1995 JTR(SC) 265
1995 AIR(SCW) 1794 ; 1995 1 CCC(SC) 624 ; 1995 1 CurCC(SC) 624 ; 1995 2 JT 582 ; 1995 2 JT 583 ; 1995 1 MLJ 111 ; 1995 2 Scale 100 ; 1995 3 SCC 316 ; 1994 3 SCJ 127 ; 1995 2 SCR 224 ; 1995 KHC 1303
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.L.Hansaria : K.Ramaswamy
State Of Maharashtra
Versus
Maharau Srawan Hatkar
Case No. : 1800 of 1991
Date of Decision : 2/21/95
Advocates Appeared: Bansal G.K. : Bhasme A.S. : Bhasnic A.S.
Act Referred :LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.13(a), S.23, S.23(1), S.23(1)(a), S.23(2), S.26(2), S.28
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically Sections 13(a), 23, 23(1), 23(1)(a), 23(2), 26(2), and 28, governs the procedure and substance of land acquisition and compensation determination. In this matter, Notification under Section 4(1) was published in 1979 for land acquisition in Village Kasampura for a percolation tank, followed by a compensation award by the Land Acquisition Officer in 1981. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act in 1983. After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 came into force in 1984, the claimants sought additional solatium, compensation, and interest under the Amendment Act. The Civil Judge allowed the application, but the State challenged this before the High Court, which dismissed the appeal. This appeal by special leave questions whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to award enhanced compensation and additional benefits under the Amendment Act after the reference decree was passed. The analysis reveals that Sections 23(1) and 23(2) confer the power to determine compensation, including additional amounts under Section 23(1-A) and interest under Section 28, only at the stage of the original reference decree. Once a decree is passed under Section 26(2), the court is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 13-A of the Act, with Section 151 not applicable except in cases of preventing abuse of process or meeting ends of justice, which is not the present scenario.
(B) The core legal principles are that a reference court's jurisdiction to determine compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is confined to the initial adjudication; subsequent amendments do not empower the court to enhance compensation or award additional solatium and interest once a decree under Section 26(2) is made. The court can only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 13-A of the Act, and broader inherent powers under Section 151 are not available in the absence of fraud or abuse of process.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 13/8/1979 for acquiring land in Village Kasampura for a percolation tank. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on 17/12/1981. At the instance of the claimants, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, on reference under Section 18, enhanced the compensation by his decree dated 25/10/1983. No appeal was preferred against that decree. After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 came into force on 24/9/1984, the claimants applied to the same court for additional compensation, solatium, and interest. The Civil Judge allowed the application on 31/3/1986, awarding enhanced compensation, solatium, and interest. The State preferred an appeal to the High Court, which summarily dismissed it. This appeal by special leave followed.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act after the reference decree. The court observed that Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) envisage additional amounts as part of the initial compensation determination, and interest under Section 28 is consequential only on enhancement of compensation. Once a decree is passed under Section 26(2), the court can only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and the invocation of Section 151 Civil Procedure Code is not available in the present case. The High Court's summary dismissal was therefore erroneous.
Issues:
Whether a civil court has jurisdiction and power to award additional compensation, solatium, and interest under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act after a reference decree has been passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
A reference court determines compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, and any additional amounts under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2), along with interest under Section 28, must be awarded in the original decree. Once a decree is passed under Section 26(2), the court lacks jurisdiction to enhance compensation or award further benefits, being limited to correcting only clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 13-A of the Act, and inherent powers under Section 151 are not applicable.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court and the Civil Judge are set aside, and the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs is made.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically Sections 13(a), 23, 23(1), 23(1)(a), 23(2), 26(2), and 28, governs the procedure and substance of land acquisition and compensation determination. In this matter, Notification under Section 4(1) was published in 1979 for land acquisition in Village Kasampura for a percolation tank, followed by a compensation award by the Land Acquisition Officer in 1981. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Act in 1983. After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 came into force in 1984, the claimants sought additional solatium, compensation, and interest under the Amendment Act. The Civil Judge allowed the application, but the State challenged this before the High Court, which dismissed the appeal. This appeal by special leave questions whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to award enhanced compensation and additional benefits under the Amendment Act after the reference decree was passed. The analysis reveals that Sections 23(1) and 23(2) confer the power to determine compensation, including additional amounts under Section 23(1-A) and interest under Section 28, only at the stage of the original reference decree. Once a decree is passed under Section 26(2), the court is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 13-A of the Act, with Section 151 not applicable except in cases of preventing abuse of process or meeting ends of justice, which is not the present scenario.
(B) The core legal principles are that a reference court's jurisdiction to determine compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is confined to the initial adjudication; subsequent amendments do not empower the court to enhance compensation or award additional solatium and interest once a decree under Section 26(2) is made. The court can only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 13-A of the Act, and broader inherent powers under Section 151 are not available in the absence of fraud or abuse of process.
Facts of the case:
The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 13/8/1979 for acquiring land in Village Kasampura for a percolation tank. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on 17/12/1981. At the instance of the claimants, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, on reference under Section 18, enhanced the compensation by his decree dated 25/10/1983. No appeal was preferred against that decree. After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 came into force on 24/9/1984, the claimants applied to the same court for additional compensation, solatium, and interest. The Civil Judge allowed the application on 31/3/1986, awarding enhanced compensation, solatium, and interest. The State preferred an appeal to the High Court, which summarily dismissed it. This appeal by special leave followed.
