Supreme Court Allows Correction of Typographical Errors in Land Acquisition Case. The court permitted amendments to clarify compensation details and rectify appeal suit numbers in the judgment under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

  • 13
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an application for the correction of typographical errors in a prior judgment regarding land acquisition. The appellant sought to amend specific paragraphs of the judgment dated October 5, 2010, which had allowed their appeal and reversed a decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The typographical errors were identified in paragraphs 3, 12, and 13, which contained critical information regarding compensation and market value determinations. The court heard arguments from both parties, who agreed on the necessity of the corrections. The court subsequently directed the specific amendments to be made, including the correct figures for compensation and the adjustment of appeal suit numbers. The application was allowed as per the proposed corrections, ensuring the judgment accurately reflected the intended legal determinations.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Correction of Judgment - Typographical Errors - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 28A(3) - The court allowed the application for correction of typographical errors in the judgment dated October 5, 2010, which had previously held that the application under Section 28A(3) is maintainable. The corrections pertained to the determination of market value and compensation for acquired land, ensuring clarity in the judgment's provisions (Paras Not mentioned).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the typographical errors in the judgment can be corrected.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application for correction of typographical errors in the judgment dated October 5, 2010, substituting specific lines in paragraphs 3, 12, and 13 to accurately reflect the intended legal determinations regarding compensation.

Law Points

  • Typographical errors
  • Land Acquisition Act
  • maintainability of application
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2011 LawText (SC) (04) 119

I.A. No. 2 IN (Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2004)

2011-04-21

G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly

[2011] 5 SCR 557

V. Ramakrishna Rao

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. & Anr.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Application for correction of typographical errors in a judgment.

Remedy Sought

Correction of specific paragraphs in the judgment.

Filing Reason

To rectify inaccuracies in the previous judgment regarding compensation.

Previous Decisions

The judgment dated October 5, 2010, which allowed the appeal and reversed the High Court's decision.

Issues

Correctness of typographical errors in the judgment Maintainability of application under Section 28A(3)

Submissions/Arguments

Both parties agreed on the necessity of corrections. The applicant sought clarity on compensation details.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the importance of accuracy in judicial pronouncements and allowed corrections to ensure the judgment's clarity and correctness.

Judgment Excerpts

The Reference Court reconsidered the matter and passed order dated 17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre. If the High Court dismisses both the appeals, then too the appellant will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre.

Procedural History

The court received an application for correction of typographical errors in a prior judgment, heard arguments from both parties, and issued a directive for amendments.

Acts & Sections

  • Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 28A(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Tenant's Rights Under Bombay Tenancy Act — Jurisdiction of Civil Courts Clarified.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Delivers Judgment on Writ Petitions Challenging CIDCO's Refusal to Regularize Building Irregularities under MRTP Act. The Court examined the validity of orders passed under Sections 45 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Pla...