Punjab-Haryana High Court
Greater Mohali Development Authority vs Bhagwan Saroop Through His Lrs And Ors on 1 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil
ivil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.03.2025
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA)
through its Additional Chief Administrator
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Bhagwan Saroop through his legal heirs
Hardev Kumar (son) and others
.......... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Argued By:
By Mr. R.S. Khosla,, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijay Lath, Advocate
for contesting respondent Nos. 1 to 44-landowners.
Mr. Vishnav Gandhi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent Nos. 5 & 6.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
The petitioner-Greater
Greater Mohali Area Development Authority
(for
for short “GMADA”),
” byy way of present revision petition, seeks setting
aside of two orders, (i) order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P
P-7), whereby
an application
application filed under Section 151/152 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (for short “CPC“) at the instance of land
land-ownerss seeking correction in
the Award
ward dated 23.12.2022 (Annexure P
P-1)
1) passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, SAS Nagar (for short “Reference Court”),, has
been allowed;
allowed (ii) order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P
P-8), whereby an
1 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:17 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [2]
application moved at the instance of petitioner seeking recalling of the order
dated 09.12.2024, vide which the warrants of attachment qua its property
were issued, has been rejected.
FACTS
[2] Briefly stating, certain land owned by the respondents-
landowners situated in Village Sambalkhi, Hadbast No. 292, Tehsil and
District SAS Nagar (Mohali) came to be acquired vide Notification dated
04.10.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter to be referred as “1894 Act”) for public purpose namely “for
construction of 200 feet wide road”. Later, notification under Section 24 of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as
“2013 Act”) read with Section 6 of 1894 Act was issued on 21.07.2014. An
Award No. 561, dated 27.11.2015 was passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector (for short “LAC”) while exercising the powers under Section 26
of 2013 Act, having assessed the market value @ Rs. 90,00,000/- per acre
for chahi land; Rs. 2,19,00,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin land, besides
awarding other statutory benefits. In terms thereof, the respondents-
landowners were released compensation on 07.01.2016.
[3] Being aggrieved of the market value assessed by the LAC, the
respondents-landowners filed reference under Section 64 of 2013 Act
seeking enhancement of compensation including the market value along
with other statutory benefits and the same came to be allowed by the
Reference Court vide its decision dated 23.12.2022, thereby enhancing the
market value to Rs. 2,81,94,139.9 per acre with grant of 100% solatium as
2 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [3]
well as other benefits. The operative portion of the award is extracted
hereunder:-
” In view of the reasons discussed herein before, the
present petitions are hereby allowed and the compensation
awarded in this case by the Learned Land Acquisition
Collector, SAS Nagar vide Award No. 561 dated
27.11.2015 is hereby enhanced at the rate of Rs.
2,81,94,139.9 per acre, which is to be paid by the
respondents to the petitioners and in addition to it, the
petitioners are also held entitled to A.P. @ 12% from dated
04.10.2013 (i.e. the date of notification) till 27.11.2015 (i.e.
the date of the Award No. 561) alongwith interest as
provided under Section 80 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the solatium
@ 100%, which is to be paid by the respondents to the
petitioners. ”
[4] Still dissatisfied, two appeals came to be preferred before this
Court, (i) RFA-1858-2023 at the instance of landowners-respondents; and
(ii) RFA-221-2024 at the instance of petitioner-GMADA. Vide interim
order dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-2), this Court stayed the disbursement
of 1/3rd of the enhanced compensation subject to appellant-
petitioner/GMADA making payment of balance enhanced amount to the
landowners within eight weeks.
