Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Misc. No. 20-C-I of 1987. In Regular First Appeal No. 2321 of 1980

Attorney(S)

Mr. A.K. Mittal
Advocate.
Mr. Gulshan Sharma
Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Garg
Advocate
Mr. Ashok Bhan
Senior Advocate
Mr. Govind Goyal
Advocate.

Judges

H.N Seth. C.J
M.S Liberhan, J.

Acts

section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as introduced by Central Act 68 of 1984,
section of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984.
SECTION 30 LAND ACQUISITION AMENDMENT ACT 1984
provisions of sub-section (IA) of section 23 of the Principal Act,
SECTION 23 LAND ACQUISITION ACT
section 23(1A) by virtue of section 30 of Act 68 of 1984,
sub section (1 A) and sub-section (2) of section 23
Order 47, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure,
section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
1986 S.C 179, the provisions of section 23(1A)
section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
SECTION 4 LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894
sub-section (1 A) of section 23
section 30 of Act 68 of 1984,
section 4, sub-section (1),

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 28, 1978, pursuant to a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, 5.46 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Dadu Majra were acquired by the Union Territory of Chandigarh for a waterworks scheme for Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector determined market prices of the acquired land ranging between Rs. 4,650 and Rs. 20,000 per acre depending on quality.

Unsatisfied with the Collector's determination, the claimants sought references under section 18. The Land Acquisition Court enhanced the rate to a flat Rs. 37,000 per acre. The claimants (applicants here) then preferred Regular First Appeals (R.F.As) Nos. 2321 and 2323 of 1980 to this Court.

A learned Single Judge, by order dated December 9, 1981, enhanced compensation to Rs. 40,000 per acre with statutory solatium and interest described in that order as 15% and 6% respectively on the enhanced amount. The applicants filed Special Leave Petitions to the Supreme Court, which were allowed and the cases were remanded to this Court to be decided by a Division Bench in accordance with the Supreme Court's observations.

On remand, the Division Bench by an order dated March 25, 1985, enhanced compensation to a flat rate of Rs. 62,000 per acre, directed solatium at 30% and interest at 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% up to the date of payment.

The applicants subsequently filed the present civil miscellaneous applications (20-CI of 1987 in R.F.A No. 2321 of 1980 and 32-CI of 1987 in R.F.A No. 2323 of 1980) seeking modification of the Division Bench's order so that they be granted further compensation under section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as inserted by Central Act 68 of 1984, with effect from September 24, 1984.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, in the circumstances of these appeals, the applicants are entitled to additional compensation under subsection (1A) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act (as inserted by Central Act 68 of 1984), calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of publication of the section 4(1) notification until the date of the Collector's award or date of taking possession, whichever is earlier.
Whether the provisions of section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984) — and the Full Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal — preclude application of section 23(1A) in this case because an award had been made prior to April 30, 1982.
Whether the applicants' request for modification of the Division Bench's March 25, 1985 judgment amounts to a barred review (subject to a 30-day limitation) or instead is a permissible correction of a clerical/arithmetical mistake under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

The applicants sought modification of the Division Bench's order so as to grant them additional compensation under section 23(1A) (as inserted by Act 68 of 1984) effective from September 24, 1984.
They relied on the principle, as stated in the decision referred to in the opinion (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dandeli v. Soma Gopal Gowda), that the provisions of section 23(1A) apply where proceedings for determination of compensation were pending in an appeal on or after September 24, 1984, irrespective of whether an award had been made prior to April 30, 1982.
They contended that the Division Bench had intended to grant benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act but, through an accidental slip or clerical omission, failed to mention subsection (1A) in its order; such an omission is correctable under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Chandigarh Administration's Arguments

The Administration argued that section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 provides that subsection (1A) of section 23 shall "apply, and shall be deemed to have applied" to proceedings pending on April 30, 1982 in which no award had been made by the Collector before that date — and that because an award in this case had been made prior to April 30, 1982, subsection (1A) does not apply.
For support, the Administration relied on the Full Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal, 1987 P.L.R. 688.
The Administration further submitted that the applicants' present prayer for modification effectively amounted to a review of the Division Bench's March 25, 1985 judgment; such a review is time-barred because review has a 30-day limitation, and the applications were filed only in January 1987 (roughly two years later). The Administration contended the applications should therefore be dismissed as barred by limitation.
The Administration cited other authorities (not individually detailed in the opinion) for the proposition that the Court's inherent powers cannot be used to review an erroneous judgment which is correctible by a review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC within the period of limitation.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal, 1987 P.L.R. 688 (Full Bench)	Relied upon by the Administration to contend that section 23(1A) does not benefit claimants where an award had been made prior to April 30, 1982, pursuant to section 30 of Act 68 of 1984.	The Court acknowledged that this Full Bench held applicants might not be entitled to section 23(1A) by virtue of section 30, but did not follow this precedent as a bar to granting the additional amount in the present proceeding because of the Court's conclusion about the nature of the omission and applicability of section 152 CPC.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dandeli v. Soma Gopal Gowda, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 179 (as referred to in the opinion)	Stated (as described in the opinion) that section 23(1A) would apply where proceedings for determination of compensation were pending in an appeal on or after September 24, 1984, irrespective of whether an award had been made prior to April 30, 1982.	The Court relied on the principle described from this decision to show that section 23(1A) could apply where appeals were pending on or after September 24, 1984; this supported the view that the Division Bench should have awarded the additional amount when it disposed of the appeal.
Nand Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, A.I.R. 1982 P&H 184	Authority for the proposition that clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders arising from accidental slip or omission may be rectified at any time.	The Court applied the principle in Nand Ram to hold that the omission of a reference to subsection (1A) in the Division Bench's judgment was a clerical error correctible under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that such correction could be made at any time.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by examining the statutory framework of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended. It noted that:

