Khacheru (D) Th. Lrs. Petitioner v. Uoi & Anr. S

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion relates to a challenge to an order dated 18.07.2008 which dismissed an application filed by the petitioner under Sections 151 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioner sought a direction that the respondent (Union of India) should send a revised Statement of Account under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act specifying details of the petitioner's land (notably Khasra numbers).

The factual history in the record, as set out by the Court, is as follows:

• The petitioner's land located in the revenue estate of village Khichripur, Delhi, was acquired under Award No. 28-B/1970-71. The Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) initially fixed market value at Rs. 600 per bigha.
• In a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, compensation was enhanced to Rs. 2,100 per bigha on 31.08.1981.
• Subsequently, in RFA proceedings, the High Court further enhanced compensation from Rs. 2,100 to Rs. 8,000 per bigha on 09.04.1996.
• The LAC had given a revised statement under Section 19 on 07.10.1977 (pursuant to which compensation for the reference was fixed at Rs. 2,100 per bigha).
• Following the High Court enhancement to Rs. 8,000 per bigha, the enhanced amount of Rs. 14,12,000 was paid to the petitioner on 29.05.2002; a balance payment of Rs. 37,848 was made on 28.08.2004.
• No objection to these payments or to the awards was raised by the petitioner up to the date of the last payment and until 20.08.2005 when the present application under Sections 151 and 153 CPC was filed.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner could compel the Collector/Union of India to issue a revised Statement of Account under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act to include particulars (such as Khasra numbers) after revised statements and awards had been made and final payments received.
2. Whether an application under Sections 151 and 153 CPC seeking such a revised statement and effectively seeking enhancement/alteration of compensation or related particulars is permissible once the decision on compensation has attained finality and payments have been accepted by the claimant.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The petitioner contended before the trial court that the statement given by the Collector under Section 19 did not include details of the specific Khasra numbers that had been acquired. This omission was said to have been due to ignorance on the part of the petitioner.
• The petitioner sought a direction that the Collector/Union of India be directed to give a revised Section 19 statement incorporating those land particulars.

The opinion does not set out specific adverse or responsive arguments advanced by the respondent/Union of India in opposition; only the petitioner's contention is detailed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded on the basis of the documentary record and settled legal principle:

1. The LAC had issued a revised statement under Section 19 on 07.10.1977, which was the basis for compensation fixed at Rs. 2,100 per bigha in the reference under Section 18.
2. The High Court, in later proceedings (RFA), enhanced compensation to Rs. 8,000 per bigha on 09.04.1996.
3. Following that enhancement, the enhanced compensation monies (specifically Rs. 14,12,000 and later Rs. 37,848) were paid to the petitioner on 29.05.2002 and 28.08.2004 respectively, and the petitioner raised no objection at any point up to and including those dates.
4. The Court applied the principle from Daulat Ram v. U.O.I. that once a decision attains finality the parties are bound by it and may not subsequently seek enhancement or re-opening of solatium/interest (or effectively reopen finalized compensation determinations).
5. Given that the revised statements had been given by the LAC, the High Court's enhancement had been ordered, and the petitioner had accepted the payments without protest, the Court found that the application filed on 20.08.2005 could not challenge the earlier final decisions or require a fresh or further revised Section 19 statement.
6. On this basis, the Court concluded that the impugned order (which dismissed the petitioner's application under Sections 151 and 153 CPC) contained no infirmity and that the petition was without merit.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The petition challenging the order dated 18.07.2008 (which had dismissed the application under Sections 151 and 153 CPC seeking a revised Section 19 statement) was dismissed. The Court found no infirmity in the impugned order.

Direct consequences: The petitioner is not entitled to a direction compelling the Collector/Union of India to issue a further revised Statement of Account under Section 19 in respect of the acquisition, and the previous awards and payments (including the enhancement by the High Court and subsequent payments accepted by the petitioner) remain binding.

Broader implications: The decision applies the settled principle (as stated in Daulat Ram v. U.O.I.) that finality of compensation determinations bars later attempts to seek enhancement or to reopen finalized awards; the opinion does not claim to establish a new precedent beyond applying that principle to the facts of this case.