[5] It is the case set up by the petitioner that in terms of the
aforementioned interim order, enhanced compensation was paid to the
respondents-landowners on 11.11.2024 whereas it was pleaded by
respondents/ landowners that a substantial part of compensation yet
remained unpaid to them. Thereafter, both the sides furnished their
3 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [4]
respective calculations before the Executing Court. While submitting their
calculations, the respondents-landowners arrived at a figure by calculating
interest on the enhanced amount @ 9% per annum for the first year from the
date of taking over of possession of the acquired land and for the subsequent
period @ 15% as prescribed under Section 72 of 2013 Act. The matter was
agitated before the Executing Court by the petitioner. Vide order dated
27.11.2024 (Annexure P-4), the Executing Court, while adjudicating upon
the calculations, rejected the contentions made by the respondents-
landowners, having recording that the Reference Court-cum-Authority in its
Award dated 23.12.2022 mentioned about grant of interest under Section 80
of 2013 Act, and there was no reference made about award of interest under
Section 72 thereof and thus, it was recorded that the Executing Court, being
bound by the decree / award, could not travel beyond it.
[6] Later, during pendency of the execution proceedings, on
account of non-payment of enhanced amount in terms of interim order
passed in RFAs by this Court, an order dated 09.12.2024 came to be passed
whereby warrants of attachment were issued with respect to the properties
owned by the petitioner. Faced with this, the petitioner filed objections to it,
while invoking the provision of Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC assailing the
attachment order, besides filing separate application dated 16.12.2024 for
seeking stay of order dated 09.12.2024.
[7] On the other hand, respondents-landowners filed application
under Sections 151/152 of CPC before the Court below on 23.12.2024 for
seeking correction in the Award dated 23.12.2022 so as to replace the term
of “Section 80” to “Section 72” of 2013 Act therein, while stating that the
4 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [5]
Reference Court-cum-Authority though intended to award interest under
Section 72 of the Act on enhanced compensation, however, on account of
clerical / inadvertent mistake mentioned about Section 80 of 2013 Act. The
said application was opposed at the instance of petitioner, having filed
detailed reply dated 22.01.2025. The Court below, vide its order dated
23.01.2025, allowed the prayer made on behalf of respondents-landowners
and ordered that reference to Section 80 in the Award dated 23.12.2022 be
read as Section 72 of 2013 Act.
[8] In such circumstances, by way of present revision petition,
challenge has been laid on behalf of the petitioner to the aforementioned
order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Court below, besides having assailed
another order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the Executing Court, whereby the
application filed at the instance of petitioner for staying the warrants of
attachment qua the property was even dismissed.
CONTENTION(S) ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER
[9] Impugning the aforementioned orders, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that once, a specific mention
about award of interest under Section 80 of 2013 Act was made in the
decision rendered by the Reference Court-cum-Authority, any change
therein to replace the term “Section 80” to “Section 72” of 2013 Act
amounted to review thereof as well as its reconsideration on merits, which
was wholly impermissible. It was also submitted that once, an appeal against
the Award dated 23.12.2022 passed by the Reference Court was subjudice
before this Court, no such application under Section 151/152 of CPC seeking
correction thereof could have been entertained. It was further submitted that
5 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [6]
when the Executing Court while passing an order dated 27.11.2024 on an
earlier occasion reasoned that by treating the interest on the enhanced
compensation as stipulated under Section 72 of 2013 Act while ignoring the
mentioning of Section 80 in the award passed by the Reference Court was
travelling beyond its specifics, any correction or modification therein was
not permissible for the Executing Court.
[9.1] Further, it was submitted that once, objections filed under Order
21 Rule 58 of CPC at the instance of petitioner against the warrants of
attachment of its property were pending before the Executing Court,
rejection to its application for grant of stay thereof was wholly illegal, as the
Executing Court, before proceeding further on the stay application, was
required to first decide the objections. Also, it was submitted that in case the
properties owned by the petitioner were attached at the first instance, there
was no purpose left for adjudication upon its objection at a later stage, as it
was going to cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.
