Holding

A civil court cannot award the additional benefits under the Amendment Act; it may only correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the decree.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a civil court order that granted additional compensation, solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 to claimants whose land had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and later enhanced by the civil court on reference, but the claimants sought further benefits after the amendment Act came into force. The Supreme Court examined whether a civil court, after rendering a decree under Section 26(2) of the 1894 Act, could independently award the amendment benefits without a fresh reference. It held that the court’s jurisdiction is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors and that Section 151 of the CPC does not empower it to alter the decree for substantive benefits. Consequently, the civil court’s order was declared void. The appeal was allowed, setting aside both the High Court’s dismissal and the civil court’s order, and the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to award additional solatium, compensation and interest under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 after a decree has been passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 can be invoked to amend a decree for purposes of the amendment Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151, s. 152
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 18, s. 23(1), s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 26(2), s. 28, s. 4(1)
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 28

Subjects

land acquisitioncompensationsolatiuminterestcivil court jurisdictiondecree correctioninherent powersLand Acquisition (Amendment) Act

Judgment

)

:A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
v. 1-
MAHARAU SRAWAN HATKAR ·""--
(
FEBRUARY 21, 1995

B [K. RAMSWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Requisition and Acquisition of Lan~and Acquisiton Act, 1894-Sec.
26(2), 13-A, 23 and 28-Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984-S.

c
23(1-A) and 2 Sec. 28-Amending the decree of compensation by civil court
without a reference-Enhancement of Award pursuant to Amendment Act, r
D
. 1984-/'ower of civil court.
. ,,
The re~pondents' land was acquired under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act 1894. Compensation was awarded by the La~4 ~quisition
Officer which was enhanced by' the Civil ·Jode' on· refe~nce. After the
coming into force in 1984 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, the
.. .,..
re,spondents applied to the Civil Judge for grant of enhanced solatium,
additional compensation and interest under it. The Civil Judge granted
the same.

E Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed but the High Court summarily
dismissed the appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended
that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant the benefits under the
Amendment Act as issues of compensation could only be determined upon
a reference. The compensation award was a decree which was subject to
amendment only for clerical errors. The Court could not independently
F exercise power to enhance the compensation amount. The respondent
agrued that the Civil Court bad inherent powers to grant· the benefits
under the Amendment Act.

Allowing the· appeal, this Court
G HELD : 1.1. In a case where the court had not enhanced the com·
----...:..
pensation on reference, the court was devoid of power to award any interest
or spread the payment of interest under the provisions of the Amendment
Act. (228-C] r
H 1.2. A decree having been made the clvil court could correct oniy
224
STA1EOFMAHARASHTRAv. MS.HATKAR[N.P.SINGH,J.] . 225

·clerical or arithmetical mistakes as envisaged expressly under Section 13A A
of the Act or under Sec. of 152 CPC. (228-G]

1.3. Though Section 151 CPC gave inherent power to the. Court, it
was intended only to prevent ·abuse of the process of court or to meet the
ends of justice. The present was not it caiie of such a nature. Further ~ince
Sec. 23 was an express power under which. the civil court had been B
conferred with the jurisdiction to determine compensa~ion the invocation
of Sec. 151 CPC by necessary implication stood excluded. [228-H-229-A]

·• -
(
\
~
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1800 of
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.87 of the Bombay High
Court in P.A. No. 169 of 1987.

A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant.
D
G.K. Bansal for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Since the respondent had not been represented, we requested E
learned Advocate Shri G .K. Bansal to assist the Court which he accepted
and has given good assistance for which we express our gratitude to him;

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Bombay in First Appeal No. 169/87, dated
24.4.1987. Notification under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for p
short, 'the Act), was published on 13.8.1979 in the State Gazette acquiring
the land for percolation tank in village Kasampura. The Land Acquisition
Officer by his award dated 17.12.1981 awarded the compensation. At the
instance of the claimants, on reference under s.18 of the Act, the Civil
Judge, Sr. Division, Jalgaon in his award and decree d~ted 25.10.1983,
enhanced the compensation. It would appear that no appeal was preferred. G
After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1894 had come into
force on September 24, 1984, the claimants made ati application to the
reference court for awarding the enhanced solatium, additional compensa-
tion and interest under the Amendment Act. The Civil Judge by his order
dated March 31, 1986 allowed the application and awarded as under : H
., '

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R.

A "(i) All the petitioners are entitled to the additional amount of
compensation as calculated at the rate of 12 per cent p.a. from the
date of notification or the date of dispossession, whichever is
earlier to the date of Award on the entire market value, i.e. the
market value as assessed by the Spl. L.A.O. and increased by this
Court in thier respective cases.
B
(ii) The petitioners are also entitled to the solatium at th~ rate
of 30% on the entire market value.

