Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NILMANI SAHU & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/10/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of
the Division 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 of land admeasuring 43.14
acres was acquired together with the trees 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 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 conssideration of the value for
trees. The High Court had considered it and rejected the
evidence as not reliable and, therefore, it 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 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 of
common experience a large number of plants grow which, in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
fact, are useless, save and except the same at best can be
used for fuel. Under these circumstances, it cannot be
accepted. In the circumstance, value of the trees given by
the respondent-State, has got to be accepted." The order
thus has become final. An application came to be filed under
Sections 151 and 152 CPC to correct the decree. The learned
single Judge after considering the evidence afresh came to
the conclusion that the value of the trees was Rs.
25,39,919.50 and computed together therewith solatium and
interest at Rs.76,21,630.30. When an appeal was filed, the
Division Bench had held that since it is an amendment of the
decree, LPA would not lie and accordingly it dismissed the
appeal.
We find force in the finding of the Division Bench that
an appeal would not lie against the amendment of the decree
and it is only a revisable, since the learned single Judge
had amended the decree in appeal, a revision to the Division
Bench would not lie. The view taken by the Division Bench
cannot be faulted. However the question is: whether the
learned single Judge was right in correcting the decree and
directing payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.76,21,630.30
by way of order under Section 151 and 152 of CPC. We find
that the view taken by the learned single Judge, Justice
R.K. Dev, with due respect, if we can say so, is most
atrocious. It is an admitted position that the valuation of
the trees and the quantification was done by the Land
Acquisition Officer at Rs.2,466/-. On reference, after
adduction of evidences the, reference Court confirmed the
same. When regular appeal was filed under Section 54 of the
Act, the High Court had gone into the question and did not.
accept the number of trees and value thereof; it accordingly
confirmed the award of the reference Court. In other words,
the decree of a sum of Rs.2,466/- granted by the reference
Court stood upheld and became final. The question is: in an
amendment of the decree, could the High Court go behind the
order which had become final and correct the valuation, as
stated earlier, to the tune of sum of Rs.25,39,919.50? The
High Court obviously in gross error in reconsidering the
matter and came to fresh conclusion as to the number or the
trees and value thereof under the guise of arithmetical
mistake. The learned single Judge, therefore, was wholly
wrong in his conclusion as to the amount above referred to
for correction of the decree.
The appeals are accordingly allowed and the order of
the learned single Judge stands set aside. No costs.