The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers conferred by Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code are limited to the correction of accidental omissions or mistakes and cannot be used to reopen a final judgment or to modify, alter, or add to the terms of the original judgment.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. - CM APPL. 23535/2021 (for clarification of order dated 04.05.2021) in LA.APP. 612/2008

CM APPL. 23691/2021 (for clarification of order dated 04.05.2021) in LA.APP. 749/2008

CM APPL. 23144/2021 (for clarification of order dated 04.05.2021) in LA.APP. 921/2008

1. These applications preferred by the Union in the instant appeals are, with the consent of parties, being disposed of by this common order.

2. The applications purporting to have been preferred under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code seek this Court to make appropriate "amendments/corrections/clarification in para 20 of the final JUDGMENT dated 04.05.2021". By the aforesaid decision, a learned Judge of the Court disposed of a set of appeals assailing the validity of the final judgment rendered by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. While L.A. Nos. 612/2008 and LA.APP. 749/2008 had been preferred by the landholders, L.A. No. 921/2008 was instituted by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation [DMRC]. The UOI was a respondent in those appeals. While the appeal preferred by the DMRC came to be dismissed, the appeals of the landholders came to be partly allowed with the learned Judge enhancing the compensation which had been adjudicated as payable by the Reference Court. The judgment of this Court dated 4 May 2021 forms subject matter of challenge in Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 13193-13203/2021 preferred before the Supreme Court by the DMRC and the landholders which have been entertained and interim orders passed.

3. Mr. Pathak learned counsel appearing for the applicants as well as Mr. Mehta and Mr. Yadav, learned senior counsels appearing for the landholders, have rendered valuable assistance to this Court thus enabling it to muster together the facts of this protracted litigation. Since learned counsels addressed elaborate submissions touching upon the merits of the litigation underlying these appeals, it would be apposite to briefly notice the salient facts which would be relevant for the purposes of disposal of these applications.

4. The instant applications essentially seek clarification/correction of the observations entered by the learned Judge in paragraph 20 F and G of the judgment dated 4 May 2021. The said paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow: -

"F. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the aforesaid order/judgment in Section 30/31 proceedings has not attained finality. Thus as far as issue No.1 aforesaid framed by the Reference Court is concerned, it is no longer res integra that the property owners are entitled to the entire compensation determined, save the capitalized value of the rent under the perpetual lease, determined at Rs.960/-, being the share of L&DO as lessor in the compensation.

G. Accordingly, though pursuant to the award of LAC aforesaid, the property owners were initially permitted to withdraw compensation determined at the rate of Rs.18,480/-per sq.mtr. supra, to the extent of 75% only but on pronouncement of the JUDGMENT aforesaid, were also permitted to withdraw the remaining 25% of compensation except the share of Rs.960/-, determined to be of L&DO."

5. According to learned counsel for the applicant, the aforesaid observations recorded by the learned Judge, suffer from a patent error apparent on the face of the record as well as an error which is rectifiable under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. The submission proceeds on the following basis. According to learned counsel, the learned Judge in paragraph 20 E had noticed the findings recorded by the Reference Court with respect to the right of the L & D.O. to a share in the compensation payable on account of acquisition of the land in question and held that the said department would at best be entitled to the capitalized value of the rent payable out of the compensation amount. The Reference Court recorded the aforesaid finding bearing in mind an order dated 29 May 2001 passed in proceedings taken under Section 30 and 31