(iii) The petitioners are also entitled to the interest at the rate -) ;,
c of 9% p.a. from the date of notification under s.4 of the L.A. Act
or the date of dispossession, whichever is earlier, till the expiry of
/
f

one year from that date and thereafter till the date of payment of
15% p.a. on the a14ount of compensation i.e. the total market value
plus components, plus solatium at 30 per cent for their respective
cases.
D
(iv) Whatever has already been paid on account of market
value, solatium, interest shall be ~educted from their respective
claims." )---..

E Dissatisfied therewith, the State carried the matter in appeal and the High
Court summarily dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the Civil
Court has power and jurisdiction to award the benefits of the Amendment
Act 68 of 1984. Shri Bhame, the learned counsel for the State contended
F that the Civil Court gets jurisdiction to determine compensation under i,'-.
s.23(1) of the Act only on reference. On its making the award enhancing
the compensation under sub-s. (1) of s. 23, it would be a decree under
s.26(2). The Court thereafter has no power to amend the decree except in
accordance with law. This is not either a clerical or arithmetical mistake
for correction un4er s.152 of CPC or under s. 13A of the Act, but is an -..,. ._ t
G independent exercise of power. Unless the Court is empowered to do so
by law, the civil court is devoid of jurisidction to give the benefits under
the Amendment Act.

Shri G.K. Bansal, learned counsel, on the other hand, contended that
H since CPC is made applicable to the proceedings of reference under s.18,
\

STATEOFMAHARASHlRAv. MS.HATKAR[N.P.SINGH,J.] 227

by operation of s. 53 of the Act, the civil -court gets inherent power under A
s.151 of CPC to grant the benefits and that, therefore, the court can pass
a fresh' order giving the benefits under the Amendment Act.

We find no force in the contention of Shri Bansal. On receipt of
reference under s. 18, the procedure prescribed under ss.19 and 20 of the
Act is required to be followed and the civil court determines the compen- B
sation in the manner indicated under sub-s. (1) of s.23 of the Act which
envisages that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded
for the land acquired under the Act, the court shall take into consideration .
clauses first to sixthly mentioned thereunder while determining the. coni~
pensation. Sub-s. (1-A} of s.23, which was brought by the Amel'ldment Act, C
and sub-s. (2) of s.23 provide that : ·.
I

"(1-A) In additi~n to the market value of the land, as above
/ provided, the Court shall in every case award an 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 D
of the notification under s.4, sub-s. (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.

(2) In addition to the market value of the land, as . above E
provied, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per
centum on such market vlaue, in consideration of the compulsory
nature of the acquisition."

Section 28 envisages that :
F
"28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compen-
sation. ...... If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the
Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of
the sum .which the Collector did award as compensation, the award
of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on G
such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the
date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment
of such excess into court :

Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where
such excess ·or any part thereof is paid into Court .after the date H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) 2 S.C.R.

A of expiry of 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_ such excess or part thereof which has not been
paid into Court before the date of such expiry."

B It would thus be seen that the additional amounts envisaged under
sub~ss. (l·A) and (2) of s.23 are not part of the component of the compen-
sation awarded under sub-s. (1) of s.23 of the Act. They are only in addition
to the market vlaue of the land. The payment of interest also is only
consequential to the erihancement of the compensation. In a case where
C the Court has not erihanced the compensation on reference, the Court is
devoid of power to award any interest under s. 28 or the spreading of
payment of interest for one year from the date of taking possession at 9%
and 15% thereafter till date of payment into the court as envisaged under
the proviso.

D Section 26 of the Act envisages that :

"(1) Every award ,\Jnder this Part shall be ~ writing signed by the
Judge, and shall fepecify the amount awarded under clause first of
sub-s. (1) of s.23, and also the am9unts (if any) respectively,
awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section,
--E together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts.

(2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the
statement· of the grounds of every such· award a judgment within
the meaning of s.2, clause (2), and s. 2, clause (9), respectively, of
F the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (5 of 1908)."

Thus, it would be seen that a -decree having been made under s.
26(2), the civil court is left to correct only either clerical or arithmetical
mistakes as envisaged expressly under s.13-A of the Act or under s.152
CPC. Though s.151 CPC gives inherent power to the Court, it is intended
G only to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to meet the ends of
justice. The present is not a case of such nature. Further, since s.23 is an
express power under which _the civil court has been conferred with the
jurisdiction to determirle compensation, and in addition to the market value
certain percentage of the aniount is directed to be awarded as envisaged
H under s.23(1-A) and 23(2) and the interest component under s.28, the
~
\

STA1EOFMAHARASH1RAv. MS.HATKAR[N.P.SINGH,J.) 229

invocation of s. 151 CPC by necessary implication stands excluded. A
Thus, we hold that the civil court had inherent lack of jurisdiction
and it was devoid of power to entertain the application to award additional
benefits under the Amendment Act. The order thereby is clearly a void
order. The High Court has not applied its mind to this crucial considera-
tion but summarily dismissed the appeal. B
The appeal is accordingly allowed. The order of the High Court and
that of the civil court are set aside and the petition stands dismissed. In
) \ - the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.

A.G. Appeal allowed.

/