Sheo Shankar Singh vs State of Bihar and Another

Binod Kumar Roy, J.—The petitioner has come up against an order rejecting his application by which he had prayed for correction of accidental omissions/clerical errors in the judgment and decree (award) in a Land Acquisition Proceeding.

The facts are short and simple.

Section 23(2) of the unamended Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was to the following effect:

In addition to the market value of the land as above provided the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.

By the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 in Sub-section (2) of Section 23 aforesaid for the words "fifteen per centum" the words "thirty per centum" were substituted.

Section 34 of the unamended Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was to the following effect:

When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited.

By the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 in the aforementioned Section for the words "six per centum" the words "nine per centum" were substituted apart from adding a proviso which runs as follows:

Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within 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 compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.

By the judgment dated 14th September, 1987, the Land Acquisition case in question was allowed in part, but without cost, holding that the petitioner would be entitled to 15% solatium on the amount of compensation determined and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the time of taking possession till, the realisation of the compensation awarded. An award was also drawn up on similar terms.

An application u/s 152 of the CPC was filed praying to correct the rate of solatium from 15% to 30% and the rate of interest from 6% to 9% in the judgment and decree (award) on the ground that due to an accidental slip and oversight, the rate of solatium and interest has been passed by overlooking the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act which had become operative from 24th, September, 1984. By the impugned order the said application was rejected on the ground that the appellate court alone is competent to rectify the mistakes and that in no circumstance the court is competent to rectify the mistake since final judgment have been given by it.

Shri Hussain, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the court below has completely misconceived the provisions of Section 152 of the CPC which confers jurisdiction to correct accidental mistakes or omissions as well as clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments and decrees.

Learned Advocate General for the State of Bihar on the other hand contended that the errors were such which could not be corrected under the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In the Palace Administration Board v. Rama Verma Bharathan Thampuran and Ors. : [1980]3SCR187 , while considering a review application it was observed as follows by the Supreme Court:

"Horace Wrote" But if Homer who is good nods for a mement, I think it a shame we in the Supreme Court, do no despite great care to be correct, and once a clear error in our judgment is revealed no sense of shame or infallibility complex obsesses us or dissuades this Court from the anxiety to be ultimately right, not consistently wrong.

In my view the observations made by the apex court also applies to cases pending before any court in which there has been accidental omissions, slips, clerical/arithmetical mistakes and the court should not be obsess any shame or infallibility complex.

In Nandlal Tanti and Others Vs. Jagdeo Singh and Others, , it was held to the effect that, where, however, the judgment awards cost to a party, it implies costs deemed, to be such according to rules and if the Decree is not in accordance with Rule, even though an appeal lies against awarding costs, the court had jurisdiction to amend the decree for costs.

In Chatti Narasimhamurti and Others Vs. Narayanasetti Jagannaikulu, , it was held to the effect that errors in specifying the rate of interest contrary to statutory provisions could be amended in judgment and decree u/s 152 of the Code.

In Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Another, while considering Rule 83 of the Orissa Sales Tax Rules, 1927, which is similar to Section 152 of the Code, it was held to the effect-that the cause for such an accidental slip or omission may be the Judge''s in advertence.

In Tulsipur Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. interpreting Section 6(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, which is in terms identical with Section 152 of the Code it was held to the effect that the correctional jurisdiction is in consonance with the first and foremost principle that no party should suffer any detriment on account of mistake or an error committed by an adjudicating authority.

In Jayakrishna Mangaraj Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Another, a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court held that statutory interest provided u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is an integral part of the decree to be passed by the court and the court while determining the compensation under the Act, has to award the same and an omission to award statutory interest is an error which can be cured by the court in exercise of its power u/s 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In Harswarup v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1986 Allahabad Law Journal 785, the Allahabad High Court held that:

Section 152 of CPC is couched in such a form that it embraces all bona fide mistakes. It is better to specify that an arithmetical mistake is a mistake of calculation while clerical mistake is of a writing or typing, that an accidental slip or error is an error due to careless mistake or omission unintentionally made and that such mistake should be apparent on the face of the record. Further it should not depend for its discovery on elaborate arguments on question of law and facts. I am in full agreement with aforementioned ratio.

It is thus clear that omission to grant interest and solatium under amended Sections 23 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act amounted to an error analogus to one apparent on the face of the record in which practically no detailed argument was required.

It was/is no bodies case that an appeal against the judgment and decree in question was/is pending and in that view of the matter, the court below was wholly unjustified in rejecting the petition in question on the ground that only the court of appeal can correct that mistake. I am of the view that the petitioner would also suffer an irreparable injury if the impugned order is allowed to stand.

For the reasons stated, I am of the view that the court below has acted illegally in refusing to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it u/s 152 of the CPC while passing the impugned order.

In the result, this Civil Revision application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to correct the judgment and decree (award) in terms as prayed by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.