 533 JT 1996 (5) 597
1996 SCALE (4)636
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
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 Officer
in his award under Section 11 determined the compensation on
May 19, 1980. On reference under Section 18 the Asstt. Judge
enhanced the compensation by his award and decree made under
Section 26 on August 20, 1983. Thereafter the State State
carried the matter in appeal but the claimants did not. The
High Court by judgment dated August 22, 1984 dismissed the
appeals. Subsequently, the appellants to file applications
under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC for amendment of
the decree to award benefits of Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2)
and 28 of the Act as amended by Central Act 68 of High Court
in revision set aside the order by judgment and order dated
October 11, made in F.A. Nos.1303-1317 and batch. Thus these
appeals by appeals by special leave.
Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, contended that in view of the ratio laid dawn in
Raja Shatrunji v. Mohammad 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
to amend the decree though the decree though the decree has
become final. We are unable to accept the contention. The
controversy is no longer res integera. This Court in State
of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar [(1995) 3 SCC 316]
had considered the similar situation. Therein, the award of
the reference Court was on October 25, 1983, i.e. after the
Amendment Act was introduced in the Parliament. Parliament.
Thereafter, the order became final the Amendment Act had
come into force. Subsequently, an application was made for
awarding enhanced solatium, interest and the additional
amount under the aforesaid provisions. This Court had
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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 is left
correct only either clerical or
arithmetical mistakes as envisaged
expressly under Section 13- A of
the by LAO Act or under Section 152
CPC. Though Section 151 CPC gives
inherent power to the Court, it is
intended only to prevent abuse of
process of the court or to meet the
ends of justice. The present is not
a case of such nature. Further,
since Section 23 is an express
power under which the civil court
has conferred with the jurisdiction
to determine compensation, and in
addition the market value certain
percentage of the amount is
directed to be awarded as envisaged
under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2)
and the interest component under
Section 28, the invocation of
Section 151 CPC by necessary
implication stands excluded."
In Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Narain &
Anr. [JT (1996) 4 SCC 446], this Court once over considered
the entire gamut of controversy regarding the power of the
executing Court to grant relief under the Act including the
above judgment and held that payment of additional amount,
solatium of interest are independent components payable
while enhancing the compensation. The executing Court cannot
travel behind the award and award and award amended
benefits.
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v.
Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754] came to consider the
effect of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the transitory
provision on which strong reliance was placed by Shri Dave.
In paragraphs 33 and 34, the Constitution Bench had held
that if the proceedings are pending in appeal, the amendment
Act has no application and it would be applicable only to
the proceedings if they are pending before the Collector or
reference Court between April 30, 1982 to September 24,
1984. It would thus be seen that if the proceedings are
pending between these dates, indisputably the appropriate
course or LAO is required to apply the provisions as
amended under Act 68 of 1984, But having allowed the decree
to become final, the question emerges whether it would to
become final, the question emerges whether it would be open
to the executing Court or the reference court to go behind
the decree which become final to amend the self-same decree
by exercising the power under Order 47 rule 1 and Section
151 CPC. We fell that the executing Court cannot go behind
the decree. It would have been appropriate for the claimants
to have gone in appeal and have the matter corrected, but
unfortunately they did claim of the appellate remedy and
approved the decree to become final. The omission to award
additional amounts under section 23(1-A), enhanced interest
under section 28 and solatium under Section 23(2) are not
clerical or arithmetical mistake crept in the award passed
by the reference Court but amounts to non-award. under those
circumstances, the reference Court was clearly in error in
entertaining the application for amendment of the decree and
is devoid of power and jurisdiction to award the amounts
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) and 28 of the Act.
The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.