1995 JTR(SC) 157
1995 25 AllLR 461 ; 1995 2 CCC(SC) 78 ; 1995 2 CurCC(SC) 78 ; 1995 1 GLH 844 ; 1995 2 JT 569 ; 1995 1 MLJ 106 ; 1995 2 PLR(SC) 638 ; 1995 2 RRR 169 ; 1995 2 Scale 118 ; 1995 3 SCC 263 ; 1995 1 SCR 670 ; 1995 KHC 1296
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Versus
PRATAP KAUR (SMT) (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANOTHER
Civil Appeals Nos. 3179-81 and 3182-87 of 1995{From the Judgment and Order dated 20-11-1992 and 21-5-1993 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 23019 of 1992, R.A. No. 20CII of 1993 and C.M. No. 2262 of 1993, R.A. No. 14 CII of 1993, C.R. No. 3170 of 1992, R.As. Nos. 16 CII of 1993, 15CII of 1993, 17CII, 18CII, 19CII of 1993, C.R. Nos. 3171-75 of 1992}
Decided on 27-1-1995
Advocates appeared:
N.N. Goswamy, Senior Advocate (Ms Anil Katiyar, Naveen Prakash and Ms A. Subhashini, Advocates, with him) for the Appellants;
Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate (Ms Madhu Moolchandani, Advocate, with him) for the Respondents.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.152
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.23(1), S.13(a), S.54, S.26
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 23(1), 13(a), 54, 26 and Civil Procedure Code section 152 govern the acquisition of land for a military cantonment extension at Bhatinda, with section 26 empowering the civil court to make awards and section 54 granting the High Court appellate power to correct errors. The notification under section 4(1) fixed compensation rates, and the Division Bench determined that land within 500 metres of Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road should be assessed at Rs 90,000 per acre, a decision confirmed after review. The civil courts jurisdiction is limited to correcting clerical errors under section 13-A, and the appellate authority under section 54 is coextensive with civil court powers to determine compensation and belting. The civil court acted beyond jurisdiction by independently reassessing belting after the High Courts final award.
(B) Key legal principles include: appellate courts under section 54 can determine compensation and belting; civil courts under section 26 can only make awards and correct clerical or arithmetical errors under section 13-A; identification of land within belting is not a clerical error; civil courts lack jurisdiction to alter awards after they are made; and orders determining compensation are final and binding.
Facts of the case:
The notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in 1981 for acquiring land for a military cantonment extension at Bhatinda. Compensation was determined by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which held that land within 500 metres of Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road should be assessed at Rs 90,000 per acre. The Additional District Judge, upon application for demarcation and award, passed an order identifying specific land parcels and awarding compensation at that rate. The appellants challenged this order by special leave, arguing that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to award compensation at that rate after the High Courts determination.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Judge exceeded jurisdiction by independently determining compensation and belting after the High Courts final appellate order. The identification of land within the 500metre belt was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake within the meaning of section 13-A or section 152 CPC. The High Courts dismissal of the review petitions without addressing jurisdiction was erroneous. The allowance of the appeals and setting aside of the impugned order is necessary to correct the legal error.
Issues:
Whether the District Judge had power and jurisdiction to award compensation at Rs 90,000 per acre for land within the 500metre belt after the High Courts final determination; whether such an order fell within the scope of section 13-A correction or constituted an independent exercise of appellate power; and whether the civil court could alter the award after it was made.
Ratio Decidendi:
The civil courts jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act is confined to making the initial award and correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. Once the High Court exercises its appellate power under section 54 to determine compensation and belting, the civil court lacks authority to reassess or alter the award, and any such order is a nullity.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and respondents may approach the High Court for appropriate relief. No costs are awarded.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, sections 23(1), 13(a), 54, 26 and Civil Procedure Code section 152 govern the acquisition of land for a military cantonment extension at Bhatinda, with section 26 empowering the civil court to make awards and section 54 granting the High Court appellate power to correct errors. The notification under section 4(1) fixed compensation rates, and the Division Bench determined that land within 500 metres of Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road should be assessed at Rs 90,000 per acre, a decision confirmed after review. The civil courts jurisdiction is limited to correcting clerical errors under section 13-A, and the appellate authority under section 54 is coextensive with civil court powers to determine compensation and belting. The civil court acted beyond jurisdiction by independently reassessing belting after the High Courts final award.
