http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RANGILA RAM (DEAD) BY LR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/08/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  206            1995 SCC  (5) 585  JT 1995 (7)   655        1995 SCALE  (5)178

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       O R D E R      Leave granted.      On December  2, 1977, a notification under Section 4 of the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894 [for  short, ‘the Act’] was issued  acquiring   267.2675  acres   of  land   in  village Bhatotarwan for  defence purposes. The award was made by the Land Acquisition  Collector on October 23, 1979. Against the award, the  District Judge-arbitrator  by  his  award  dated February 7,  1981, enhanced  the  compensation  and  further award Rs.  700/- per acre for loss of livelihood/profession. Dissatisfied  thereof,   both  the  State  as  well  as  the respondent  writ  petitions  in  the  High  Court  which  by judgement dated  March 15, 1982 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 11,000/-  and 10,000/-  per acre respectively. Following that, respondent’s  R.F.A. No.1209  of 1981, was disposed of on November 5, 1982.      An  application  under  Sections  151  and  152,  Civil Procedure Code  [for short,  ‘CPC’] was filed in 1986 before the High  Court for  amendment of  the decree  in the cross- objections to award them 30% of the solatium 9% interest for the first  year and 15% interest thereafter till the date of deposit as  per S.23(2)  and proviso to S.28 pursuant to the Amendment Act  68  of  1984.  The  High  Court  allowed  the application on  November 26,  1987.  Thus,  this  appeal  by special leave.      The point  is no  longer res  integra. This  Court  has considered the  scope of  the power  of the High Court under Ss. 151 and 152, CPC and also under S.13(A) of the Act. This Court has  held that  once 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 Ss. 151 and 152,  CPC. This  was held  in State  of Maharashtra  vs. Maharau Sravan  Hetkar [(1995) 3 SCC 316] and Union of India and Ors. v. Pratap Kaur (dead) through Lrs. and Anr. [(1995)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

3 SCC 263]. In Maharau Sravan Hetkar’s case, this Court held that the  civil court  lacked inherent  jurisdiction and was devoid of  the power  to entertain  an application  to award additional benefits  under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The facts therein  were that  the award had become final and the Amendment Act  68 of  1984 had  come into force on September 24, 1984. The respondents made an application under Sections 151 and  152, CPC  to award enhanced solatium and additional benefits etc.  and the  civil court  allowed and granted the same. In  that context,  considering the civil court’s power under Sections  151 and  152, CPC, this Court laid the above law.      In Pratap  Kaur’s case,  after the  award became final, the respondents filed miscellaneous application to demarcate and award compensation on the rates were ordered by the High Court which were accordingly granted and the jurisdiction of the District Court was challenged. Though the High Court had affirmed the  order, this  Court held  that after  the award became final,  the  civil  court  was  devoid  of  power  or jurisdiction and there was no arithmetical or clerical error in the  award. The  exercise of the power was independent of reference. Therefore,  the civil  court ceased  to have  any power after  the great  became final,  to alter  or  correct clerical  or  arithmetical  errors.  The  civil  court  was, therefore, devoid  of jurisdiction  and power  to  award  or order additional benefits.      It would,  therefore be clear that the claimant was not entitled to  the additional  benefits and  Sections 151  and 152, CPC  cannot be invoked to award the additional benefits under  the  Amendment  Act  68  of  1984.  The  High  Court, therefore, has  no  power  to  amend  the  decree  to  award enhanced statutory  benefits. The  decree passed by the High Court is clearly without jurisdiction and annaullity.      The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.