Maya Devi and others vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

H.N. Seth C.J. and M.S. Liberhan, J.—In pursuance of the notification published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on July 28, 1978, 5.46 acres of land within the revenue estate of village Dadu Majra was acquired by the Union Territory of Chandigarh for the construction of water works scheme for Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector, after hearing the claimants, including the applications in the two civil miscellaneous applications, determined the market price of the acquired land on the basis of agricultural land ranging between Rs. 46.50 per acre and Rs. 20000/ per acre depending upon its quality. As the claimants did not feel satisfied with the adequacy of compensation, they sought various references under Section 18 of the Act, and as a result thereof, the Land Acquisition Court, Chandigarh, enhanced the rate of compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 37,000/ per acre, Still not satisfied with this rate of compensation, the two applicants preferred R.F.As Nos. 2321 and 2323 of 1980 before this Court.

After admission, and on consideration of the entire matter, the learned Single Judge by his order dated December 9, 1981, enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 40,000/ per acre with statutory solatium and interest at 15 per cent and 6 per cent, respectively, on the enhanced amount of compensation. Still not satisfied, the applications preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were allowed and the case were remanded to this Court for disposal by a Division Bench, to be decided in accordance with the observations made by that Court.

On remand, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the compensation awarded to the applicants was to be enhanced and calculated at a flat rate of Rs. 62,000/ per acre instead of Rs. 40,000/ per acre, as had been done by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judges further directed that besides the enhanced compensation, the claimants were also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter upto the date of payment at the rate of 15 per cent.

The applicants have now moved the present application praying that the order passed by the Division Bench dated March 25, 1985, be further modified and the applicants should be allowed further compensation as envisaged by section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as introduced by Central Act 68 of 1984, with effect from September 24, 1984.

Section 23(1) of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the Court has to take into consideration various factors enumerated therein. The newly inserted provision, namely, subsection (1A) of section 23 lays down that the Court has to, in addition to the market value of the land determined under Section 23(1), award an amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, subsection (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. It is apparent that in cases decided after September 24, 1984, it is the duty of the Court to award the additional compensation envisaged by subsection (1A) of section 23 of the Act.

Learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration argued that the provisions of section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984) which lays down that the provisions of subsection (1A) of section 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act, pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment), Bill 1982, in the House of the People) in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date, are not applicable to the present proceedings, inasmuch the award in the instant case had been made prior to April 30, 1982. He, therefore, contends that the applicants cannot claim the benefit of the newly added subsection (1A) of section 23. For this purpose, he relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal, 1987 P.L.R. 688 : 1987 R.R.R. 358.

It may be that, as held by the Full Bench, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of section 23(1A) by virtue of section 30 of Act 68 of 1984, but then as held by Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dandeli v. Soma Gopal Gowda, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 179, the provisions of section 23(1A) would, on their own, and without recourse of section 30 of Act 68 of 1984, be applicable to cases where the proceedings for determination of compensation were pending in an appeal on or after September 24, 1984, irrespective of the fact whether or not an award had been made prior to April 30, 1982. As in this case, regular first appeal in respect of the proceedings for determination of compensation were decided after September 24, 1984, the Court should have, while adjudicating upon the amount of compensation payable to the application, awarded to the applicants additional amount in terms of Section 23(1A) as well.

Learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration next submitted that the prayer made by the applicants, in substance, amounts to a prayer for review of the judgment of this Court, dated March 25, 1985, for which limitation is 30 days. In the circumstances, the present application for amending the judgment which has been filed only in the month of January, 1987 i.e. after a lapse of about two years, is hopelessly barred by limitation. The applicants have neither prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the said application, nor have they offered any explanation for the same. In the circumstances, the applications deserve to be dismissed as barred by time.

Having given our careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Union Territory, we do not find any merit 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 aria, first determine market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1) of the Act. Subsection (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 subsection (1A) 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 under Section 4, subsection (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 under Section 23 is the determination of the market value of the acquired property and the obligation to award additional amounts mentioned in subsection (1A) and subsection (2) of section 23 follow as of course after making arithmetical calculations. A perusal of the judgment darted 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 section 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 subsection (1A) 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 arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or order or 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, and that such a mistake can, as held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nand Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, A.I.R. 1982 Punjab and Haryana 184, be rectified at any time.

Before parting with the case we may observe that learned counsel for the respondent cited a number of cases before us in support of his submission that inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised for the purposes of reviewing an erroneous judgment which can be corrected by means of a review application under Order 47, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed within the period of limitation prescribed therefor. However, in the view which we have taken in this case, namely, that the present application falls within the ambit of section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not necessary for us to discuss the submission made by the learned counsel with regard to the applicability of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Suffice it to say that the learned counsel did not urge that if the application is treated as falling under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would still be barred by limitation.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the civil miscellaneous applications Nos. 20CI of 1987 in R. F. A. No. 2321 of 1980 and 32CI of 1987 in R.F.A. 2323 of 1980 are allowed and we modify the judgment of this Court dated March 25, 1985 in R.F.A. Nos. 2321 of 1980 and 2323 of 1980 and direct that in addition to the amount of compensation determined by the court, the applicants should also be entitled to an amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the market value determined by the Court for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the land which has been acquired, to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever be earlier.

Order according.