Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

CM No. 15395/2004 in RFA 52/1994

Advocates

PRESENT: Mr. Ghanshyam Vashisht, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for the Respondent.

Judges

B.C Patel
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

Acts

SECTION 4 LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Section 28, the invocation of Section 151 CPC
Sections 151 and 152 of Civil Procedure Code
Section 52 CPC.6. Though Section 151 of CPC
Section 151 of Civil Procedure Court.4.
Amendment Act, i.e Act 68 of 1984
Amendment Act 68 of 1984

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Summary of the Opinion — B.C. Patel, C.J. (Oral)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Union of India issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 27.01.1984 and a declaration under Section 6 on 24.09.1984 for lands at Village Amber Hai. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) awarded compensation at Rs. 13,000/- per bigha for category A and Rs. 11,000/- per bigha for category B. Aggrieved claimants filed a reference under Section 18; the Reference Court (LAC No. 7/93) determined the fair market price and awarded compensation at Rs. 36,400/- per bigha as on the date of notification for all land types.

The claimants appealed to the High Court (RFA 619/1993 — Sita Ram v. Union of India). The High Court granted higher compensation of Rs. 47,224/- per bigha and additional statutory benefits (12% under Section 23(1A), solatium at 30%, interest on the excess amount at specified rates, and proportionate costs). The Division Bench's judgment was dated 26.03.1999.

The present application by the claimant (moved under Sections 151 and 152 CPC) seeks modification/clarification of the 26.03.1999 judgment to the extent that appellants should receive interest on the solatium and on the additional amount granted. The applicant relies on the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India (decided 19.09.2001) to support entitlement to interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the applicant can obtain interest on solatium and on the additional amount awarded by the High Court judgment of 26.03.1999 by way of a clarification or modification under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Whether a subsequent decision of the Apex Court (Sunder v. Union of India, decided on 19.09.2001) can be relied upon to reopen or vary a judgment which the parties accepted and did not challenge further?
Whether Sections 151 and 152 CPC can be invoked to grant enhanced solatium and interest (as amended by the Amendment Act 68 of 1984) once the reference award or appellate decree has become final?

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The applicant argued that the Division Bench was urged in the earlier appeal that claimants were entitled to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and interest; while additional amount was granted, interest was not granted.
The applicant relied on the Apex Court decision in Sunder v. Union of India (19.09.2001) which, according to the applicant, holds that a person entitled to compensation is also entitled to interest on the aggregate amount including solatium; the applicant seeks application of that principle to the earlier judgment by clarification/modification under Sections 151 and 152 CPC.
The applicant also pointed to RFA No. 385/1978 (Shri Bhulan v. Land Acquisition Collector & Others) where the Court purportedly directed that Sunder would be applicable and the benefit extended despite disposal of an appeal.

