Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RANGILA RAM (DEAD) BY LR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 206 1995 SCC (5) 585
JT 1995 (7) 655 1995 SCALE (5)178
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
On December 2, 1977, a notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, ‘the Act’] was
issued acquiring 267.2675 acres of land in village
Bhatotarwan for defence purposes. The award was made by the
Land Acquisition Collector on October 23, 1979. Against the
award, the District Judge-arbitrator by his award dated
February 7, 1981, enhanced the compensation and further
award Rs. 700/- per acre for loss of livelihood/profession.
Dissatisfied thereof, both the State as well as the
respondent writ petitions in the High Court which by
judgement dated March 15, 1982 enhanced the compensation to
Rs. 11,000/- and 10,000/- per acre respectively. Following
that, respondent’s R.F.A. No.1209 of 1981, was disposed of
on November 5, 1982.
An application under Sections 151 and 152, Civil
Procedure Code [for short, ‘CPC’] was filed in 1986 before
the High Court for amendment of the decree in the cross-
objections to award them 30% of the solatium 9% interest for
the first year and 15% interest thereafter till the date of
deposit as per S.23(2) and proviso to S.28 pursuant to the
Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The High Court allowed the
application on November 26, 1987. Thus, this appeal by
special leave.
The point is no longer res integra. This Court has
considered the scope of the power of the High Court under
Ss. 151 and 152, CPC and also under S.13(A) of the Act. This
Court has held that once civil court made an award as per
law then in force which became final and that there is no
error of law as on that date. Subsequent amendment does not
give power to the court to amend the decree under Ss. 151
and 152, CPC. This was held in State of Maharashtra vs.
Maharau Sravan Hetkar [(1995) 3 SCC 316] and Union of India
and Ors. v. Pratap Kaur (dead) through Lrs. and Anr. [(1995)
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
3 SCC 263]. In Maharau Sravan Hetkar’s case, this Court held
that the civil court lacked inherent jurisdiction and was
devoid of the power to entertain an application to award
additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The
facts therein were that the award had become final and the
Amendment Act 68 of 1984 had come into force on September
24, 1984. The respondents made an application under Sections
151 and 152, CPC to award enhanced solatium and additional
benefits etc. and the civil court allowed and granted the
same. In that context, considering the civil court’s power
under Sections 151 and 152, CPC, this Court laid the above
law.
In Pratap Kaur’s case, after the award became final,
the respondents filed miscellaneous application to demarcate
and award compensation on the rates were ordered by the High
Court which were accordingly granted and the jurisdiction of
the District Court was challenged. Though the High Court had
affirmed the order, this Court held that after the award
became final, the civil court was devoid of power or
jurisdiction and there was no arithmetical or clerical error
in the award. The exercise of the power was independent of
reference. Therefore, the civil court ceased to have any
power after the great became final, to alter or correct
clerical or arithmetical errors. The civil court was,
therefore, devoid of jurisdiction and power to award or
order additional benefits.
It would, therefore be clear that the claimant was not
entitled to the additional benefits and Sections 151 and
152, CPC cannot be invoked to award the additional benefits
under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The High Court,
therefore, has no power to amend the decree to award
enhanced statutory benefits. The decree passed by the High
Court is clearly without jurisdiction and annaullity.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.