Karnataka High Court
Markhandesh Basappa Math vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 25 June, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8622
WP No. 102138 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.102138 OF 2016 (LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
MARKHANDESH BASAPPA MATH,
AGED KABOUT: 40 YEARS,
R/O: KENGAL KADAPATTI VILLAGE,
HUNGUND TALUK.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ S. BYAKOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT,
BAGALKOT.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R2;
R1-NOTICE SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
Digitally signed
by
YASHAVANT
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.11.2015, MADE ON I.A.NO:I/15 IN
NARAYANKAR
YASHAVANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF LAC.NO:97/2014, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
HUNGUND (ANNEXURE-E) AND FURTHER TO DIRECT TO MODIFY
2024.07.23
11:26:21
+0530 JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 22.08.2015, MADE IN LAC.NO:97/2014
BY AWARDING COMPENSATION TO THE STRUCTURE AT 70% AND
100% SOLATIUM TO HOUSE PROPERTY BEARING VPC NO:25/C,
MEASURING 16.20 SQ.METERS, SITUATED AT KENGALKADAPATTI
VILLAGE, HUNGUND TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT, TO THE
PETITIONER AS PER RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND
TRANSFERENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND
RESETTLEMENT ACT, 2013 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY (VIDE ANNEXURE-B) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8622
WP No. 102138 of 2016
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondents/State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2015 made on I.A. No.1/2015 in LAC No.97/2014, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hungund and further to modify the order dated 22.08.2015 made in LAC No.97/2014 by awarding solatium at 100% to the house property bearing VPC No.25/C, measuring 16.20 square meters, situated at Kengalkadapatti village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District to the petitioner as per Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as 'the Act').
3. Petitioner is the owner of a house property bearing VPC No.25/C, measuring 16.20 square meters, situated at Kengalkadapatti village, Hungund Taluk, Bagalkot District. The said house was acquired by the government as it came under the submergence of Upper Krishna Project, Navanagar, Bagalkot. Petitioner accepted the compensation amount awarded by respondent No.1/SLAO. Petitioner filed a reference -3- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8622 WP No. 102138 of 2016 application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act along with Section 64 of the new Act of 2013 to refer the matter to Civil Court for determination of adequate compensation. The Trial Court after considering the grounds urged by the petitioner, enhanced the compensation and passed the award. While passing the award, the Trial Court awarded solatium at 75% instead of 100% as per Section 69(3) of the new Act. Therefore, there being an arithmetical error committed by the Reference Court, the petitioner made an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to rectify the arithmetical error and grant 100% solatium instead of 75% as the same is contrary to the new Act i.e., Act of 2013 which clearly contemplates solatium at 100% as per Section 69(3) of the Act of 2013.
4. The said application was considered by the Reference Court upon filing the objections and hearing the learned counsels for both the parties. The Reference Court relying upon the judgment in the case of M/S. U.P.S.R.T.C vs. Imtiaz Hussain reported in AIR 2006 SC 649 rejected the application. It is this order that is questioned by the petitioner on the ground that it is an arithmetical error committed by the -4- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8622 WP No. 102138 of 2016 Reference Court, when the Act contemplates 100% solatium as per Section 69(3), the Reference Court ought to have awarded the same rather than 75% as solatium. Therefore, the Reference Court awarded solatium is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2013, which according to him is an arithmetical error which could be rectified by the Reference Court itself.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the State vehemently contends that the order impugned is not tainted with any arbitrariness or illegality. The same is inconsonance to the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the petition as the scope of Section 152 is very narrow and the Court cannot go into merits of the matter, once it has been disposed of by virtue of a judgment and award.
6. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under:
152. 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 m7ay at any time be corrected by -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8622 WP No. 102138 of 2016 the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties.
7. On a careful reading of the above said provision, it is apparently very clear that it is only clerical or arithmetical mistake in judgments which is an accidental slip or omission that could be corrected either on its own motion or an application made by the parties. Now, the question that arises is whether the solatium awarded at 75% by the Reference Court instead of 100% as contemplated under the Act, would amount to a clerical or arithmetical mistake. In my humble opinion, the powers under Section 152 cannot be equated with the power of review, and neither is it akin to review. Therefore, anything that is a ministerial Act of clerical or a typographical arithmetical error could only be corrected under the provisions of Section 152 of CPC. Several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court have dealt with this matter as to what is the scope of Section 152 and whether, it is akin to the power of review. Some of the judgments are 2004(1) SCC 328, 2021(4) SCC 181, 2005(7) SCC 748, 2006 SCC 649.
8. The Reference Court has dealt with the matter and has dismissed the application rightly as the prayer sought for -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:8622 WP No. 102138 of 2016 would not fall within the purview of Section 152 of CPC. However, this Court is conscious of the fact that though the prayer sought for by the petitioner would not fall within the purview of Section 152 of CPC. The Reference Court would still be within its jurisdiction to consider the prayer of the petitioner by way of review, as the petitioner who is the landloser had applied for compensation. They are satisfied with the award except for the limited extent of solatium to an extent of 100% rather than 75% ordered by the Reference Court. Of course, this Court does not find fault that the order passed by the Reference Court, but as the Maxim goes "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit", which means Act of the Court cannot prejudice the right of a person. The petitioner, as on date of filing of the reference and the award, the new Act of 2013 had come into vogue and Section 69(3) of the Act, contemplates solatium 100%. The petitioner being the landloser, cannot be deprived of 100% solatium. Under the circumstances, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) This petition is disposed of.-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8622 WP No. 102138 of 2016
ii) The order of the Reference Court is not interfered.
iii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to make an application for review of the order under the relevant provision and seek necessary relief in accordance with law which shall be considered by the Trial Court expeditiously.
Sd/-
JUDGE SSP CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0