[9.2] In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel placed
reliance upon decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases (i)
“Dwarka Dass Versus State of Madhya Pradesh” 1999 (2) RCR (Civil) 56;
(ii) “Parsion Devi Versus Sumitri Devi” 1997 (4) RCR (Civil) 458; and (iii)
“S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan & Ors.”, 2023 (2) Apex
Court Judgments (SC) 93; and thus, prayed for acceptance of the instant
petition. Relevant paras from the aforementioned cited judgments are
extracted hereunder:-
(i) Dwarka Dass Versus State of Madhya Pradesh;
1991 (2) RCR (Civil) 56;
6 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [7]
Para 5. Section 152 Civil Procedure Code provides for
correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in
judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising
therein from any accidental slip or omission. The
exercise of this power contemplates the correction of
mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions and
does not contemplate of passing effective judicial
orders after the judgment, decree or order. The
settled position of law is that after the passing of the
judgment, decree or order, court or the tribunal
becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled
to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and
orders earlier passed. The correction contemplated
are of correcting only accidental omission or
mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which
might have been committed by the Court while
passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission
sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of
the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for
which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is
to file appeal or review application. It implies that
the Section cannot be pressed into service to correct
an omission which is intentional, how erroneous that
may be. It has been noticed that the courts below
have been liberally construing and applying the
province of Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil
Procedure Code even after passing of effective
orders in the lis pending before them. No Court can
under the cover of the aforesaid sections modify,
alter or add to the terms of its original judgment,
decree or order. In the instant case, the trial court
specifically held the respondents-State liable to pay
future interest only despite the prayer of the
appellant for grant of interest with effect from the
date of alleged breach which impliedly meant that
7 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [8]
the court had rejected the claim of the appellant in
so far as pendente lite interest was concerned. The
omission in not granting the pendente lite interest
could not be held to be accidental omission or
mistake as was wrongly done by the trial court vide
order dated 30th November, 1973. The High Court
was, therefore, justified in setting aside the aforesaid
order by accepting the revision petition filed by the
State.
(ii) Parsion Devi Versus Sumitri Devi; 1997 (4) RCR
(Civil) 458;
Para 8. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code a
judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is
a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record. An error which is not self evident and has to
be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying the court to exercise its power of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure
Code. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47
Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code it is not permissible for
an erroneous decision to be “reheard and
corrected”. A review petition, it must be
remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
(iii) S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan &
Ors.; 2023 (2) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 93.
Para 5.3 In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra),
it is observed and held that scope of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is
limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue
questions which have already been addressed and
decided. It is further observed that an error which is
not self-evident and has to be detected by a process
8 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [9]
of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the face of record justifying the court to
exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. ”
CONTENTION(S) ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT(S)-LANDOWNER(S)
[10] On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents-landowners
submitted that upon wholesome reading of the award dated 23.12.2022
(Annexure P-1) passed by the Reference Court, it could clearly be discerned
that the Court below throughout its discussion intended to award all statutory
benefits provided under 2013 Act in favour of respondents-landowners on
the amount of enhanced compensation, including that of interest thereupon,
though while referring to the relevant provision, it was inadvertently and on
account of clerical error mentioned as Section 80 instead of Section 72 of
2013 Act. It was, thus, submitted that the correction ordered by the Court
below vide its decision dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-7) to replace Section
80 with Section 72 of 2013 Act while invoking Section 151/152 of CPC was
well within its powers and thus, the impugned order in this regard warrants
no interference.
[10.1] In support, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4-
landowners relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
case “Pratibha Singh Versus Shanti Devi Prasad” AIR 2003 SCC 643.
Relevant paragraph No.17 thereof is reproduced hereunder:-
” Para-17 When the suit as to immovable property has been
decreed and the property is not definitely
identified, the defect in the court record caused
by overlooking of provisions contained in Order
7 Rule 3 and Order 20 Rule 3 of the CPC is
9 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [10]
capable of being cured. After all a successful
plaintiff should not be deprived of the fruits of
decree. Resort can be had to Section 152 or
Section 47 of the CPC depending on the facts
and circumstances of each case-which of the two
provisions would be more appropriate, just and
convenient to invoke. Being an inadvertent error,
not affecting the merits of the case, it may be
corrected under Section 152 of the CPC by the
Court which passed the decree by supplying the
omission. Alternatively, the exact description of
decretal property may be ascertained by the
Executing Court as a question relating to
execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree
within the meaning of Section 47 CPC. A decree
of a competent Court should not, as far as
practicable, be allowed to be defeated on
account of an accidental slip or omission. In the
facts and circumstances of the present case we
think it would be more appropriate to invoke
Section 47 of the CPC.”
