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

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NILMANI SAHU & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the order of the Division  Bench of the High Court of Patna in LPA No.133 of 1995 dated November 28, 1994.      The admitted  facts are that notification under Section 4(1) of  the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894 was  published  on December 10,  1964. A large extent of land admeasuring 43.14 acres was acquired together with the trees standing thereon. The Land  Acquisition Officer  in his  award dated  April 3, 1979 determined  the value  of the  trees at  Rs.2466/-.  On reference under  Section 18,  the  civil  Court  upheld  the valuation given to the trees by award and decree dated March 27, 1980.  In furtherance  thereof, the appellants have paid the compensation together with solatium and interest thereon on September 6, 1991 , i.e., a sum of Rs.15,000/-and odd and it was  accepted by  the respondents.   When  an appeal  was filed against  the reference  Court’s award  and decree, the High  Court,   in  the  first  instance,  had  adjudged  the valuation of  the trees and recorded the finding, considered the  question   in  paragraph  23  and  had  held  that  the contention that  the compensation  for the  value  of  trees fixed was  meagre and unsustainable. At that time, the claim was not less than Rs. 14 lacs and odd. In support thereof, a self procured  letter addressed by a merchant was brought on record and  pressed for  conssideration  of  the  value  for trees. The  High Court  had considered  it and  rejected the evidence as  not reliable  and, therefore,  it was held that "It can be safely said that it was a procured document. Then again, the  report of  the Kanungo  who had  gone to see the land, show  that incorrect  information about  the number of the trees  was given.  As a  matter of  fact on  one of  the occasions he  had noticed  that main  part of  the land  was submerged under  water. The  number of trees supplied to him was  found   to  be   highly   exaggerated.   This   officer independently verified  the number  of those trees for which the compensation  was payable.  In jungle, it is a matter of common experience  a large  number of  plants grow which, in

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

fact, are  useless, save  and except the same at best can be used for  fuel. Under  these  circumstances,  it  cannot  be accepted. In  the circumstance,  value of the trees given by the respondent-State,  has got  to be  accepted." The  order thus has become final. An application came to be filed under Sections 151  and 152 CPC to correct the decree. The learned single Judge  after considering  the evidence afresh came to the conclusion  that  the  value  of  the    trees  was  Rs. 25,39,919.50 and  computed together  therewith solatium  and interest at  Rs.76,21,630.30. When  an appeal was filed, the Division Bench had held that since it is an amendment of the decree, LPA  would not  lie and accordingly it dismissed the appeal.      We find force in the finding of the Division Bench that an appeal  would not lie against the amendment of the decree and it  is only  a revisable, since the learned single Judge had amended the decree in appeal, a revision to the Division Bench would  not lie.  The view  taken by the Division Bench cannot be  faulted. However  the question  is:  whether  the learned single  Judge was right in correcting the decree and directing payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs.76,21,630.30 by way  of order  under Section  151 and 152 of CPC. We find that the  view taken  by the  learned single  Judge, Justice R.K. Dev,  with due  respect, if  we can  say  so,  is  most atrocious. It  is an admitted position that the valuation of the trees  and the  quantification  was  done  by  the  Land Acquisition  Officer  at  Rs.2,466/-.  On  reference,  after adduction of  evidences the,  reference Court  confirmed the same. When  regular appeal was filed under Section 54 of the Act, the High Court had gone into the question and did not. accept the number of trees and value thereof; it accordingly confirmed the  award of the reference Court. In other words, the decree  of a  sum of Rs.2,466/- granted by the reference Court stood  upheld and became final. The question is: in an amendment of  the decree, could the High Court go behind the order which  had become  final and correct the valuation, as stated earlier, to the tune of sum of Rs.25,39,919.50?  The High Court  obviously in  gross error  in reconsidering  the matter and  came to fresh conclusion as to the number or the trees and  value thereof  under the  guise  of  arithmetical mistake. The  learned single  Judge, therefore,  was  wholly wrong in  his conclusion  as to the amount above referred to for correction of the decree.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed and  the order of the learned single Judge stands set aside. No costs.