State of Punjab and Others vs Sarasti Devi and Others

G.C. Garg, J.—This order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 of 1988 as the question of law and fact arising in all these petitions is common.

Land situated in Village Depur and 13 other villages was acquired for a public purpose i.e. for constructing. Mukerain Hydel Channel Project, Talwara. Landowners felt aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector dated 11.19.1981, who awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8010.40 per acre (Equivalent to 6080 per Ghumaon) apart from solatium at the rate of 15%, and consequently sought references u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, by his award and decree dated 3.3.1983 came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per ghumaon for their respective areas, besides solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It seems that this award became final as learned counsel for the parties did not bring to my notice any other subsequent order or award in this behalf. It seems that claimants moved an application u/s 151 152 and 153 of the CPC for amendment of the award dated 3.3.1983. According to the claimants/applicants, they were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% besides other benefits u/s 23(1-A), solatium at the rate of 30% u/s 23(2) of the Act and interest as per the mandatory provisions of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur by order dated 7.8.1987 allowed the applications. It was held that the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the acquired and u/s 23(2) of the Act and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of possession till the date of actual payment. It is this order of the learned Additional District Judge, which is under challenge in these revision petitions at the instance of the State of Punjab.

Mr. Hemant Gupta, Additional Advocate General, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur has wrongly noticed in his order dated 7.8.1987, that the award in this case was given on 3.3.1983. According to the learned counsel the award in this case, in fact, was given by the Land Acquisition Collector on 11.9.1981. This factual position could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. In the wake of the above position, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that learned Additional District Judge gravely erred in granting the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act to the landowners. On a consideration of the matter, I find that this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has merit, particularly, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Punjab Vs. Anudeep Kaur and others, , wherein it was held that where the award was made by the Collector prior to the introduction of the Bill in the Lok Sabha, Section 23(1-A) of the Act has no application to the award.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that apart from the above position, the learned Additional District Judge gravely erred in entertaining the application for amendment of the award dated 3.3.1983. According to the learned counsel, the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application for amendment of the award already made by the reference Court.

In Union of India v. Swaran Singh and Ors., 1996(5) Supreme Court Cases 501, the Collector made an award u/s 11 of the Act on 28.8.1978. On reference u/s 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge, enhanced the compensation by his award dated 24.12.1981 which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge and on appeal, by a Division Bench of the High Court. Applications were moved in the year 1987 Under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC in the High Court for awarding enhanced solatium and interest u/s 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 and 1984. These applications were allowed by the High Court. However, the Executing Court declined to give the benefit to the landowners and dismissed the execution applications. The High Court on revision, set aside the order of the executing court and directed it to grant enhanced solatium and interest. In this situation, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had no power or jurisdiction to entertain any application u/s 151 and 152 of the CPC to correct a decree which has become final or to independently pass an award enhancing the solatium and interest in terms of the amended Act 68 of 1984 and held that the order of the High Court granting the benefit of the provisions of Sections 23(1-A) 23(2) and 28 of the Act was clearly without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity. It consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court.

In Bai Shakriben (dead) by Natwar Melsingh and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, , the Apex Court held that where the award of reference court was made after the amended Act was introduced in Parliament and the decree was allowed to become final, the subsequent application moved under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the CPC for amendment of the decree for award of benefit Under Sections 23(1-A) 23(2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 could not be granted either by the executing court or by the reference court by going behind the decree or by amending the same. It went on to say that omission to award additional amount, solatium and interest under the amended provisions does not amount to a clerical or arithmetical mistake. It consequently dismissed the appeal filed by the claimants as it came to the conclusion that it would have been proper for the claimants to have gone in appeal and have the matter corrected which, unfortunately, they did not claim and the decree became final.

From the above, it is clear that the matter is no longer res integra and the ref-erence court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application and amend the award al-ready made by it in the guise of a clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award.

In view of the above, these revision petitions are allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside, but with no order as to costs.