Delhi High Court
Union Of India vs Hari Ram & Anr. on 13 January, 2011
Author: P.K.Bhasin
Bench: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LA APP. NO. 1076 OF 2008
Date of Decision: 13th January, 2011
# UNION OF INDIA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate.
Versus
$ HARI RAM & ANR. ..... Respondents
^ Through: Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate for
R-1.
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the Judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J:(ORAL) This appeal was filed by the Union of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 27th October, 2010 passed by the Additional District Judge in LAC No. 456A/1/06 whereby while giving some enhancement in compensation to the respondent No.1 herein in respect of his land in village Dallu Pura which stood acquired by the Government awarded interest also on the enhanced compensation for the period during which the reference proceedings had remained stayed because of the LA APP. NO. 1076/2008 Page 1 of 5 pendency of another reference under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act between the respondent No.1 herein and one Prahalad Gandhi from whom the respondent No.1 claimed to have purchased the land in question and the right to get compensation in respect thereof. The appellant has also challenged the order dated 20 th December, 2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the application of respondent No.1 under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and the earlier judgment and decree were modified by including the relief of payment of additional benefit also under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act in the reliefs earlier granted to the respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 27th October, 2006.
2. As far as the enhancement in compensation awarded by the Reference Court is concerned the appellant was not aggrieved in view of the fact that the same had been awarded following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "DDA vs. Baliram Sharma and Others": 2000 (8) Apex Decision (SC) 81.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the Reference Court which was sent for.
4. A perusal of the Reference Court's records shows that after entertaining the Reference made by of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of respondent No.1 herein, the Reference Court on coming to LA APP. NO. 1076/2008 Page 2 of 5 know that there was another reference also made under Sections 30-31 of the by the Land Acquisition Act because of some dispute between respondent No.1 and one Prahalad Gandhi from whom Hari Ram claimed to have purchased the land in dispute passed an order on 24 th September, 1985 staying the reference proceedings sine die till the decision of the reference under Sections 30-31. That reference came to be decided in favour of respondent No.1 herein by the Reference Court and I was told by counsel for respondent No.1 that the challenge to the decision of the Reference Court by the previous owner came to be rejected firstly by this court and then by the Supreme Court also. After that matter had attained finality the respondent No.1 had moved the Reference Court for revival of the present reference and the same came to be revived in August 2006 and after trial it was disposed of by the Reference Court vide impugned judgment dated 27th October, 2006. While granting enhancement in compensation the Reference Court, however, did not include in its concluding para of the judgment the relief of additional amount under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act while awarding other statutory reliefs to the respondent No.1 herein.
5. As far as the challenge of the appellant to the grant of interest to respondent No.1 for the period during which the reference proceedings had remained stayed is concerned, this Court finds no merit in it in view of the LA APP. NO. 1076/2008 Page 3 of 5 decision of full bench of this Court in "Chander Vs. Union of India & Anr".: 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 125. In that case it was held that where reference proceedings are stayed sine die by an order of the Court to await the decision of some proceedings under Sections 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act the land owner is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation in case of his succeeding in the reference proceedings ultimately. In the present case, since the respondent No.1 had not made any request for staying the reference proceedings because of the pendency of the reference under Sections 30-31 and the Reference Court on its own had stayed the proceedings the respondent No.1 could not be denied the benefit of interest on the enhanced compensation for the period the proceedings had remained stayed.. Therefore, the appellant's challenge against the grant of interest on the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court is liable to be rejected.
6. I am also of the view that the appellant's other challenge in this appeal against the decision of the Reference Court correcting its judgment and decree by invoking Section 152 CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant had very fairly submitted that respondent No.1 herein was entitled to get the benefit of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in "K.S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala & Ors.": AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1012. However, it LA APP. NO. 1076/2008 Page 4 of 5 was contended that after the reference had been decided and that relief was left out the Reference Court could not have invoked the provisions of Section 152 CPC as it had become functus officio after the pronouncement of the judgment. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 20 th December, 2006 shows that the learned trial Judge had observed that the relief under Section 23(1A) had been inadvertently left out in the judgment and that was purely a clerical mistake. Before the Reference Court Union of India had not filed any reply to the application of respondent No.1 for including this relief also in the judgment and it had been admitted on its behalf that there was a clerical mistake in the judgment and decree dated 27th October, 2006. Therefore, this Court does not find any fault with the decision of the learned Trial Court correcting its judgment in exercise of its powers under Section 152 CPC and considering the fact that the Reference Court had extended all other statutory benefits to respondent No.1, the omission of mention the relief under Section 23(1A) was clearly inadvertent error on the part of the Court.
7. For the forgoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed but without any order as to the costs.
January 13, 2011 P.K. BHASIN,J
nk
LA APP. NO. 1076/2008 Page 5 of 5