(B) Key legal principles include: appellate courts under section 54 can determine compensation and belting; civil courts under section 26 can only make awards and correct clerical or arithmetical errors under section 13-A; identification of land within belting is not a clerical error; civil courts lack jurisdiction to alter awards after they are made; and orders determining compensation are final and binding.
Facts of the case:
The notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in 1981 for acquiring land for a military cantonment extension at Bhatinda. Compensation was determined by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which held that land within 500 metres of Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road should be assessed at Rs 90,000 per acre. The Additional District Judge, upon application for demarcation and award, passed an order identifying specific land parcels and awarding compensation at that rate. The appellants challenged this order by special leave, arguing that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to award compensation at that rate after the High Courts determination.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the District Judge exceeded jurisdiction by independently determining compensation and belting after the High Courts final appellate order. The identification of land within the 500metre belt was not a clerical or arithmetical mistake within the meaning of section 13-A or section 152 CPC. The High Courts dismissal of the review petitions without addressing jurisdiction was erroneous. The allowance of the appeals and setting aside of the impugned order is necessary to correct the legal error.
Issues:
Whether the District Judge had power and jurisdiction to award compensation at Rs 90,000 per acre for land within the 500metre belt after the High Courts final determination; whether such an order fell within the scope of section 13-A correction or constituted an independent exercise of appellate power; and whether the civil court could alter the award after it was made.
Ratio Decidendi:
The civil courts jurisdiction under the Land Acquisition Act is confined to making the initial award and correcting clerical or arithmetical errors. Once the High Court exercises its appellate power under section 54 to determine compensation and belting, the civil court lacks authority to reassess or alter the award, and any such order is a nullity.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and respondents may approach the High Court for appropriate relief. No costs are awarded.
A.Subhashini, ANIL KATIYAR, ARUN JAITLEY, MADHU MULCHANDANI, N.N.GOSWAMY, NAVIN PRAKASH
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order dated 14-5-1995 and 20-11-1992 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made in Review Application No. 20 CII of 1993 and CM No. 2262 of 1993 and CR No. 3019 of 1992 respectively.
3. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the Act, was published initially on 31-3-1981 acquiring a large extent of land in Gobindpura and other places for extension of military cantonment at Bhatinda. In the determination of compensation, the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA No. 1349 of 1989 and batch ultimately held that:
"Consequently we venture to make the modification in the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the land falling within a depth of 500 metres on either side of Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road shall also be assessed at the rate of Rs 90,000 per acre as its market value...."
That order appears to have become final. Subsequently the respondents filed an application before the Additional District Judge in Civil Miscellaneous No. 75 of 10-8-1991 for demarcation and award of compensation to the 500 metres as ordered by the High Court. By order dated 16-12-1991 the Additional District Judge held that:
"From the evidence discussed above, it is crystal clear that the land measuring 70 kanals 13 marlas belonging to Naib Singh etc., land measuring 141 kanals 1 marla belonging to Gurdial Singh etc., land measuring 30 kanals 3 marlas belonging to Partap Kaur etc., land measuring 40 kanals 10 marlas belonging to Bhagwan Kaur etc., land measuring 48 kanals belonging to Gurdial Kaur etc., and land measuring 3 kanals i.e. 1/12 share of 35 kanals 9 marlas belonging to Sadhy Singh are within 500 metres from Bathinda-Bibiwala Road. I may add here that the evidence of the applicants remained unchanged despite opportunities given to the UOI. On the other hand, the officials of the department concerned have appeared in the witness box as AW 1, AW 2 and AW 5 to support the case of the claimants. Even otherwise from the interpretation of judgment Ex. A-3 it clearly goes to show that the land which falls within the depth of 500 metres from either side of Bathinda-Bibiwala Road, should be assessed at rate of Rs 90,000 per acre. The land of the applicants adjoins the land which as per evidence on record, was assessed at the rate of Rs 90,000 per acre. I, therefore, accepting the applications, direct the Naib Tehsildar (MLA) Bhatinda to prepare the amended memo of costs in respect of the abovesaid land of the applicants at the rate of Rs 90,000 per acre. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
Calling in question the above order the appellants filed revision in the High Court. The High Court dismissed the revision in limine. Thereafter the review petitions also stood dismissed. Thus these appeals by special leave.