Further, with respect to grant of stay qua the warrants of
attachment by the Executing Court, it was submitted that once the petitioner
failed to deposit the complete enhanced amount in favour of respondents-
landowners in terms of interim order dated 24.09.2024 (Annexure P-2)
passed by this Court in RFAs, the Executing Court was well within its
jurisdiction to decline grant of interim protection in favour of petitioner. It
was, thus, prayed that the present revision petition was liable to be
dismissed.
10 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [11]
FINDINGS
[11] Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the
paper-book / relevant record as well as law cited at bar, no substance can be
found in the submission(s) made on behalf of the petitioner.
[12] Before delving into merits of the case in hand, it may be
necessary to go through the provisions of Section 152 CPC as well as the
fundamental ex-position of law made thereupon by the Hon’ble Apex Court
from time to time.
“(a) Section 152 CPC:
Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders-
Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments,
decrees, or orders or errors arising therein from any
accidental slip or omission may at any time be
corrected by the Court either of its own motion or
on the application of any of the parties.”
(b) Decision(s) rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in cases:-
(i) Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Versus
State of Orissa and another; 1966 AIR
Supreme Court 1047;
Relevant portion from para 7. ……An arithmetical
mistake is a mistake of calculation; a clerical
mistake is a mistake in writing or typing. An
error arising out of or occurring from an
accidental slip or omission is an error due to a
careless mistake or omission unintentionally
made. There is another qualification namely,
such an error,shall be apparent on the face of
the record, that is to say, it is not an error
11 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [12]
which depends for its discovery, on elaborate
arguments on questions of fact or law. The
accidental slip or omission is an accidental
slip or omission made by the court. The
obvious instance is a slip or omission to
embody in the order something which the court
in fact ordered to be done.. This is sometimes
described as a decretal order not being in
accordance with the judgment. ‘But the slip or
omission may be attributed to the Judge
himself. He may say something or omit to say
something which he did not intend to say or
omit. This ‘is described as a slip or omission in
the judgment itself. The cause for such a slip or
omission may be the Judge’s inadvertence or
the, advocate’s mistake. But, however wide the
said expressions are construed, they cannot
countenance a re-argument on merits on
questions of fact or law, or permit a party to
raise new arguments which he has not
advanced at the first instance…..
(ii) Tilak Raj Versus Baikunthi Devi (D) By
LRs, 2010 (12) SCC 585;
Para 14. The aforesaid mistake was of clerical
nature which could have been corrected by
applying the provisions of Section 152 of the
CPC. Counsel appearing for the respondents
also during his submissions fairly accepted the
aforesaid position. The remedy that was
available to the appellant was to file an
application seeking for amendment of the
decree by way of correcting the clerical
mistake in respect of Khasra Number. Since the
mistake was clerical in nature and the
appellant being not responsible for the said
12 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [13]
clerical mistake which had occurred due to
wrong recording of Khasra Number in Khasra
Girdawari, we find no reason as to why such a
genuine and bona fide mistake cannot be
allowed to be corrected by exercising the
powers under Section 152 of the CPC. In K.
Rajamouli vs. A.V.K.N. Swamy, (2001) 5 SCC
37, this Court held as follows:-
“Section 152 provides that a clerical or
arithmetical mistake in judgments,
decrees or orders or errors arising
therein from any accidental slip or
omission may at any time be corrected
by the Court either of its own motion or
on the application of any of the parties”.
Para 15. Since the court exists to dispense justice,
any mistake which is found to be clerical in
nature should be allowed to be rectified by
exercising inherent power vested in the court
for sub-serving the cause of justice. The
principle behind the provision is that no party
should suffer due to bona fide mistake.
