1995 JTR(SC) 870
1996 AIR(SC) 206 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 3940 ; 1996 1 AllCJ 124 ; 1996 27 AllLR 86 ; 1995 3 CCC(SC) 54502 ; 1995 3 CurCC(SC) 545 ; 1996 1 CurLJ 139 ; 1996 DNJ 6 ; 1996 1 ICC 318 ; 1995 7 JT 655 ; 1996 1 MLJ 94 ; 1996 2 RLW(Raj) 4 ; 1996 1 RRR 584 ; 1996 1 RRR 95 ; 1995 5 Scale 178 ; 1995 5 SCC 585 ; 1995 Supp3 SCR 110 ; 1995 2 UJ 718 ; 1995 KHC 929
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Union of India, Appellant
Versus
Rangila Ram (dead) by LRs. Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 7983 of 1995 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No, 5967 of 1988),
D/- 28-8-1995.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.151, S.152
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28, S.23(2), S.13(a)
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with the Civil Procedure Code, governs the acquisition of land and the procedure for awards. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, empowered the issuance of a notification on December 2, 1977, acquiring 267.2675 acres of land in village Bhatotarwan for defence purposes. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on October 23, 1979, which was subject to challenges and enhancements by the District Judge-arbitrator and subsequently by the High Court. The application filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code in 1986 sought amendments to the decree for additional benefits, including solatium and interest, under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The High Court allowed the application, but the Supreme Court held that once an award under the Land Acquisition Act has become final, the Civil Court lacks inherent jurisdiction under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 13(a) of the Land Acquisition Act to amend the decree or award further statutory benefits, as established in subsequent case law.
(B) Key legal principles include the finality of awards under the Land Acquisition Act, the jurisdictional limits of Civil Courts after an award becomes final, and the inapplicability of Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to enhance compensation or solatium post-finalization. The Supreme Court clarified that amendments to the Act do not revive the power of civil courts to alter, correct, or amend a final award, and that such power is entirely ousted once the award is concluded.
Facts of the case:
A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on December 2, 1977, acquiring 267.2675 acres of land in village Bhatotarwan for defence purposes. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on October 23, 1979, which was enhanced by the District Judge-arbitrator and later by the High Court. An application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed in 1986 seeking additional benefits, which was allowed by the High Court, leading to this appeal by special leave.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable after the award had become final. The Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to amend the decree for additional statutory benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, as the civil court's power ceases once the award is final, and no error of law or clerical mistake was apparent.
Issues:
Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to amend the decree under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to award enhanced solatium and interest after the award had become final.
Ratio Decidendi:
The finality of an award under the Land Acquisition Act ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts to alter, amend, or enhance the award or grant additional benefits under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the civil court's inherent powers are exhausted once the award is concluded and no provision for revision exists under the Act.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court's order is set aside, and no costs are awarded.
(A) The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with the Civil Procedure Code, governs the acquisition of land and the procedure for awards. Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, empowered the issuance of a notification on December 2, 1977, acquiring 267.2675 acres of land in village Bhatotarwan for defence purposes. The Land Acquisition Collector made an award on October 23, 1979, which was subject to challenges and enhancements by the District Judge-arbitrator and subsequently by the High Court. The application filed under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code in 1986 sought amendments to the decree for additional benefits, including solatium and interest, under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The High Court allowed the application, but the Supreme Court held that once an award under the Land Acquisition Act has become final, the Civil Court lacks inherent jurisdiction under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code or Section 13(a) of the Land Acquisition Act to amend the decree or award further statutory benefits, as established in subsequent case law.
(B) Key legal principles include the finality of awards under the Land Acquisition Act, the jurisdictional limits of Civil Courts after an award becomes final, and the inapplicability of Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to enhance compensation or solatium post-finalization. The Supreme Court clarified that amendments to the Act do not revive the power of civil courts to alter, correct, or amend a final award, and that such power is entirely ousted once the award is concluded.
Facts of the case:
A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was issued on December 2, 1977, acquiring 267.2675 acres of land in village Bhatotarwan for defence purposes. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on October 23, 1979, which was enhanced by the District Judge-arbitrator and later by the High Court. An application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed in 1986 seeking additional benefits, which was allowed by the High Court, leading to this appeal by special leave.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code was not maintainable after the award had become final. The Court held that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to amend the decree for additional statutory benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, as the civil court's power ceases once the award is final, and no error of law or clerical mistake was apparent.
Issues:
Whether the High Court had the jurisdiction to amend the decree under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to award enhanced solatium and interest after the award had become final.
Ratio Decidendi:
The finality of an award under the Land Acquisition Act ousts the jurisdiction of civil courts to alter, amend, or enhance the award or grant additional benefits under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, as the civil court's inherent powers are exhausted once the award is concluded and no provision for revision exists under the Act.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the High Court's order is set aside, and no costs are awarded.
JUDGEMENT :- Leave granted.
2. On December 2, 1977, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was issued acquiring 267.2675 acres of land in village Bhatotarwan for defence purposes. The award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on October 23, 1979. Against the award, the District Judge-arbitrator by his award dated February 7, 1981, enchanced the compensation and further awarded Rs. 700/- per acre for loss of livelihood/profession. Dissatisfied thereof, both the State as well as the respondent (filed) writ petitions in the High Court which by judgment dated March 15, 1982 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,000/- and 10,000/- per acre respectively. Following that, respondents R.F.A. No. 1209 of 1981, was disposed of on November 5, 1982.
3. An application under Sections 151 and 152, Civil Procedure Code (for short, `C.P.C.) was filed in 1986 before the High Court for amendment of the decree in the cross objections to award them 30% of the solatium 9% interest for the first year and 15% interest thereafter till the date of deposit as per Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 pursuant to the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The High Court allowed the application on November 26, 1987. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
4. The point is no longer res integra. This court has considered the scope of the power of the High Court under Section 151 and 152, C.P.C. and also under Section 13(A) of the Act. This Court has held that once Civil Court made an award as per law then in force which became final and that there is no error of law as on that date. Subsequent amendments does not give power to the Court to amend the decree under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. This was held in State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Sravan Hetkar, (1995) 3 SCC 316 : (1995 AIR SCW 1794) and Union of India v. Pratap Kaur (dead) through LRs.,(1995) 3 SCC 263. In Maharau Sravan Hetkars case, this Court held that the Civil Court lacked inherent jurisdiction and was devoid of the power to entertain an application to award additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The facts therein were that the award had become final and the Amendment Act 68 of the 1984 had come into force on September 24, 1984. The respondents made an application under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. to award enhanced solatium and additional benefits etc. and the civil Court allowed and granted the same. In that context, considering the civil Courts power under Section 151 and 152, C.P.C., this Court laid the above law.
5. In Pratap Kaurs case, (1995 (3) SCC 263), after the award become final, the respondents filed miscellaneous application to demarcate and award compensation on the rates were ordered by the High Court which were accordingly granted and the jurisdiction of the District Court was challenged. Though the High Court had affirmed the order, this Court held that after the award became final, the civil Court was devoid of power or jurisdiction and there was no arithmetical or clerical error in the award. The exercise of the power was independent of reference. Therefore, the civil Court ceased to have any power after the award became final, to alter or correct clerical or arithmetical errors. The civil Court was, therefore, devoid of jurisdiction and power to award or order additional benefits.
6. It would, therefore, be clear that the claimant was not entitled to the additional benefits and Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. cannot be invoked to award the additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The High Court, therefore, has no power to amend the decree to award enhanced statutory benefits. The decree passed by the High Court is clearly without jurisdiction and a nullity.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.
Appeal allowed.