Respondent's Arguments

The respondent submitted that once a decision is rendered and not challenged further, the benefits of subsequent decisions cannot be granted to parties who accepted the earlier judgment.
The respondent relied on the Apex Court's decision in Desraj (decd.) through Legal Representatives & Others v. Union of India (JT 2004 8 SC 202) to support the proposition that benefits of later favorable decisions cannot be extended to appellants who did not pursue the matter further.
The respondent also relied on a line of precedents establishing that Sections 151 and 152 CPC cannot be used to alter a final decree to grant enhanced solatium and interest as introduced by Amendment Act 68 of 1984; where express statutory provisions govern compensation (Sections 23 and 28 of the Act), invocation of Section 151 CPC is excluded by necessary implication.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sita Ram v. Union Of India (RFA 619/1993)	Used by the High Court to determine enhanced compensation and statutory benefits in the appeal leading to the 26.03.1999 judgment.	The Division Bench's earlier judgment relied on this decision to award Rs. 47,224/- per bigha and specified statutory benefits; it forms part of the factual and procedural history of the present application.
Sunder v. Union Of India (Apex Court, decided 19.09.2001)	Held that the person entitled to compensation is also entitled to interest on the aggregate amount including solatium.	The applicant relied on this decision to seek interest on solatium and additional amount; the Court observed Sunder was decided after the Division Bench judgment (1999) and therefore cannot be used to reopen the final judgment unless reserved or applied retrospectively.
Desraj (decd.) through Legal Representatives & Others v. Union of India (JT 2004 8 SC 202)	Principle that once a judgment is rendered and not challenged, benefits of subsequent decisions cannot be granted to a party who accepted the earlier judgment.	The respondent relied on this case; the Court treated it as supporting the proposition that the applicant cannot claim benefits of a later decision after accepting a judgment.
State Of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, 1995 (3) SCC 316	Where a decree has been made under Section 26(2) of the Act, the Civil Court can correct only clerical or arithmetical mistakes as envisaged under Section 13-A of the Act or under Section 52 CPC.	Cited to support the proposition that courts lack power to reopen or enhance a final decree by invoking Sections 151/152 CPC.
Union of India v. Swaran Singh, (1996) 5 SCC 501	Affirms that after a final award/decree under Section 26(2) or on appeal, the only remedy is correction of clerical/arithmetic mistakes; enhancements (solatium/interest) are part of the judgment when the court itself enhances compensation; Amendment Act 68 of 1984 applies only if proceedings pending on its commencement.	The Court relied on paras 7 and 8 to conclude that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain independent applications under Sections 151 and 152 to grant enhanced solatium and interest, and that grants by the High Court in that manner are without jurisdiction and nullities.
Union Of India v. Rangila Ram (1995) 5 SCC 585	Once a civil court makes an award in accordance with the law then in force which becomes final and there is no error of law as on that date, subsequent amendments do not give power to the court to amend the decree under Sections 151 and 152 CPC.	Cited to support that subsequent amendment/decisions cannot be used to amend final decrees under inherent powers of the court.
Union of India v. Karam Singh, (1997) 5 SCC 180	Holds that Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has no application under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act; grant of solatium and interest is integral to determination of compensation; District Court has no jurisdiction to amend award under Sections 151 and 152 CPC.	Used to reinforce that invoking Sections 151 and 152 to grant solatium/interest constitutes inherent lack of jurisdiction; supports refusal to allow the present application.
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 626; Union of India v. Pratap Kaur, (1995) 3 SCC 263; State of Punjab v. Babu Singh, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 406; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754; K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, (1994) 5 SCC 593	Collected as a catena of decisions holding that Reference Court or High Court has no power to entertain applications under Sections 151 and 152 to correct a final decree or independently enhance solatium and interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984.	The Court treated these authorities collectively to establish settled law precluding the use of Sections 151/152 for enhancement of compensation after finality.
Shri Bhulan v. Land Acquisition Collector & Others (RFA No. 385/1978)	Applicant relied on this case as authority where Sunder was held applicable and the benefit was directed to be extended despite disposal of an appeal.	The Court noted the applicant's reliance on this decision but held that, on the authorities considered, it is not open to the applicant to reopen the accepted judgment to claim benefit of a subsequent decision.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by acknowledging that solatium, additional amounts and interest are integral parts of the award and should be taken into account in determining compensation. It accepted that the claim for all statutory benefits was made before the Division Bench and that additional amount under Section 23(1-A) was argued and ultimately granted, while interest was not.

The Court then considered the applicant's reliance on the Apex Court's decision in Sunder v. Union of India (19.09.2001), which held that a person entitled to compensation is also entitled to interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The Court emphasized temporal sequencing: Sunder was decided much after the Division Bench judgment of 1999.

