1996 JTR(SC) 913
1996 AIR(SC) 3323 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 2645 ; 1996 3 CCC(SC) 52 ; 1996 3 CLT(SC) 50 ; 1996 3 CurCC(SC) 52 ; 1996 4 ICC 537 ; 1996 5 JT 597 ; 1996 2 KLT 280 ; 1997 1 MLJ 13 ; 1996 3 RCR(Civ) 79 ; 1996 4 Scale 636 ; 1996 4 SCC 533 ; 1996 2 SCJ 607 ; 1996 Supp2 SCR 369 ; 1996 KHC 308 ; 1996 5 Supreme 161
1996(5) Supreme 161
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Bai Shakriben (dead) by Natwar Melsingh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No.8284-8315 of 1996
Decided on 6-5-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : D.A. Dave, Ms. Meenakshi Arora
For the Respondents : Ms. Nandini Mukherjee, Mrs. H. Wahi, K. Parasaran, P.S. Shroff, Sunil Dogra, S.S. Shroff.
IMPORTANT POINT
Having allowed the decree to become final, it would not be open to the executing Court or the reference court to amend the self same decree to award benefits of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984, by exercising the power under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.152, O.47 R.1, S.151
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28, S.23(1)(a), S.4(1), S.23(2)
A) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on January 2, 1975, and the Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation under Section 11 on May 19, 1980. An enhancement of compensation was awarded by the reference Court under Section 23(1)(a) and decree was made under Section 26 on August 20, 1983, which was later dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, applications under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC were moved to amend the decree for additional benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The High Court in revision set aside the order, leading to these appeals. The key issue was whether a reference Court or executing Court can amend a final decree to award enhanced compensation, solatium, or interest under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court relied on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, Order 47 Rule 1, and Section 151 CPC, along with precedents, to determine the scope of judicial correction.
B) The Court held that a decree under Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is final and conclusive, leaving the civil court with jurisdiction only to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 CPC or Order 47 Rule 1, and not to enhance compensation or award additional benefits, as Sections 23 and 28 provide independent, non-amenable components of compensation. Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are limited to preventing abuse of process or meeting ends of justice and cannot be invoked to override the finality of the decree or to correct non-awarded amounts.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on January 2, 1975. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining compensation on May 19, 1980. The reference Court enhanced the compensation by its award and decree under Section 26 on August 20, 1983. The High Court dismissed appeals against the decree. Later, applications were filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the decree to claim additional amounts, solatium, and interest under the amended Act. The High Court set aside the order, prompting these appeals.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the decree had become final before the amendment Act came into full effect, and the appeals challenging the enhancement were not pursued. The Court held that the reference Court lacked jurisdiction to amend the final decree to award additional compensation, solatium, or interest, as these were not clerical or arithmetical errors but constituted non-awarded amounts. The Court relied on its prior judgments and the principle that executing courts cannot revisit or enhance compensation beyond the award.
Issues:
Whether Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC permits an amending decree to award additional compensation, solatium, or interest under the Land Acquisition Act after the decree has become final.
Ratio Decidendi:
A final decree under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act is not open to amendment by the reference or executing Court for additional compensation, solatium, or interest, as Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 are independent components of compensation. The courts jurisdiction is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 CPC or Order 47 Rule 1, and the inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised to override the finality of the decree.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with no costs awarded.
A) Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on January 2, 1975, and the Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation under Section 11 on May 19, 1980. An enhancement of compensation was awarded by the reference Court under Section 23(1)(a) and decree was made under Section 26 on August 20, 1983, which was later dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, applications under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC were moved to amend the decree for additional benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The High Court in revision set aside the order, leading to these appeals. The key issue was whether a reference Court or executing Court can amend a final decree to award enhanced compensation, solatium, or interest under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court relied on the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, Order 47 Rule 1, and Section 151 CPC, along with precedents, to determine the scope of judicial correction.
