Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave filed by the claimants (appellants) against an order of the High Court in revision, which set aside an order allowing amendment of a land acquisition decree. The dispute arose from land acquisition proceedings where a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on January 2, 1975. The Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation on May 19, 1980. On reference under Section 18, the Assistant Judge enhanced compensation by award and decree under Section 26 on August 20, 1983. The State appealed to the High Court, but the claimants did not. The High Court dismissed the State's appeals on August 22, 1984. Thereafter, the decree became final. Subsequently, the claimants filed applications under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking amendment of the decree to award benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984. The High Court in revision set aside the order allowing amendment by judgment dated October 11 in F.A. Nos. 1303-1317 and batch. Hence the appeals by special leave. The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether a reference court or executing court has jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC to amend a final decree to award additional statutory benefits, whether omission to award additional amount, solatium and enhanced interest was a clerical or arithmetical mistake, and whether the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 applies to decrees that had become final. The appellants contended, relying on Raja Shatrunji v. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan, that the reference court had jurisdiction to amend the decree despite finality. The Court rejected this contention, holding that the controversy was no longer res integra. The Court relied on State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, which held that a decree under Section 26(2) can be corrected only for clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 13-A or Section 152 CPC, and Section 151 CPC cannot be invoked for this purpose. The Court also relied on Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Narain and Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, which clarified that the executing court cannot travel behind the award, and the Amendment Act applies only to proceedings pending before the Collector or reference court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. The Court held that omission to award additional amounts under Section 23(1-A), enhanced interest under Section 28 and solatium under Section 23(2) was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake but a non-award. Therefore, the reference court was clearly in error in entertaining the application for amendment and was devoid of power and jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation and Benefits - Amendment of Final Decree - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), 28; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 47 Rule 1, Section 151 - Reference court made decree under Section 26 on August 20, 1983; State's appeals dismissed by High Court; claimants did not appeal; decree became final; subsequent application sought amendment to award additional benefits under Amendment Act 68 of 1984 - Held that omission to award additional amount, solatium, and enhanced interest amounted to non-award, not a clerical or arithmetical mistake, and reference court lacked jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC to amend final decree - Appeals dismissed, no costs (Paras 8, 33-34). B) Land Acquisition - Amendment Act Applicability - Transitory Provision - Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 Section 30(2); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151 - Amendment Act applies only to proceedings pending before Collector or reference Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 - Where decree became final, claimants should have appealed; executing court cannot go behind decree - Held that allowing decree to become final precluded reopening to award amended benefits; reliance on Raja Shatrunji rejected as controversy no longer res integra (Paras 33-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reference court or executing court had jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC to amend a final decree to award benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984; whether omission to award additional amount, solatium and enhanced interest constituted a clerical or arithmetical mistake or a non-award; whether the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 applied to proceedings where the reference court's decree had become final before the amendment came into force.
Final Decision
The appeals were dismissed. No costs. The Court held that the reference court was clearly in error in entertaining the application for amendment of the decree and was devoid of power and jurisdiction to award the amounts under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Law Points
- A decree made under Section 26(2) of Land Acquisition Act can be corrected only for clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 13-A or Section 152 CPC
- Section 151 CPC inherent power not available to award additional compensation after decree is final
- Executing court cannot go behind the award/decree
- Amendment Act 68 of 1984 applies only to proceedings pending before Collector or reference Court between April 30
- 1982 and September 24
- 1984
- Omission to award additional amounts under Section 23(1-A)
- enhanced interest under Section 28
- solatium under Section 23(2) is not clerical or arithmetical mistake but non-award
- Reference court lacks jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC to amend final decree