Whatever is intended by the court while
passing the order or decree must be properly
reflected therein otherwise it would only be
destructive of the principle of advancing the
cause of justice. In such matters, the courts
should not bind itself by the shackles of
technicalities.
(iii) Srihari (Dead) through LR. Ch. Niveditha
Reddy Versus Syed Maqdoom Singh and
others, 2015 (1) SCC (Civil) 610
Para 12. From the language of Section 152 of the
Code, as quoted above, and also from the
13 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [14]
interpretation of the section given in the case
of State of Punjab vs. Darshan Singh (supra),
the section is meant for correcting the clerical
or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees
or orders or errors arising therein from any
accidental slip or omission. It is true that the
powers under Section 152 of the Code are
neither to be equated with the power of review
nor can be said to be akin to review or even
said to clothe the Court under guise of
invoking after the result of the judgment earlier
rendered. The corrections contemplated under
the section are of correcting only accidental
omissions or mistakes and not all omissions
and mistakes. The omission sought to be
corrected which goes to the merits of the case
is beyond the scope of Section 152. In Bijay
Kumar Saraogi (supra) also it has been
reiterated that Section 152 of the Code can be
invoked for the limited purpose of correcting
clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in
judgments or accidental omissions.
Para 13. Now we have to examine whether by the
impugned order, the High Court has only
corrected the clerical, arithmetical or
accidental omission in the decree passed or
not. To appreciate the same, first we think it
necessary to mention as to what the word
“expression accidental omission” means. In
Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. State of
Orissa and Another AIR 1966 SC 1047,
expression – accidental slip or omission has
been explained as an error due to a careless
mistake or omission unintentionally made. It is
further observed in the said case that there is
14 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [15]
another qualification, namely, such an error
shall be apparent on the face of the record,
that is to say, it is not an error which depends
for its discovery, elaborate arguments on
questions of fact or law.
Para 14. Whether the High Court has acted
within the scope of Section 152 of the Code or
not, we have to see as to what were the
pleadings of parties, what was the decree
passed, and what was the correction made in
it. ”
[13] A perusal of the statutory provision as well as the ex-position of
law made thereupon reflects that essentially the power under Section 152
CPC flows from the principle of law that “an act of Court shall prejudice no
man” and such power can be exercised in the facts and circumstances of the
present case for the following brief reasons:-
(a) An accidental slip or omission is an error due to a
careless mistake or omission unintentionally
made. The accidental slip or omission is an
accidental slip or omission made by the Court
which may say something or omit to say
something which it did not intend to say or omit.
(b) accidental and unintentional omissions or careless
mistakes which are bona fide and genuine, can be
corrected without altering or adding to the terms
of original decision so as to carry out and express
the real intent;
15 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [16]
(c) error, which is apparent on the face of record and
not dependent upon its discovery or elaborate
arguments or questions of facts and law, can be
rectified; and
(d) whatever is intended by the Court while passing
the order or decree must be properly reflected
therein otherwise it would only be destructive of
the principle of advancing the cause of justice as
the Court would then be binding itself by the
shackles of technicalities, therefore, the Court
should always be ready and willing to rectify its
mistake.
[14] At this stage, it may also be relevant and desirable to run
through Section 72 and Section 80 of 2013 Act which are re-produced
hereunder:-
” Section 72-Collector may be directed to pay interest on
excess compensation-
If the sum, which in the opinion of the Authority concerned, 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 Authority concerned may direct that the Collector
shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per cent per
annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to
the date of payment of such excess into Authority:
Provided that the award of the Authority concerned may also
direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid to the
Authority after the date or expiry of a period of one year from
the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of
16 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [17]
fifteen per cent 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 Authority
before the date of such expiry.
Section 80-Payment of interest-
When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited
on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall
pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine
per cent per annum from the time of so taking possession until it
shall have been so paid or deposited:
Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not
paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on
which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent
per annum shall be payable from the date or expiry of the said
period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof
which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such
expiry.