B) The Court held that a decree under Section 26(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is final and conclusive, leaving the civil court with jurisdiction only to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 CPC or Order 47 Rule 1, and not to enhance compensation or award additional benefits, as Sections 23 and 28 provide independent, non-amenable components of compensation. Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC are limited to preventing abuse of process or meeting ends of justice and cannot be invoked to override the finality of the decree or to correct non-awarded amounts.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on January 2, 1975. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award determining compensation on May 19, 1980. The reference Court enhanced the compensation by its award and decree under Section 26 on August 20, 1983. The High Court dismissed appeals against the decree. Later, applications were filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the decree to claim additional amounts, solatium, and interest under the amended Act. The High Court set aside the order, prompting these appeals.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the decree had become final before the amendment Act came into full effect, and the appeals challenging the enhancement were not pursued. The Court held that the reference Court lacked jurisdiction to amend the final decree to award additional compensation, solatium, or interest, as these were not clerical or arithmetical errors but constituted non-awarded amounts. The Court relied on its prior judgments and the principle that executing courts cannot revisit or enhance compensation beyond the award.
Issues:
Whether Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC permits an amending decree to award additional compensation, solatium, or interest under the Land Acquisition Act after the decree has become final.
Ratio Decidendi:
A final decree under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act is not open to amendment by the reference or executing Court for additional compensation, solatium, or interest, as Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 are independent components of compensation. The courts jurisdiction is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 CPC or Order 47 Rule 1, and the inherent power under Section 151 CPC cannot be exercised to override the finality of the decree.
Result:
The appeals are dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1984) (for short, the Act ) was published on January 2, 1975. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 determined the compensation on May 19, 1980. On reference under Section 18 the Asstt. Judge enhanced the compensation by his award and decree made under Section 26 on August 20, 1983. Thereafter the State carried the matter in appeal but the claimants did not. The High Court by judgment dated August 22, 1984 dismissed the appeals. Subsequently, the appellants came to file applications under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC for amendment of the decree to award benefits of Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984. Though the Court has amended the decree, the High Court in revision set aside the order by judgment and order dated October 11, 1995 made in F.A. Nos. 1303-1317 and batch. Thus these appeals by special leave.
3. Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellants, contended that in view of the ratio laid down in Raja Shatrunji v. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan1, it must be held that the reference Court has jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the decree though the decree has become final. We are unable to accept the contention. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar2 had considered the similar situation. Therein, the award of the reference Court was on October 25, 1983, i.e. after the Amendment Act was introduced in the Parliament. Thereafter, the order became final after the Amendment Act had come into force. Subsequently, an application was made for awarding enhanced solatium, interest and the additional amount under the aforesaid provisions. This Court had considered the controversy and held in paragraph 8 thus :
"Thus, it would be seen that a decree having been made under Section 26(2), the civil court is left to correct only either clerical or arithmetical mistakes as envisaged expressly under Section 13-A of the by LAO Act or under Section 152 CPC. Though Section 151 CPC gives inherent power to the Court, it is intended only to prevent abuse of process of the court or to meet the ends of justice. The present is not a case of such nature. Further, since Section 23 is an express power under which the civil court has been conferred with the jurisdiction to determine compensation, and in addition to the market value certain percentage of the amount is directed to be awarded as envisaged under Sections 23 (1-A) and 23(2) and the interest component under Section 28, the invocation of Section 151 CPC by necessary implication stands excluded."
In Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Narain & Anr.3, this Court once over considered the entire gamut of controversy regarding the power of the executing Court to grant relief under the Act including the above judgment and held that payment of additional amount, solatium or interest are independent components payable while enhancing the compensation. The executing Court cannot travel behind the award and award amended benefits.
4. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh4. came to consider the effect of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the transitory provision on which strong reliance was placed by Shri Dave. In paragraphs 33 and 34, the Constitution Bench had held that if the proceedings are pending in appeal, the amendment Act has no application and it would be applicable only to the proceedings if they are pending before the Collector or reference Court between April 30, 1982 to September 24, 1984. It would thus be seen that if the proceedings are pending between these dates, indisputably the appropriate course or LAO is required to apply the provisions as amended under Act 68 of 1984. But having allowed the decree to become final, the question emerges whether it would be open to the executing Court or the reference Court to go behind the decree which become final to amend the self-same decree by exercising the power under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC. We feel that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. It would have been appropriate for the claimants to have gone in appeal and have the matter corrected, but unfortunately they did claim of the appellate remedy and allowed the decree to become final. The omission to award additional amounts under Section 23(1-A), enhanced interest under Section 28 and solatium under Section 23(2) are not clerical or arithmetical mistake crept in the award passed by the reference Court but amounts to non-award. Under those circumstances, the reference Court was clearly in error in entertaining the application for amendment of the decree and is deviod of power and jurisdiction to award the amounts under Sections 23(2), 23(1-A) and 28 of the Act.
5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Appeals dismissed.
*******