Kehar Singh vs Union of India and another

A.L. Bahri, J.—This application has been filed on behalf of Kehar Singh under sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC read with section 30 of Central Act No. 68 of 1984.

Land measuring 1646 Kanals 2 Marlas situated in revenue estate of Landeke, Dusanjh and Moga Mehla Singh was requisitioned for a public purpose in December, 1965. The said land was acquired subsequently vide notification dated February 4, 1972 u/s 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1962. The Special Land Acquisition Collector passed an order on March 15, 1972 fixing the compensation of the acquired land. The matter was referred to the Arbitrator appointed u/s 8(1)(b) of the said Act. The Arbitrator gave the award. The matter was taken up in the High Court. A Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the compensation but declined the claim for solatium. Letters Patent Appeal No. 872 of 1981 was filed which was decided on December 21, 1982. The appeal was accepted. Solatium at the rate of 15 per cent of the compensation fixed was allowed in addition to market value of the land.

On September 24, 1984, Central Act No. 68 of 1984 came into force. Different provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were amended. Instead of 15 per cent, solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum for the first year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter were allowed. These amended provisions were made applicable to all awards given by the Courts after April 30, 1982 as provided u/s 30(2) and (3) of the Amending Act. Since Letters Patent Appeal was decided on December 21, 1982 i.e. after April 30, 1982, the applicant prays for 30 per cent solatium and interest as allowed by Central Act No. 69 of 1981 in the present application. Notice of the application was given to the respondents. A reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents contesting the application inter alia on the allegations that the application is barred by time: this should be treated as a review application; the grant of interest is discretionary with the Court: there is no justification for enhancing the same no request has been made for condonation of delay and that Central Act No. 68 of 1984 will not be applicable to the proceedings under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act.

The matter in controversy is covered by two decisions of this Court as has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. In Maya Devi and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh 1988 P.L.J. 189. H.N. Seth C. Land M.S. Liberhan J. in para 9 of the judgment observed as under:-

Having given our careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Union Territory, we do not find any (sic) in it. A perusal of section 23(1) of the land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with matters to be considered for determining compensation payable for the land acquired under the Act shows that for determining such compensation, the Court has to inter alia, first determine market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4 sub-section (1) of the Act. Sub-section (2) provides that in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall in each case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Likewise, the newly inserted sub-section (1-A) of section 23 provides for payment of additional 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 u/s 4, sub-section (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. As a matter of fact, what requires adjudication u/s 23 is the determination of the market value of the acquired property and the obligation to award additional amounts mentioned in sub-section (1-A) and sub-section (2) of section 23 follow as of course after making arithmatical calculations. A perusal of the judgment dated March 25, 1985 clearly brings out that the Bench while disposing of the appeal before it was of the opinion that over and above the market price determined by it the applicants were to be given the benefits of various sections of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984. It was by an accidental slip that a clerical error had occurred in the judgment of the Division Bench when it omitted to mention in the order that the applicants were also to be given the benefit of sub-section (1-A) as inserted in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act by Act 68 of 1984. The case, in our opinion, squarely falls within the ambit of section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down that clerical or arithmatical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders of errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.

The same Bench in The Board of the Nawan Mission America of the Church America, through Dr. W.S. Thfophilus, Jullundur City v. The Union of India (1988-1) 93 P.L.R. 4, took the view that benefit of Central Act No. 64 of 1984 can be given in cases under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act. No argument has been put forth on behalf of the respondents to differ with the ratio of the decisions referred to above. Thus, it is held that the present application is maintainable u/s 152 of the CPC for making correction in the judgment delivered in the Letter Patents Appeal to give benefit of the provisions of Central Act No. 68 of 1984.

The learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the matter of grant of interest is discretionary with the Court and it should not be a subject matter of review. In support of this contention, reliance has been placed upon the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Jaiwant Laxman P. Sardesai and Vs. Government of Goa and Another etc., , wherein it was observed in para 9 of the judgment that the grant of enhanced rate of interest prescribed under proviso to section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is within the discretionary power of the Court. This judgment is not at all helpful to the respondents: rather in this case also effect was given to the amendment of Land Acquisition Act in all cases pending as on April 30, 1982. The other judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents is of J.V. Gupta J. In Jai Narain and Co. v. Market Committee, Sonepat 1988 P.L.J. 187, wherein interest at the rate of 6 per cent was allowed on the amount of market fee which was illegally recovered. No benefit can be derived by the respondents from this judgment as the interest is not being allowed under the Interests Act. The enhanced rate is to be allowed as provided under Central Act No. 68 of 1984.

For the reasons recorded above, this application is allowed. The judgment dated December 21, 1982 in L.P.A. No. 872 of 1981 is amended to the extent that on the amount of market value as determined by this Court, the applicant would be entitled to 30 per cent instead of 15 per cent solatium on the principles of section 23(2) of the amended Land Acquisition Act and also to the interest at the rate of 9 per cent for the first year and thereafter at the rare of 15 per cent from the date possession of the land was taken and to the date of the payment of such excess amount in accordance with the principles contained in section 28 of the amended Land Acquisition Act. There will be no order as to costs.