Section 23(1) requires determination of the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the section 4(1) notification.
Section 23(2) requires an award of 30% of such market value by way of solatium for compulsory acquisition.
Newly inserted subsection (1A) of section 23 (by Act 68 of 1984) mandates payment of an additional amount calculated at 12% per annum on the market value for the period from the date of publication of the section 4(1) notification until the date of the Collector's award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier.

The Court observed that in cases decided after September 24, 1984 it is the duty of the Court to award the additional compensation envisaged by subsection (1A). It then inspected the Division Bench's judgment dated March 25, 1985 and concluded that the Bench had intended to grant the benefit of the amendments enacted by Central Act 68 of 1984 but, by an "accidental slip" or clerical omission, failed to expressly mention subsection (1A) in the operative order.

On the question of whether the applicants were precluded from claiming subsection (1A) by virtue of section 30 of the Amendment Act and the Full Bench decision in State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal, the Court acknowledged that the Full Bench took that position. It also noted authority (as referred to in the opinion) to the contrary — that subsection (1A) applies where appeals were pending on or after September 24, 1984 — and treated the issue in the context of whether relief sought was a barred review or a correctible clerical omission.

The Court concluded that the matter fell squarely within section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which permits correction at any time of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments arising from accidental slips or omissions. It relied on the Nand Ram decision to support the proposition that such mistakes can be rectified at any time. Because the omission was characterized as clerical, the application for correction was not treated as a review subject to the 30-day limitation.

The Court therefore held that it was proper to modify the Division Bench's judgment to include the benefit of subsection (1A) and to award the additional amount calculated at 12% per annum as prescribed by that provision.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: Both civil miscellaneous applications (Nos. 20-CI of 1987 in R.F.A No. 2321 of 1980 and 32-CI of 1987 in R.F.A No. 2323 of 1980) were allowed. The Court modified its judgment dated March 25, 1985 in the two R.F.As and directed that, in addition to the compensation already determined, the applicants are entitled to an amount calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value determined by the Court for the period commencing from the date of publication of the section 4(1) notification to the date of the Collector's award or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the applicants are to receive the additional compensation quantified under section 23(1A) for the relevant period. The Court treated the omission as a clerical error correctible under section 152 CPC and therefore corrected its prior judgment without treating the application as a time-barred review. The opinion does not state that it is creating or announcing a broader new precedent beyond its application of section 152 to correct the omission; the ruling’s immediate effect is the granting of the additional statutory compensation to the applicants.

Note: This summary is prepared strictly from the content of the provided opinion. No facts or conclusions have been added that are not present in the opinion text.

Show full summary ...

Maya Devi v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh

H.N Seth, CJ and M.S Liberhan, J. — In pursuance of the notification published under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on July 28, 1978, 5.46 acres of land within the revenue estate of village Dadu Majra was acquired by the Union Territory of Chandigarh for the construction of water Page: 70works scheme for Chandigarh. The Land Acquisition Collector, after hearing the claimants, including the applicants in the two civil miscellaneous applications, determined the market price of the acquired land on the basis of agricultural land ranging between Rs. 4650 per acre and Rs. 20000/- per acre depending upon its quality. As the claimants did not feel satisfied with the adequacy of compensation, they sought various references under section 18 of the Act, and as a result thereof, the Land Acquisition Court. Chandigarh, enhanced the rate of compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 37,000/- per acre. Still not satisfied with this rate of compensation, the two applicants preferred R.F.As Nos. 2321 and 2323 of 1980 before this Court.

2. After admission, and on consideration of the entire matter, the learned Single Judge by his order dated December 9, 1981, enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 40,000/- per acre with statutory solatium and interest at 15 per cent and 6 per cent, respectively, on the enhanced amount of compensation. Still not satisfied, the applicants preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, which were allowed and the cases were remanded to this Court for disposal by a Division Bench, to be decided in accordance with the observations made by that Court.

3. On remand, the Division Bench came to the conclusion that the compensation awarded to the applicants was to be enhanced and calculated at a flat rate of Rs. 62.000/- per acre instead of Rs. 40.000/- per acre, as had been done by the learned Single Judge. The learned Judges further directed that besides the enhanced compensation, the claimants were also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter upto the date of payment at the rate of 15 per cent.

