http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BAI SHAKRIBEN (DEAD) NATWAR MELSINGH & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       06/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 533        JT 1996 (5)   597  1996 SCALE  (4)636

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      Notification  under   Section  4   (1)  of   the   Land Acquisition Act  (1 of  1984)  (for  short,  the  ’Act)  was published on  January 2,  1975. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award under Section 11 determined the compensation on May 19, 1980. On reference under Section 18 the Asstt. Judge enhanced the compensation by his award and decree made under Section 26  on August  20, 1983.  Thereafter the State State carried the  matter in appeal but the claimants did not. The High Court  by judgment  dated August 22, 1984 dismissed the appeals. Subsequently,  the appellants  to file applications under Order  47 Rule  1 and Section 151 CPC for amendment of the decree  to award  benefits of  Sections 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Act as amended by Central Act 68 of High Court in revision  set aside the order by judgment and order dated October 11, made in F.A. Nos.1303-1317 and batch. Thus these appeals by appeals by special leave.      Shri Dushyant  Dave, learned  senior  counsel  for  the appellants, contended that in view of the ratio laid dawn in Raja Shatrunji v. Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan [(1971) Supp. SCR 433],  it   must  be  held  that  the  reference  Court  has jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC to amend  the decree though the decree though the decree has become final.  We are  unable to  accept the contention. The controversy is  no longer  res integera. This Court in State of Maharashtra  v. Maharau  Srawan Hatkar [(1995) 3 SCC 316] had considered  the similar situation. Therein, the award of the reference  Court was on October 25, 1983, i.e. after the Amendment Act  was introduced in the Parliament. Parliament. Thereafter, the  order became  final the  Amendment Act  had come into  force. Subsequently,  an application was made for awarding enhanced  solatium, interest  and the    additional amount  under  the  aforesaid  provisions.  This  Court  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

considered the controversy and held in paragraph 8 thus:      "Thus, it  would  be  seen  that  a      decree  having   been  made   under      Section 26(2),  the civil  is  left      correct  only  either  clerical  or      arithmetical mistakes  as envisaged      expressly under  Section 13-  A  of      the by LAO Act or under Section 152      CPC. Though  Section 151  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 is not      a case  of  such  nature.  Further,      since  Section  23  is  an  express      power under  which the  civil court      has conferred with the jurisdiction      to determine  compensation, and  in      addition 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."      In Urban  Improvement Trust,  Jodhpur v. Gokul Narain & Anr. [JT  (1996) 4 SCC 446], this Court once over considered the entire  gamut of  controversy regarding the power of the executing Court  to grant relief under the Act including the above judgment  and held  that payment of additional amount, solatium of  interest  are  independent  components  payable while enhancing the compensation. The executing Court cannot travel  behind   the  award  and  award  and  award  amended benefits.      A Constitution Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh  [(1989) 2  SCC 754]  came  to  consider  the effect of  sub-section (2)  of Section  30 of the transitory provision on  which strong reliance was placed by Shri Dave. In paragraphs  33 and  34, the  Constitution Bench  had held that if the proceedings are pending in appeal, the amendment Act has  no application  and it  would be applicable only to the proceedings  if they are pending before the Collector or reference Court  between April  30, 1982  to  September  24, 1984. It  would thus  be seen  that if  the proceedings  are pending between  these dates,  indisputably the  appropriate course or  LAO   is required  to  apply  the  provisions  as amended under  Act 68 of 1984, But having allowed the decree to become  final, the  question emerges  whether it would to become final,  the question emerges whether it would be open to the  executing Court  or the reference court to go behind the decree  which become final to amend the self-same decree by exercising  the power  under Order  47 rule 1 and Section 151 CPC.  We fell  that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. It would have been appropriate for the claimants to have  gone in  appeal and  have the matter corrected, but unfortunately they  did claim  of the  appellate remedy  and approved the  decree to  become final. The omission to award additional amounts  under section 23(1-A), enhanced interest under section  28 and  solatium under  Section 23(2) are not clerical or  arithmetical mistake  crept in the award passed by the reference Court but amounts to non-award. under those circumstances, the  reference Court  was clearly in error in entertaining the application for amendment of the decree and is devoid  of power  and jurisdiction  to award  the amounts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

under Sections  23(2), 23(1-A) and 28 of the Act.      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.