[14.1] A perusal of the aforementioned two provisions show that under
Section 80 of 2013 Act, the Collector needs to award interest in favour of the
landowners whose land has been acquired, in case the compensation is not
paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land. Collector has to
grant interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date on which the
compensation was deposited / paid whereas after the expiry of one year, the
interest has to be awarded @ 15% per annum from the date of taking
possession of acquired land till the compensation is deposited/ paid to the
landowner.
[14.2] On the other hand, as per Section 72 of 2013 Act, in case the
appropriate authority-cum-reference Court finds that the compensation needs
17 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [18]
to be enhanced in comparison to that awarded by the Collector, it may direct
that the Collector shall pay interest for the first year on the excess amount @
9% per annum from the date he took possession of the land to the date of
payment of such excess amount, whereas after the expiry of one year from
the date of taking over of possession, interest needs to be calculated @ 15%
per annum.
[15] Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is evident that
while disposing of the reference filed under section 64 of 2013 Act at the
instance of respondents-landowners for seeking enhancement of
compensation, learned Reference Court-cum-Authority increased the market
value of the land under acquisition to Rs. 2,81,94,139.9 per acre. Besides it,
the Reference Court also awarded other statutory benefits as prescribed
under section 69(2) & 69(3) of 2013 Act, however, while intending to award
interest on the enhanced compensation, instead of mentioning about Section
72 of 2013 Act, inadvertently it recorded Section 80 therein. At the cost of
repetition, yet finding it necessary, relevant extract of paragraphs 28 & 30 of
award dated 23.12.2022 is reproduced hereunder:-
“Para 28 ……Furthermore, this Court is of the
considered view that as per Section 69 (2) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the A.P. @ 12%
from the date of publication of the primary Notification to
the date of Award is also to be awarded in addition to the
market value of the land acquired.
Furthermore, as per Section 69 (3) of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the solatium @
100% over the total compensation amount is to be awarded18 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [19]
in addition to the aforesaid market value arrived at by
adding the multiplier factor of ‘1’, Furthermore, the
petitioners are also entitled to interest as provided under
Section 80 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, besides their entitlement for the
aforesaid enhanced compensation……….
Para 30. In view of the reasons discussed herein
before, the present petitions are hereby allowed and the
compensation awarded in this case by the Learned Land
Acquisition Collector, SAS Nagar vide Award No. 561
dated 27.11.2015 is hereby enhanced at the rate of Rs.
2,81,94,139.9 per acre, which is to be paid by the
respondents to the petitioners and in addition to it, the
petitioners are also held entitled to A.P. @ 12% from dated
04.10.2013 (i.e. the date of notification) till 27.11.2015 (i.e.
the date of the Award No. 561) alongwith interest as
provided under Section 80 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the solatium
@ 100%, which is to be paid by the respondents to the
petitioners. ”
[16] From a close conjoint reading of the above mentioned extract
from the award along with the sequence and manner of narration made
therein, it is apparent that while grant of benefit of interest to the
landowners-respondents, Section 80 of 2013 Act finds mention immediately
alongside their entitlement for the enhanced compensation. Thus, it can be
clearly discerned that though the Authority visibly intended to grant the
benefit of statutory interest on the enhanced compensation, yet on account of
an obvious unintentional and inadvertent accidental omission went on to
specify it as award of interest under Section 80 of 2013 Act while
19 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [20]
mentioning the incorrect statutory provision for it. This view was further
fortified from the fact that even as per the case set up by the petitioners, the
benefit of interest under Section 80 ibid was not available to the landowners
as the compensation amount in terms of original award by Collector
admittedly stood deposited much before their filing of reference under
Section 64 of 2013 Act immediately at the time of taking over of possession
and therefore, there was no occasion at all for the Reference Court-cum-
Authority to have repeated the same benefit to respondents. Moreso, in its
entire award, the Reference Court-cum-Authority nowhere either specifically
or even impliedly declined the statutory benefit of interest under Section 72
of 2013 Act to the respondents-landowners on the enhanced compensation
and not even recorded any specific reasons for holding them disentitled for
the same. In such circumstances, it was more than visible that while dealing
with and disposing of the reference under Section 64 of 2013 Act, which was
enacted by the Parliament only in the recent past, such bona fide mistake of
mentioning of an incorrect statutory provision occurred and it was clearly
and solely attributable to the Reference Court alone. Accordingly in the
given facts, the Reference Court-cum-Authority having passed the impugned
order about carrying out of necessary correction in the award dated
23.12.2022, so as to replace the term Section 80 with Section 72 of 2013 by
rectifying its own unintended error and to do complete and sustainable
justice committed no illegality. Moreover, it can neither held to be
amounting to review of the Award dated 23.12.2022 nor even can be treated
to be any fresh reconsideration of the claim set up by the landowners on
merits and therefore, if the power under Section 152 CPC is not exercised in
20 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [21]
such circumstances, the same would tantamount to defeating the object and
purpose of the provision.