The Court applied the following legal principles (as articulated in the cited authorities):

When a party approaches the court and accepts a decision without further challenge, it is ordinarily not open to that party to seek reopening of proceedings to obtain the benefit of a later decision, unless the original decision reserved such a right or the later decision is given retrospective effect by the court that rendered it.
Law (legislative change) or judicial decisions generally operate prospectively unless the court expressly dictates retrospective application; initial judgments are primarily in personam unless higher courts declare a legal principle that operates in rem.
Once a decree is final under Section 26(2) of the Act (or on appeal), the civil courts are limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes (Section 13-A of the Act or Section 52 CPC) and cannot independently enhance compensation by invoking inherent powers under Sections 151 and 152 CPC.
Section 151 CPC is intended to prevent abuse of process or to meet ends of justice and does not furnish jurisdiction to alter a final decree where express statutory remedies and powers (e.g., Sections 23 and 28 of the Act) govern compensation and interest; invocation of Section 151 is excluded by necessary implication where express provisions exist.

The Court relied on a line of Supreme Court authorities (including Union of India v. Swaran Singh, Union of India v. Rangila Ram, Union of India v. Karam Singh and others) to conclude the settled legal position that Sections 151 and 152 cannot be used to amend or enhance a final award/decree to grant enhanced solatium and interest introduced by Amendment Act 68 of 1984.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that Sunder (decided in 2001) could not be applied to reopen or modify the Division Bench's 1999 judgment accepted by the parties. The Court further found the present case was not one where inherent powers should be exercised to prevent abuse or to meet ends of justice in the manner sought. Consequently, the application under Sections 151 and 152 CPC for clarification/modification to grant interest on solatium/additional amount was not maintainable.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking clarification/modification of the Division Bench judgment dated 26.03.1999 to award interest on solatium and on the additional amount is rejected and held not maintainable.

Implications:

The direct effect is that the applicant will not receive interest on solatium or on the additional amount by way of clarification/modification of the 26.03.1999 judgment under Sections 151 and 152 CPC.
The Court applied established Supreme Court authorities to reaffirm that subsequent favorable decisions (such as Sunder) decided after a final, accepted judgment cannot be invoked to reopen that judgment unless specific exceptions apply (e.g., reservation of right or retrospective application directed by the court that pronounces the later decision).
The opinion follows existing precedent and does not purport to announce a new principle of law; it enforces the settled limitation on the use of Sections 151 and 152 CPC to alter final awards in land acquisition matters.

Show full summary ...

Daulat Ram & Anr v. Union Of India .

B.C Patel, C.J (Oral)— This application is preferred by the claimant under Sections 151 and 152 of Civil Procedure Code for modification or clarification of the judgment dated 26.03.1999

2. The Union of India issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) on 27.01.1984 After following the procedure laid down in the Act, a declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act on 24.09.1984 for the lands situated at Village Amber Hai. After following the procedure laid down in the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector (in short ‘LAC’) awarded a compensation @ Rs. 13,000/- per bigha and Rs. 11,000/- per bigha for the land in categories ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively. The claimants being aggrieved and not satisfied with the amount of compensation determined by the LAC made an application under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court therefore was required to determine the fair market price and other benefits in LAC No. 7/93 and ultimately the Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 36,400/- per bigha as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act for all types of lands irrespective of categories indicated by the LAC. Against the decision rendered by the Reference Court on 22.09.1993, the appeal was preferred by the claimants in this Court, inter alia, requesting the Court to grant higher compensation and all other statutory benefits which are required to be granted under the Act. The High Court while hearing an appeal under Section 54 of the Act, in view of the decision in RFA 619/1993 titled Sita Ram v. Union Of India. held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 47,224/- per bigha and granted other benefits which are indicated as under:

“Besides compensation on the aforesaid basis, the appellant will also be entitled to 12% additional amount under Section 23(1A) of the Act. Appellant will also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of land. The amount of compensation awarded by the Court in the present case is in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. Therefore, the appellant will be entitled to interest on the excess amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land by the Collector to the date of payment of such excess into Court. If the excess or any part thereof was paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession was taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall also be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. The appellant will get proportionate costs of the Appeal.”

