JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J.:---Both these application---Misc. Civil Application No. 37 of 1986 and Misc. Civil Application No. 36 of 1986, for review of our judgments in First Appeal Nos. 40 of 1979 and 41 of 1979, respectively, decided on 21-11-1984, can be disposed of by a common judgment. Inasmuch as the facts and circumstances in both the applications are identical.

2. Brief facts leading to the present applications may be narrated as follows:

The present applicants are the landowners who were the respondents in the first appeals mentioned above. By a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the (Principal Act) issued on 11-2-1970, followed by Notification under section 6 of the Principal Act dated 18-7-1970, 3.74 Acres of land out of Survey No. 83/1 and 3.21 acres of land out of Survey No. 98 both of village Mahadula, Tahsil and Dist, Nagpur, belonging to the applicants were put under acquisition. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panch Project, Nagpur, by an Award dated 28-4-1972, passed in Revenue Code No. 31/A 65/1970-71 granted a total sum of Rs. 1,24,727.85 as compensation. The matter was then referred to the Civil Court and the Joint Civil Judge; (Senior Division), Nagpur, who heard this matter, being Land Acquisition Case No. 33 of 1972, by its award dated 30-11-1978, granted enhanced compensation of Rs. 3,32,178.93 solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 3% from the date of taking possession till the date of payment with proportionate costs.

3. The State of Maharashtra challenged this Award of the Civil Court vide First Appeal Nos. 40 of 1979, and 41 of 1979, before this Court. Both these first appeals were decided by us on 20-11-1984, in that we had agreed with the trial Court and dismissed the appeals filed by the State with costs. However, we had modified the rate of interest, in exercise of powers conferred by the provisions of Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and directed that the rate of interest shall be 4% instead of 3% as allowed by the trial Court.

4. The case now put forth by the landowners is that by the time the aforesaid first appeals were decided, the provisions of the Provision Act were amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred as the 'Amendment Act') which was brought into force with effect from 17-9-1984. Their further case is that the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 and section 28 of the Principal Act were amended by Clause (b) of section 15 and section 18 of the Amendment Act respectively. They contended that these amendments have been given retrospective effect by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Amendment Act and are made applicable to all proceedings pending in any Court on 30th April, 1982 and decided thereafter. They further contended that they are, therefore, entitled to all the benefits arising out of these amended provision as, admittedly, the proceedings relating to the determination of compensation in the instant case were pending on 30th April, 1982 and were decided only on 20th November, 1984. According to the applicants the amended provisions could not be brought to the notice of this Court. Inasmuch as the first appeals were heard on 12th September, 1984 and the Amendment Act was brought into force on 17th September, 1984. Further, according to the applicants, since the amended provisions, though applicable, were not considered by this Court while deciding the aforesaid first appeals, there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which needs to be corrected by reviewing the judgments dated 21-11-1984. Lastly, the applicants contended that the benefits arising out of the amended provisions can be given to them by invoking the powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as 'C.P.C.') read with section 151 thereof,

5. We have heard Shri M.G. Bhangde, Advocate, for the applicants land

Click Here to Read the rest of this document