AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J
This appeal is directed against the order dated 27-10-1994 passed in IA No.476 of 1994 in OP No.85 of 1988 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda, reviewing the Order and Decree dated 20-12-1993 passed in the said OP.
The scope of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is to determine the just and adequate compensation. Whether it is the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court, they shall keep in mind the principles in the said Section. While determining the compensation, both the claimants and the State shall be placed on the same pedestal and compensation be determined guided by the relevant factors existing on the date of acquisition supported by evidence, if not by capitalisation method or guess work. Its final result shall appear reasonable. Whenever there is an attempt to circumvent the order determining the compensation or an attempt to misrepresent the Court, such an attempt shall be discouraged.
In the case on hand, the procedure followed by the Court below is quite strange. After disposal of OP No.85 of 1988 on 20-12-1993 enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per acre in respect of the land in question, which was acquired for the purpose of providing house sites to the weaker sections of the society, the trial Court received IA No.476 of 1994 filed under Order 47, Rules (1) and (2) read with Section 151, CPC; whereby the claimants sought to produce the certified copy of Ex.X5 sale-deed relating to some other properly alleged to have been purchased by a Co-operative Society for a sum higher than the compensation ordered by the Court below, and the said 1A to review the compensation awarded in the said OP, was allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed by the State.
A few facts which are necessary for disposal of this case are as follows:
The land admeasuring Ac.5.85 cents in Survey No.4SO and Ac. 1.65 cents in Survey No.481 of Tirumalagiri village & Mandal of Nalgonda District was acquired by the State by issuing the Notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 4-11-1981 for the purpose of providing house sites to the Backward Class people. The said acquisition was opposed by the claimants and they filed claim application. On 25-3-1982 the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.5,000/- per acre. Dissatisfied with the same, a reference was made to the Civil Court u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the said reference was numbered as OP No.35 of 1982 on the file of Sub-Court, Suryapet. Later it was transferred to Sub-Court, Nalgonda and renumbered as OP No.85 of 1988. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimants produced both oral and documentary evidence, including the xerox copy of sale-deed under Ex.X5; but the trial Court refused to accept Ex.X5 on the ground that the same is a xerox copy and that the party connected with the said document was not examined to prove the consideration paid thereunder. The trial Court after considering the entire material on record disposed of the OP on 20-12-1993 by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per acre. The claimants kept quiet till 18-4-1994 and on that day they filed IA No.476 of 1994 seeking review of the order dated 20-12-1993 passed in the said OP, on the ground that at the time of giving evidence they were unable to lay the hands on the original of Ex.X5, but subsequently they were able to secure certified copy of the same and produced along with the said IA, and, as such, the order passed in the said OP, may be reviewed and the compensation be enhanced as the land in question resemble the land in Ex.X5 sale-deed situated in the same village having the same potentiality. The trial Court placing reliance on the certified copy of Ex.X5 sale-deed, allowed IA No.476 of 1994 on 27-10-1994 enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre.
The learned Government Pleader, appearing for the appellant, attacked the order of review passed by the Court below on several grounds. According to her, the trial Court is not justified in reviewing the order by accepting the certified copy of Ex.X5 sale-deed, which in fact was rejected by the same Court when a xerox copy of the same was produced at the time of recording the evidence in the OP. She further contended that reviewing the earlier order in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record is not only illegal, but it amounts to abusing the powers conferred on the trial Court, and that enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.40,000/- is quite exorbitant and unreasonable.
Mr. R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimants supported the order of the trial Court. I le submitted that the order of review is a just one; that when the evidence was led in OP No.85 of 1988, the original or certified copy of Ex.X5 sale-deed was not produced, but subsequently the claimants were able to secure the certified copy of the same and produced before the trial Court; that the trial Court relying on the certified copy of Ex.X5 document is a just one; and that there is no arbitrariness in enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per acre.
Order 47 of the CPC deals with "Review" and Rule I of the said Order, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, reads as follows:
"Order 47, Rule 1 : Application for Review of Judgment:
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2)..... ........... ............"
From a reading of the said provision, it is clear that review can be made only when an error apparent on the face of the record has been pointed out or a mistake has been crept in and unless such a mistake or error is removed, it results in miscarriage of justice. Review cannot be mistaken for an appeal as the scope of appeal is different from the scope of review, which is very much limited. This position has been well explained by the Supreme Court and this Court in catena of decisions.
The claimants-respondents sought review of the order dated 20-12-1993 passed in OP No.85 of 1988 nearly after 3-1/2 months i.e., after expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal before this Court. Secondly, if the claimants had to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the trial Court in OP No.85 of 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation, they were required to pay Court fee on such excess amount of compensation sought for. What the claimants had to do is by filing an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, that too, after fulfilling the mandatory requirements. Just by filing an application for review, the claimants sought to get such a relief. It is not the case of the claimants that they discovered a new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by them at the time when the decree was passed or order made because they were already in possession of xerox copy of EX.X5. It is also not their case that on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record they seek to review the order or they have made out any sufficient reason seeking review. The explanation given by the claimants for non-production of certified copy of Ex.X5 sale-deed at the time of adducing the evidence is not satisfactory. The trial Court should have been diligent of such tricks played by the parties, but it has blindly accepted the version of the claimants and enhanced the compensation from Rs.8,000/-to Rs.40,000/- by allowing the said IA. It is also not shown in the order how its earlier order was suffering from an error apparent on the face of the record or there was any mistake in the said order. If the claimants-respondents had straightaway approached this Court by filing an appeal, probably they would have got more compensation than what the trial Court granted. But, by resorting to such a trick, we have to say that the claimants lost their right. Having reached the conclusion that the application filed by the claimants seeking review of the order dated 20-12-1993 in OP No.85 of 1988 was not a bona fide one, on the other hand they filed the said application only to gain time which they had lost in not filing an appeal as contemplated under law, the order under challenge has to be set aside.
Accordingly, the CMA, is allowed and the impugned order dated 27-10-1994 passed in IA No.476 of 1994 in OP No.85 of 1988 is set aside. No costs.