Now, this application is being made, inter alia praying, that the Court by allowing the application should clarify the judgment and decree dated 26.03.1999, passed in appeal to the extent that the appellants are also entitled to interest on the solatium and additional amount granted in this appeal. This submission is made relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder v. Union Of India, 2001 (60) DRJ 627 (SC) : 93 (2001) DLT 569.

2. It is required to be noted that amount of solatium, interest etc. are integral parts of the award. In the process of determination of the amount of compensation these aspects are required to be taken into consideration. It is clear that the claim was made before the Division Bench in this behalf as stated by the counsel. It is clear from the prayer clause that all statutory benefits were also claimed. Learned counsel stated that though it was argued that he is entitled to claim additional amount under section 23(1-a) as also interest, however, additional amount was granted but the interest was not granted. The appellant accepted the judgment delivered by this Court and did not pursue further. The Apex Court in the case of Sunder v. Union Of India (supra) much after held that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The decision was rendered by the Apex Court on 19.09.2001

3. It is required to be noted that when a claimant or plaintiff has approached the Court and the decision rendered by the Court is accepted, thereafter, it would not be open to a party to request the Court to re-open the proceedings with a view to get the benefit of a decision which was delivered subsequently by the Apex Court or the High Court unless the Court has reserved right while deciding the matter or the decision which is rendered by the Court is with a direction to give effect retrospectively. Ordinarily law made by the legislature or the decision rendered by the Court would operate prospectively. It is required to be noted that this judgment is in personam and not in rem. However, when the Apex Court or the High Court declares the law, this becomes the judgment in rem and effect of the same is given to other cases also. The case of Sunder v. Union Of India (supra) was decided on 19.09.2001, i.e much after the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in the year 1999. Thus it is not open for the applicant to move the Court by saying that the application is maintainable under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Court.

4. Our attention is invited by learned counsel for the respondent to the point that once the decision is rendered and is not challenged further, the benefits of other decisions cannot be granted. It was submitted that in the case of Desraj (decd.) through Legal Representatives & Others v. Union of India, JT 2004 8 SC 202, the Apex Court has laid down the principle. In that case there was an award of compensation and appeal was preferred. However, the High Court dismissed 6 appeals including 2 appeals of the appellants by a common judgment fixing the compensation @ Rs. 4000/- per bigha. The appellants before the Apex Court in the case of Desraj (supra) did not pursue the matter any further. However, other appellants in remaining appeals approached the Apex Court aggrieved by the decision rendered by the High Court. The Apex Court allowed the appeal by an order dated 22.11.1988 and remanded the case to the High Court with certain observations to re-determine the amount of compensation. The appellant in the case of Desraj (supra) filed review applications before the High Court seeking review of the order of the High Court dated 11.10.1984 on the ground that Pratap Singh and others whose lands were also acquired under the same notification and who were similarly placed, got higher rate of compensation for the lands acquired along with the statutory benefits, hence the appellants were also entitled to get higher amount of compensation under Section 28A of the Act. It was prayed that the appellants were also entitled for the amount of compensation at the same rate which were allowed to Pratap Singh and others. The Division Bench by a judgment dated 22.10.1997 dismissed the review applications against which the appeal was preferred by the appellant namely Desraj.

5. It is in view of this judgment the appellant is not entitled to seek the benefit. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar., 1995 (3) SCC 316, wherein the Court has pointed out that a decree having been made under Section 26(2) of the Act, the Civil Court is left to correct only either clerical or arithmetical mistakes as envisaged under Section 13-A of the Act or under Section 52 CPC.

6. Though Section 151 of CPC gives inherent power to the Court, it is intended only to prevent abuse of process of the Court or to meet the ends of justice. The present case is not a case of such nature. Further, since Section 23 is an express power under which the civil court has been conferred with the jurisdiction to determine compensation and in addition to the market value certain percentage of the amount is directed to be awarded as envisaged under sections 23(1-a) and 23(2) and the interest component under Section 28, the invocation of Section 151 CPC by necessary implication stands excluded.