[17] Furthermore, no merit can be found in the contention raised on
behalf of the petitioner that the Executing Court while passing an order dated
27.11.2024 once having went on to record that in the execution proceedings,
the Court was not to go beyond decree as, no specific mention of grant of
interest under Section 72 of 2013 Act was prescribed by the Reference Court
cannot be made a ground for rejecting the prayer made by respondents-
landowners for carrying out correction in the award dated 23.12.2022. In
this regard, it may be pointed out here that at the time of passing of the order
dated 27.11.2024 by the Executing Court, no such application under Section
152 CPC was either preferred or pending before the Court below and thus,
the Executing Court was well within its jurisdiction to decline the benefit of
interest under Section 72 of 2013 Act, to the landowners, the same not been
specifically mentioned by the authority. However, once, an application
under Section 152 CPC was later filed at the instance of landowners, in the
changed circumstances, the same was rightly decided independently on its
own merits without being influenced by the observations made in the order
dated 27.11.2024 passed by the Executing Court.
[18] Moreover, even the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner would not apply to the facts and
circumstances of the present case, as the case of Dwaraka Das (supra) was a
matter wherein it was found that Section 152 of CPC was invoked for
seeking correction of an intentional omission whereas in the facts of the
present case, it has been specifically recorded that the omission about
21 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [22]
mentioning of award of interest Section 80 instead of Section 72 of 2013 Act
was an unintentional and bona fide error committed by the Reference Court-
cum-Authority itself. Besides it, the decisions in case of Parsion Devi
(supra) and S. Murali Sundaram (supra) would also not apply to the facts
of the present case as those relate to the scope of power of review as
prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, whereas the correction ordered by
the Reference Court in the facts and circumstances of the present case being
an inadvertent omission was not to be termed as review of its original Award
dated 23.12.2022.
[19] Besides it, in the facts of the case in hand, the dismissal of an
application filed at the instance of petitioner for recalling of the warrants of
attachment of its property was wholly justified as complete amount of
compensation was not deposited with the Executing Court in terms of order
passed by this Court in RFA. Even no specific challenge has been made in
the present revision petition to the order dated 09.12.2024 vide which
warrants of attachment was ordered with respect to the property of the
petitioner. As regards the plea raised by the petitioner with respect to the
pendency of objections filed on its behalf while invoking Order 21 Rule 58
of CPC against the warrants of attachment of property, the Court concerned
in the given facts is requested to look into the grievance of petitioner-
GMADA and decide those objections within reasonable time after affording
opportunity of hearing to the respondents-landowners and upon following
the statutory procedure.
[20] Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion made
hereinabove, finding no illegality or perversity with the power exercised by
22 of 23
::: Downloaded on – 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029345
Civil Revision No. 784 of 2025 (O&M) [23]
the Court below, the present revision petition being devoid of merits, is
therefore, dismissed.
[21] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed off.
March 01, 2025 ( HARKESH MANUJA )
'dk kamra' JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
23 of 23
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2025 02:00:18 :::
[ad_1]
Source link