4. The applicants have now moved the present application praying that the order passed by the Division Bench dated March 25, 198???, be further modified and the applicants should be allowed further compensation as envisaged by section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as introduced by Central Act 68 of 1984, with effect from September 24, 1984.

5. Section 23(1) of the Act provides that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act. the Court has to take into consideration various factors enumerated therein. The newly inserted provision, namely, sub-section (1 A) of section 23 lays down that the Court has to, in addition to the market valve of the land determined under section 23(1), award an amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. It is apparent that in cases decided after September 24, 1984. it is the duty of the Court to award the additional compensation envisaged by sub-section (1A) of section 23 of the Act.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Admistration argued that the provisions of section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act No. 68 of 1984) which lays down that the provisions of sub-section (IA) of section 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to. (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act. pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment), Bill, 1982, in the House of the People, in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date, are not applicable to the present proceedings, inasmuch the award in the instant case had been made prior to April 30, 1982. He, therefore, contends that the applicants cannot claim the benefit of the newly added sub-section (1A) of section 23. For this purpose, he relies on the Full Bench Page: 71decision of this Court in the State of Punjab v. Krishan Lal, 1987 P.L.R 688.

7. It may be that, as held by the Full Bench, the applicants are not entitled to the benefit of section 23(1A) by virtue of section 30 of Act 68 of 1984, but then as held by Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Dandeli v. Soma Gopal Gowda, A.I.R 1986 S.C 179, the provisions of section 23(1A) would, on their own, and without recourse of section 30 of Act 68 of 1984, be applicable to cases where, the proceedings for determination of compensation were pending in an appeal on or after September 24, 1984, irrespective of the fact whether or not an award had been made prior to April 30, 1982. As in this case, regular first appeal in respect of the proceedings for determination of compensation were decided after September 24, 1984, the Court should have, while adjudicating upon the amount of compensation payable to the applicants, awarded to the applicants additional amount in terms of Section 23 (IA) as well.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration next submitted that the prayer made by the applicants, in substance, amounts to a prayer for review of the judgment of this Court, dated March 25, 1985, for which limitation is 30 days. In the circumstances, the present application for amending the judgment which has been filed only in the month of January, 1987 i.e, after a lapse of about two years, is hopelessly barred by limitation. The applicants have neither prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the said application, nor have they offered any explanation for the same. In the circumstances, the applications deserve to be dismissed as barred by time.

9. Having given our careful consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the Union Territory, we do not find any merit in it. A perusal of section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which deals with matters to be considered for determining compensation payable for the land acquired under the Act shows that for determining such compensation, the Court has to, inter alia, first determine market valve of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (I) of the Act. Sub-section (2) provides that in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall in each case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Likewise, the newly inserted sub section (1A) of section 23 provides for payment of additional amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. As a matter of fact, what requires adjudication under section 23 is the determination of the market value of the acquired property and the obligation to award additional amounts mentioned in sub section (1 A) and sub-section (2) of section 23 follow as of course after making arithmatical calculations. A perusal of the judgment dated March 25, 1985, clearly brings out that the Bench while disposing of the appeal before it was of the opinion that over and above the market price determined by it the applicants were to be given the benefits of various section of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984. It was by an accidental slip that a clerical error had occurred in the judgment of the Division Bench when it omitted to mention in the order that the applicants were also to be given the benefit of subsection (1A) as inserted in section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act by Act 68 of 1984. The case, in our opinion, squarely falls within the ambit of section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down that clerical or arithmatical mistakes in judgments, decrees or older or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may, at any time, be corrected by the Court either on its own motion or on the application of any of the parties, and that such Page: 72a mistake can, as held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nand Ram and others v. State of Punjab and others, A.I.R 1982 P&H 184, be rectified at any time.

10. Before parting with the case we may observe that learned counsel for the respondent cited a number of cases before us in support of his submission that inherent powers of the Court cannot be exercised for the purposes of reviewing an erroneous judgment which can be corrected by means of a review application under Order 47, rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed within the period of limitation prescribed therefor. However, in the view which we have taken in this case, namely, that the present application falls within the ambit of section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is not necessary for us to discuss the submission made by the learned counsel with regard to the applicability of section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Suffice it to say that the learned counsel did not urge that if the application is treated as failing under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would still be barred by limitation.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the civil miscellaneous applications Nos. 20-CI of 1987 in R.F.A No. 2321 of 1980 and 32-CI of 1987 in R.F.A 2323 of 1980 are allowed and we modify the judgment of this Court dated March 25, 1985 in R.F.A Nos. 2321 of 1980 and 2323 of 1980 and direct that in addition to the amount of compensation determined by the Court, the applicants should also be entitled to an amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the market value determined by the Court for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act in respect of the land which has been acquired, to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever be earlier.

Maya Devi v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh

Structured Summary of the Provided Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

Chandigarh Administration's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Maya Devi v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh

Comments