7. In the case of Union of India v. Swaran Singh, (1996) 5 SCC 501, in paras 7 and 8 the Court pointed out as under:

“7. It is settled law that after the Reference Court has granted an award and decree under Section 26(1) of the Act which is an award and judgment under Section 26(2) of the Act or on appeal under Section 54, the only remedy available to a party is to file an application for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the decree. The award of solatium and interest would be granted on enhancement of compensation when the court finds that the compensation was not correct. It is a part of the judgment or award. Admittedly, as on that date the claimants were entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6%. The Amendment Act 68 of 1984 came into force as on 24-9-1984. It is settled law that if the proceedings are pending before the Reference Court as on that date, the claimants would be entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest. In view of the fact that the Reference Court itself has answered the reference and enhanced the compensation as on 24-12-1981, the decree as on that date was correctly drawn and became final.

8. The question then is whether the High Court has power to entertain independent applications under Sections 151 and 152 and enhance solatium and interest as amended under act 68 of 1984. This controversy is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 626 and also in a catena of decisions following thereafter in Union of India v. Pratap Kaur, (1995) 3 SCC 263, State Of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar., (1995) 3 SCC 316; State of Punjab v. Babu Singh, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 406; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754 and K.S Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, (1994) 5 SCC 593, this Court has held that the Reference Court or the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to entertain any applications under Sections 151 and 152 to correct any decree which has become final or to independently pass an award enhancing the solatium and interest as amended by act 68 of 1984. Consequently, the award by the High Court granting enhanced solatium at 30% under Section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% till date of deposit under Section 28 as amended under act 68 of 1984 is clearly without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity. The order being a nullity, it can be challenged at any stage. Rightly the question was raised in execution. The executing court allowed the petition and dismissed the execution petition. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the executing court.”

8. In the case of Union Of India v. Rangila Ram (Dead) By Lrs.., (1995) 5 SCC 585, the Apex Court pointed out as under:

“4. The point is no longer res integra. This Court has considered the scope of the power of the High Court under Sections 151 and 152, CPC and also under Section 13-A of the Act. This Court has held that once the civil court made an award as per law then in force which became final and that there is no error of law as on that date. Subsequent amendment does not give power to the court to amend the decree under Sections 151 and 152, CPC.”

10. In the case of Union of India v. Karam Singh, (1997) 5 SCC 180, the Apex Court pointed out as under:

“3. It is now a well-settled legal position in law that under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, there is no provision to pay enhanced solatium and interest; and Amendment Act, i.e Act 68 of 1984 has no application. It is also a well-settled legal position that the grant of solatium and interest is an integral part of the process of determination of compensation. The District Court has no jurisdiction to amend the award and to grant solatium and interest exercising the power under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of jurisdiction in not removing the error committed by the Tribunal.”

11. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of RFA No. 385/1978 Shri Bhulan v. Land Acquisition Collector & Others, where the Court held that Sunder v. Union Of India's case (supra) would be applicable and directed the benefit to be extended to the claimant despite the appeal was already disposed of.

12. It is required to be noted that once the judgment is delivered by the Court and is not challenged thereafter, it is not open for the appellant to seek benefit of other judgment for the reasons indicated herein above. The application can be made in respect of some reservations made in the judgment. It is required to be noted that Division Bench of this Court has no occasion to examine the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Desraj (supra) and other decisions which we have considered today. Some of the judgments are delivered by the Apex Court subsequently to the Division Bench judgment in Bhutan's case (supra).

13. It is required to be noted that once the decision attains finality the parties are bound by the same.

14. For all the aforesaid reasons, in our view the application is not maintainable and is rejected.

Daulat Ram & Anr v. Union Of India .

Summary of the Opinion — B.C. Patel, C.J. (Oral)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Daulat Ram & Anr v. Union Of India .

Comments