Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. PRATAP KAUR (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ANR. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT27/01/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (3) 263 JT 1995 (2) 569
1995 SCALE (2)118
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2.The appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and
Order dated 14.5.95 and 20.11.92 of the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana made in Review Application No.20 CII of 1993 and
C.M. 2262 of 1993 and C.R. No.3019/92 respectively.
3. The notification under s.4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, for short the Act, was published initially on
March 3 1, 1981 acquiring a large extent of land in
Gobindpura and other places for extension of military
cantonment at Bhatinda. In the determination of
compensation, the Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A.
No. 13 49/89 and batch ultimately held that:
"Consequently we venture to make the modification in the
order of the Single Judge, to the effect that the land
failing within a depth of 500 meters an either side of
Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road shall also be assessed at the rate of
Rs.90,000/- per acre as its market value.........
That order appears to have become final. Subsequently the
respondents filed an application before the Additional Dist.
Judge in Civil Misc. No.75 of 10.8.1991 for demarcation and
award of compensation to the 500 meters as ordered by the
High Court. By order dated 16.12.1991 the Addl. Dist.
Judge held that-,
"From the evidence discussed above, it is crystal clear that
the Land measuring 70 kanals 13 Marlas belonging to Naib
Singh etc., land measuring 141 kanals 1 marla belonging to
Gurdial Singh etc. land measuring 30 kanals 3 marlas
belonging to Pratap Kaur etc. land measuring 40 kanals 10
marlas belonging to Bhagwan Kaur etc. land measuring 48
kanals belonging to Gurdial Kaur etc., and land measuring 3
kanals i.e. 1/12 share of 35 kanals 9 marlas belonging to
Sadhy Singh are with 500 meters from Bathinda Bibiwala road.
571
I may add here that the evidence of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
applicants remained unchanged despite
opportunities given to the UOI. On the other
hand, the officials of the concerned
department have appeared in the witness box as
AW 1, AW 2 and AW 5 to support the case of the
claimants. Even otherwise from the
interpretation ofjudgment Ex.A3 it clearly
goes to show that the land which falls within
the depth of 500 meters from either side of
Bathinda Bibiwala Road, should be assessed at
rate of Rs.90,000/- per acre. The land of the
applicants adjoins the land which as per
evidence on record, was assessed at the rate
of Rs.90,000/- per acre. I therefore
accepting the applications direct the Naib
Tehsildar (MLA) Bhatinda to prepare the amende
d
memo of costs in respect of the above said
land of the applicants at the rate of
Rs.90,000/- per acre. The parties are left to
bear their own costs".
Calling in question the above order the appellants filed
revision in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the
revision in limine. Thereafter the review petitions also
stood dismissed. Thus these appeals by special leave.
4. The question that arises in these appeals is whether the
District Judge has power and jurisdiction to award
compensation @ Rs.90,000/- per acre to the area coming
within the belt of 500 meters as ordered by the Division
Bench of the High Court.
5. Section 26 of the Act gives power to the Civil Court to
give award thus:
1) Every award under this Part shall be in
writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify
the amount awarded under clause first of
sub-s.(1) of s.23, and.........."
Section 13-A of the Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984
provides power for correcting clerical error% thus:
"13-A. Correction of clerical errors, etc....
(1) The Collector may, at any time but not
later than six months from die date of the
award, or where he has been required under s.
18 to make a reference to the Court, before
the making of such reference, by order,
correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes
in the award or errors arising therein either
on his own motion or on the application of
any person interested or a local authority.
Provided that no correction which is likely to
affect prejudicially any person shall be made
unless such person has been given a reasonable
opportunity of making a representation in the
matter."
(Sub-ss.(2) and (3) are not material for the
purpose of this case. hence omitted).
6. Perforce, it has no application to the, Civil Court.
Even if the principle is extended to the Civil Court, the
Court committed manifest error of jurisdiction in allowing
the application, as it did not correct any clerical error.
7.A conjoint reading of ss.26 and 13-A of the Act clearly
indicates that while making the award and determining the
compensation under clause firstly of subs.(1) of s.23 the
Collector had jurisdiction to determine the compensation
including belting for the purpose of determining market
value and correct clerical and arithmetical mistakes
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
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
572
also decide belting. The Division Bench in the LPA while
determining the compensation under clause firstly of sub-
s.(1) of s.23, had identified belting upto a depth of 500
meters 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 of
the Act or under s. 152 CPC, that too beyond the limitation
prescribed under s. 13A 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) of s.23
of the Act. With making the award under s.26 of the Act the
Civil Court ceased to have 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,
as stated by the Additional District Judge; and that too af-
ter it had made the award.
8. Since the Addl. Dist. Judge was not called upon to
determine the compensation after identification of the land
within the belting of 500 meters as determined by the
Division Bench, the order of the District Judge is clearly
without jurisdiction and power and is a nullity. Therefore,
the High Court was not right in dismissing the application
without adverting to these material questions touching the
jurisdiction and power of the Addl. Dist. Judge. Though
Sri Arun Jetley, the learned Senior counsel repeatedly
requested this Court not to interfere under Art.136, it is
necessary to correct legal error to set the procedure in
order.
9. The, appeals are accordingly allowed. It is open to
the respondents, if so advised, to approach the High Court
for appropriate relief and it is for the High Court to
consider and dispose of it according to law. No costs.
In C.A. Nos. 3182-87 of 1995 @ SLP (C) Nos. 18320-25194:
10. Leave granted. Substitution allowed.
11. In view of the above judgment, these appeals also are
allowed. No costs.
573