4. The question that arises in these appeals is whether the District Judge has power and jurisdiction to award compensation @ Rs 90,000 per acre to the area coming within the belt of 500 metres as ordered by the Division Bench of the High Court.
5. Section 26 of the Act gives power to the civil court to give award thus:
"(1) Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of subsection (1) of Section 23, and...."
Section 13-A of the Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984 provides power for correcting clerical errors thus:
"13-A. Correction of clerical errors, etc.- (1) The Collector may, at any time but not later than six months from the date of the award, or where he has been required under Section 18 to make a reference to the Court, before the making of such reference, by order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the application of any person interested or a local authority:
Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicially any person shall be made unless such person has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter."
[Sub-sections (2) and (3) are not material for the purpose of this case, hence omitted.]
6. Perforce, it has no application to the civil court. Even if the principle is extended to the civil court, the court committed manifest error of jurisdiction in allowing the application, as it did not correct any clerical error.
7. A conjoint reading of Sections 26 and 13-A of the Act clearly indicates that while making the award and determining the compensation under clause first of sub-section (1) of Section 23 the Collector had jurisdiction to determine the compensation including belting for the purpose of determining market value and correct clerical and arithmetical mistakes committed in making the award. The High Court had exercised appellate power under Section 54 of the Act. Appellate power is coextensive with that of the civil court. Therefore, the High Court, while exercising the appellate power, could also decide belting. The Division Bench in the LPA while determining the compensation under clause first of sub-section (1) of Section 23 had identified belting up to a depth of 500 metres and directed payment of compensation for that land at Rs 90,000 per acre. When the High Court exercised the appellate power, without any order of remand or calling for a finding, the District Judge was devoid of power or jurisdiction to correct any error either under Section 13-A of the Act or under Section 152 CPC, that too beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 13-A itself. The identification of the land is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake within the meaning of Section 13-A or Section 152 CPC. It is an independent exercise of the power for the purpose of determination of the compensation under clause first of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. With making the award under Section 26 of the Act the civil court ceased to have power to alter the award except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The action of the Additional District Judge was an independent one without reference or an order of remand or the High Court calling a finding from it. The civil court, therefore, was devoid of jurisdiction and power to pass the impugned award or order, as stated by the Additional District Judge; and that too after it had made the award.
8. Since the Additional District Judge was not called upon to determine the compensation after identification of the land within the belting of 500 metres as determined by the Division Bench, the order of the District Judge is clearly without jurisdiction and power and is a nullity. Therefore, the High Court was not right in dismissing the application without adverting to these material questions touching the jurisdiction and power of the Additional District Judge. Though Shri Arun Jetley, learned Senior Counsel repeatedly requested this Court not to interfere under Article 136, it is necessary to correct legal error to set the procedure in order.
9. The appeals are accordingly allowed. It is open to the respondents, if so advised, to approach the High Court for appropriate relief and it is for the High Court to consider and dispose it of according to law. No costs.
In C.As. Nos. 3182-87 of 1995 [@ SLPs (C) Nos. 18320-25 of 1994]
10. Leave granted. Substitution allowed.
11. In view of the above judgment, these appeals also are allowed. No costs.
For Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 263