Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 5.12.2002 in I.A. No. 515 of 2002 in O.P. No. 25 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District, wherein the Senior Civil Judge allowed the interlocutory application on the ground that there is a mistake which can be said that accidental omission or slip by which the claimant is being adversely affected and likely to deprived of the fruits of the decree in O.P. No. 25 of 1994 unless the same is rectified by amending the schedule of the decree in O.P. No. 25 of 1994. It is further observed that though the mistake is crept in the schedule is not due to any typographical mistake or any mistake of the Court, it is only due to the mistake of Land Acquision Officer and as such, in view of the decisions cited and in view of the law to rectify the said mistake by amending the schedule of the decree dated 22.3.2001 passed in O.P. No. 25 of 1994 in the interest of justice. The above amendment petition was allowed with a condition that against the judgment in O.P. No. 25 of 1994, an appeal was preferred pending before the High Court in Appeal No. 2532 of 2002, the appeal was disposed off on 19.11.2002, and therefore, the above said amendment of schedule is subject to confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court.

2. Against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed contending that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, has acted contrary to law by exercising jurisdiction not vested in him. Further, the learned Senior Civil Judge has acted with material irregularity in allowing the Interlocutory Application, though the petition as filed is not maintainable in law. Further, the learned Judge has exercised his jurisdiction by stating that mistake is an accidental omission and the same is contrary to record. It is further contended that the learned judge ought not to have entertained the amendment as sought for by the petitioner-claimant No. 8 as the matter was ceased by the High Court. Moreover, the extent of land of Acs.5.25 guntas in Sy. No. 413 in the name of the petitioner-claimant No. 8 which was not in the original reference made by the Land Acquision Officer to the Subordinate Court.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant submitted that the learned Senior Civil Judge, came to the conclusion that the mistake would have crept in accidentally or by omission and therefore, ordered for the amendment of the schedule of the decree in O.P. No. 25 of 1994. Therefore, the order can be sustainable under law.

4. The facts of the case are that the land measuring Ac. 18.01 guntas in Sy. No. 377 and another extent of Ac. 5.25 guntas in S. No. 413 situated in Jangaon village and total extent comes to Ac.23-26 guntas which belongs to the petitioner and an amount of Rs. 1,77,375/- was paid by way of compensation to the above said extent, determining the value at Rs. 7,500/- per acre, vide Award dated 8.1.1991 and an application has made by the respondent-claimant herein, closely referred under Ex.B1. The total extent covered by the award is Ac. 66-17 guntas, out of which, the Land Acquision Officer has deposited the amount to the extent of Ac. 2-11 guntas of the land pertaining to the land situated in S. No. 390 under Section-30 of the Land Acquision Act (for short 'the Act') and thereafter, he referred the remaining extent of land Ac. 64-06 guntas under Section 18 of the Act to the Subordinate Court, Peddapalli for determination of compensation. Accordingly, the Court passed judgment on 16.3.2001 in O.P. No. 25 of 1994 and in the schedule attached to the decree; the land to the extent of Ac.5-25 guntas was omitted by mistake. The total extent of Ac. 23-26 guntas of land belongs to the claimant was acquired, but the decree shows only Ac. 18-01 guntas of land in Sy. No. 390 Omitting Ac.5-25 guntas in Sy. No. 413. Therefore, he filed the above interlocutory application to amend the schedule attached to the decree.

13. From the above discussion, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as on the date of filing of the I.A. to amend the schedule of the O.P.25 of 1994, appeal is pending before the superior Court against the judgment of the inferior Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli in O.P.25 of 1994 and at the time of disposal of the I.A. the superior Court has disposed of the appeal. Therefore, when he noticed that the appeal is disposed of, he ought not to have, in the first instance, entertained the application and dispose of the same. Therefore, he has committed material irregularity in entertaining the I.A. and disposing of the same, when no matter is pending before him as stated above. Once, he has disposed of the O.P.25 of 1994, he lost the jurisdiction to entertain the I.A. The case of the respondent - Land Acquisition Officer that he committed mistake while fair copying the reference, by not mentioning the extent, cannot be accepted for the simple reason that had it been true, the Land Acquisition Officer should have approached the court for rectification of such mistake, in the schedule of property, which he did not chose to do. From the above discussion and having regard to the ratio laid down by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Hari Krishan (1st supra), that the judgment should not be outside the scope of the reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the amendment ordered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapally, is contrary to the law and passed transgressing jurisdiction, in view of the fact that the matter was seized by this court and subjected to an appeal. That apart, the learned Senior Civil Judge has erred in passing the impugned order, having noticed that the appeal is disposed of by this court, by the time the lower court was considering the I.A. for amendment of schedule. Therefore, he ought to have directed the parties to approach this court for correction of the schedule of property.