Case Note & Summary
The appeals by special leave arose from the judgment and orders of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissing a revision and review petitions against an order of the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, in a land acquisition matter. The Union of India had acquired a large extent of land in Gobindpura and other places for extension of a military cantonment at Bhatinda under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification under Section 4(1) was published on 1981-03-31. In determining compensation, a Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A. No. 1349/89 modified an earlier Single Judge order, directing that land falling within a depth of 500 meters on either side of the Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road be assessed at Rs.90,000 per acre. That order became final. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application before the Additional District Judge in Civil Misc. No. 75 of 10.8.1991 for demarcation and award of compensation in terms of the High Court order. By order dated 1991-12-16, the Additional District Judge, relying on evidence, held that certain lands belonging to the respondents fell within 500 meters of the road and directed the Naib Tehsildar (MLA), Bhatinda, to prepare an amended memo of costs at Rs.90,000 per acre for those lands. The Union of India filed a revision in the High Court, which was dismissed in limine, and review petitions were also dismissed, leading to these appeals by special leave. The core legal question was whether the District Judge had power and jurisdiction to award compensation at Rs.90,000 per acre to the area coming within the belt of 500 meters as ordered by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court examined Sections 26, 13-A, 23(1) first clause, and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It held that Section 26 specifies the contents of an award, and once an award is made, the Civil Court ceases to have power to alter it except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. Section 13-A, which allows corrections of clerical errors, applies to the Collector and not to the Civil Court. Even if its principle were extended, the court below did not correct any clerical error. The identification of land falling within a belting is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake; it is an independent exercise of power for determining compensation under Section 23(1). The High Court, while exercising appellate power under Section 54, could decide belting and had done so in the LPA, but without any order of remand or calling for a finding, the District Judge was devoid of power or jurisdiction to correct any error, whether under Section 13-A or Section 152 CPC. The Additional District Judge was not called upon to determine compensation after identification of land within the belting of 500 meters; hence his order was clearly without jurisdiction and a nullity. The High Court was wrong in dismissing the revision without adverting to these material questions touching jurisdiction. Although counsel for the respondents repeatedly requested this Court not to interfere under Article 136, the Supreme Court found it necessary to correct the legal error and set the procedure in order. The appeals were accordingly allowed, with no costs. It was left open to the respondents to approach the High Court for appropriate relief. In the connected appeals, C.A. Nos. 3182-87 of 1995 arising from SLP (C) Nos. 18320-25194, leave was granted, substitution allowed, and in view of the above judgment, those appeals were also allowed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Jurisdiction of Civil Court After Award - Section 26 and Section 13-A Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - A Civil Court which has made an award under Section 26 cannot alter the award except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors; identification of land within a belting is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake - The Additional District Judge directed preparation of amended memo of costs at Rs.90,000 per acre for lands identified within 500 meters of Bathinda-Bibiwala Road without remand or direction from the High Court. Held that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction and power, and the order was a nullity (Paras 5-8). B) Land Acquisition - Appellate Power and Belting - Section 54 and Section 23(1) first clause Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Appellate power of High Court is co-extensive with that of Civil Court and may determine belting; but without order of remand or calling for finding, lower court cannot independently identify land falling within belting - The Division Bench of High Court in LPA had already directed compensation at Rs.90,000 per acre for land within 500 meters; the Additional District Judge's subsequent demarcation and award exceeded jurisdiction. Held that the High Court erred in dismissing revision without adverting to jurisdictional question (Paras 7-8). C) Civil Procedure - Correction of Clerical Errors - Section 152 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes only; independent identification of land and determination of compensation is not a clerical error - The application before Additional District Judge sought demarcation and award under High Court order, but this required substantive determination, not mere correction. Held that power under Section 152 CPC cannot extend to such exercise (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional District Judge had power and jurisdiction to award compensation at Rs.90,000 per acre for land falling within the belt of 500 meters from Bathinda-Bibiwala Road after the High Court Division Bench order, absent any remand or direction from the High Court.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. The Additional District Judge's order and the High Court's dismissal orders were set aside. The Supreme Court held the Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction and power; the order was a nullity. Respondents may approach the High Court for appropriate relief. No costs. In connected C.A. Nos. 3182-87 of 1995, leave granted, substitution allowed, appeals allowed, no costs.
Law Points
- Civil Court cannot alter award after making it except clerical or arithmetical errors under Section 13-A Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 or Section 152 CPC
- identification of land within belting is not clerical mistake
- District Judge devoid of power without remand
- appellate power of High Court co-extensive with Civil Court
- Section 26 Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 specifies award content
- correction limited to six months for Collector
- Supreme Court can interfere under Article 136 to correct jurisdictional error
