1996 JTR(SC) 1624
1998 1 BLJR 37 ; 1996 4 CLT(SC) 300 ; 1997 DNJ 15 ; 1996 Supp JT 625 ; 1996 3 RLW(Raj) 112 ; 1996 8 Scale 227 ; 1996 11 SCC 528 ; 1996 Supp7 SCR 236 ; 1996 8 Supreme 81
1996(8) Supreme 81
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
State of Bihar & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Nilmani Sahu & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 13223-24 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9812-13 of 1996)
Decided on 7-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B.B. Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : S.B. Upadhyay, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.151, S.152
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.54
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Civil Procedure Code governs the present dispute concerning the correction of a decree for compensation awarded for trees acquired under a notification dated December 10, 1964. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act provides a mechanism for appeals against awards determining compensation, including the valuation of trees, while Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code provide for the correction of decrees to rectify arithmetical mistakes. The reference court confirmed the Land Acquisition Officers valuation of the trees, and the High Court, upon appeal under Section 54, upheld that valuation as final. The learned single Judge later invoked Sections 151 and 152 to revise the decree and substantially enhance the compensation for the trees, which forms the core procedural conflict.
(B) Key legal principles include the finality of a decree once confirmed on appeal, the limited scope of correction under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to arithmetical mistakes, and the inability to revisit substantive valuation findings through a revisionary process when a prior appeal has exhausted all merits.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on December 10, 1964, acquiring 43.14 acres of land with trees. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the trees at Rs. 2,466, a valuation upheld by the reference court and confirmed on appeal by the High Court. Subsequently, an application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC sought to correct the decree, resulting in a new assessment of Rs. 25,39,919.50 for the trees plus additional amounts for solatium and interest.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that an appeal would not lie against a decree correction treated as an amendment. The learned single Judge erred by revisiting the valuation after it had been finally determined, effectively disregarding the earlier substantive findings on the number and value of trees.
Issues:
Whether Sections 151 and 152 CPC permit the High Court to correct a decree by overturning a final valuation of trees determined and confirmed through appeal, and whether such correction amounts to an impermissible rehearing of the merits.
Ratio Decidendi:
A decree confirmed on appeal is final, and Sections 151 and 152 CPC do not authorize the correction of substantive valuation decisions; they are confined to arithmetical mistakes. Reconsidering a finally determined valuation under the guise of correction is outside the permissible scope and operates as a revision by another name.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the original valuation and directing payment of the enhanced amount is set aside, and no costs are awarded.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with the Civil Procedure Code governs the present dispute concerning the correction of a decree for compensation awarded for trees acquired under a notification dated December 10, 1964. Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act provides a mechanism for appeals against awards determining compensation, including the valuation of trees, while Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code provide for the correction of decrees to rectify arithmetical mistakes. The reference court confirmed the Land Acquisition Officers valuation of the trees, and the High Court, upon appeal under Section 54, upheld that valuation as final. The learned single Judge later invoked Sections 151 and 152 to revise the decree and substantially enhance the compensation for the trees, which forms the core procedural conflict.
(B) Key legal principles include the finality of a decree once confirmed on appeal, the limited scope of correction under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to arithmetical mistakes, and the inability to revisit substantive valuation findings through a revisionary process when a prior appeal has exhausted all merits.
Facts of the case:
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on December 10, 1964, acquiring 43.14 acres of land with trees. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the trees at Rs. 2,466, a valuation upheld by the reference court and confirmed on appeal by the High Court. Subsequently, an application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC sought to correct the decree, resulting in a new assessment of Rs. 25,39,919.50 for the trees plus additional amounts for solatium and interest.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench held that an appeal would not lie against a decree correction treated as an amendment. The learned single Judge erred by revisiting the valuation after it had been finally determined, effectively disregarding the earlier substantive findings on the number and value of trees.
Issues:
Whether Sections 151 and 152 CPC permit the High Court to correct a decree by overturning a final valuation of trees determined and confirmed through appeal, and whether such correction amounts to an impermissible rehearing of the merits.
Ratio Decidendi:
A decree confirmed on appeal is final, and Sections 151 and 152 CPC do not authorize the correction of substantive valuation decisions; they are confined to arithmetical mistakes. Reconsidering a finally determined valuation under the guise of correction is outside the permissible scope and operates as a revision by another name.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the original valuation and directing payment of the enhanced amount is set aside, and no costs are awarded.
ORDER
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. 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.
3. 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 consideration 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 fact, are useless, save and except the same at best can be used for fuel. Under these circumstances, it cannot be accepted. In the circumstances, 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.
4. 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 evidence, 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 of 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.
Appeal allowed.
*******