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench of the High Court held that the Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act after the reference decree. The court observed that Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) envisage additional amounts as part of the initial compensation determination, and interest under Section 28 is consequential only on enhancement of compensation. Once a decree is passed under Section 26(2), the court can only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and the invocation of Section 151 Civil Procedure Code is not available in the present case. The High Court's summary dismissal was therefore erroneous.
Issues:
Whether a civil court has jurisdiction and power to award additional compensation, solatium, and interest under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act after a reference decree has been passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi:
A reference court determines compensation under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, and any additional amounts under Section 23(1-A) and solatium under Section 23(2), along with interest under Section 28, must be awarded in the original decree. Once a decree is passed under Section 26(2), the court lacks jurisdiction to enhance compensation or award further benefits, being limited to correcting only clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 13-A of the Act, and inherent powers under Section 151 are not applicable.
Result:
The appeal is allowed. The orders of the High Court and the Civil Judge are set aside, and the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs is made.
A.S.BHASME, G.K.BANSAL
(1) SINCE the respondent had not been represented, we requested learned Advocate Shri G.K. Bansal, to assist the court which he accepted and has given good assistance for which we express our gratitude to him.
(2) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High court of Bombay in First Appeal No. 169 of 1987, dated 24/4/1987. Notification under Section 4(1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was published on 13/8/1979 in the State Gazette acquiring the land for percolation tank in Village Kasampura. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 17/12/1981 awarded the compensation. At the instance of the claimants, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in his award and decree dated 25/10/1983, enhanced the compensation. It would appear that no appeal was preferred. After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 had come into force on 24/9/1984, the claimants made an application to the reference court for awarding the enhanced solatium, additional compensation and interest under the Amendment Act. The Civil Judge by his order dated 31/3/1986 allowed the application and awarded as under:
"(I) All the petitioners are entitled to the additional amount of compensation as calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of notification or the date of dispossession, whichever is earlier to the date of the award on the entire market i.e., the market value as assessed by the Special LAO and increased by this court in their respective cases. (ii) The petitioners are also entitled to the solatium at the rate of 30 per cent on the entire market value. (iii) The petitioners are also entitled to the interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act or the date of dispossession, whichever is earlier, till the expiry of one year from that date and thereafter till the date of payment of 15 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation i.e. the total market value plus components, plus solatium at 30 per cent for their respective cases. (iv) Whatever has already been paid on account of market value, solatium, interest shall be deducted from their respective claims."
Dissatisfied therewith, the State carried the matter in appeal and the High Court summarily dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.
(3) THE only question that arises for consideration is whether the civil court has power and jurisdiction to award the benefits of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Shri Bhasme, the learned counsel for the State contended that the civil court gets jurisdiction to determine compensation under Section 23(1 of the Act only on reference. On its making the award enhancing the compensation under Ss. (1 of Section 23, it would be a decree under Section 26(2. The court thereafter has no power to amend the decree except in accordance with law. This is not either a clerical or arithmetical mistake for correction under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code or under Section 13-A of the Act, but is an independent exercise of power. Unless the court is empowered to do so by law, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give the benefits under the Amendment Act.
(4) SHRI G.K. Bansal, learned counsel, on the other hand, contended that since the Civil Procedure Code is made applicable to the proceedings of reference under Section 18, by operation of Section 53 of the Act, the civil court gets inherent power under Section 151 Civil Procedure Code to grant the benefits and that, therefore, the court can pass a fresh order giving the benefits under the Amendment Act.
(5) WE find no force in the contention of Shri Bansal. On receipt of reference under Section 18, the procedure prescribed under S. 19 and 20 of the Act is required to be followed and the civil court determines the compensation in the manner indicated under Ss. (1 of Section 23 of the Act which envisages that in determining the amount of compensation to g be awarded for the land acquired under this Act, the court shall take into consideration clauses first to sixthly mentioned thereunder, while determining the compensation. Ss. (1-A) of Section 23, which was brought by the Amendment Act, and Ss. (2 of Section 23 provide that:
"(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Ss. (1, in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. * * * (2 In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition."
Section 28 envisages that:
"28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.- If the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court: Provided that the award of the court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into court before the date of such expiry."
(6) IT would thus be seen that the additional amounts envisaged under sub-sections (1-A) and (2 of Section 23 are not part of the component of the compensation awarded under Ss. (1 of Section 23 of the Act. They are only in addition to the market value of the land. The payment of interest also is only consequential to the enhancement of the compensation. In a case where the court has not enhanced the compensation on reference, the court is devoid of power to award any interest for one year from the date of taking possession at 9 per cent and 15 per cent thereafter till date of payment into the court as envisaged under the proviso.
(7) SECTION 26 of the Act envisages that:
"(1 Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub- section (1 of Section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts. (2 Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of Section 2, clause (2, and Section 2, clause (9, respectively, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908."
(8) 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 Act or under Section 152 Civil Procedure Code. Though Section 151 Civil Procedure Code gives inherent power to the Court, it is intended only to prevent abuse of the 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 S. 23(1-A) and 23(2 and the interest component under Section 28, the invocation of Section 151 Civil Procedure Code by necessary implication stands excluded.
(9) THUS, we hold that the civil court has inherent lack of jurisdiction and it was devoid of power to entertain the application to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act. The order thereby is clearly a void order. The High court has not applied its mind to this crucial consideration but summarily dismissed the appeal.
(10) THE appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High court and that of the civil court are set aside and the petition stands dismissed. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.