The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers under Section 152 of the CPC are not to be equated with the power of review and cannot be used to alter the terms of the original judgment, decree, or order, especially if it goes to the merits of the case.

ORDER :

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Satta appearing for the respondents has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the order dated 06.07.2022 passed in Civil Revision Application No.112 of 2022 and allied matters, order dated 27.07.2022 passed in Civil Revision Application No.371 of 2022 and order dated 01.08.2022 passed in Civil Revision Application No.373 of 2022 and allied matters.

2. All these revision applications are filed by the State Authorities and the issues involved in all these revision applications are common and interconnected, hence, the same are decided analogously today by this common oral order.

3. The present revision applications have been filed assailing the order dated 02.03.2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal in an application filed by the claimant under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the CPC”). By the judgment and award dated 30.06.2016 passed in Land Reference Case No.145 of 2004 and allied matters, the Court below has awarded the compensation at the rate of 280 per sq. mtr., for the land acquired for villages Charan Samdhiyara and Khajuri Gundala, Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot, was passed.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the State Authorities have preferred First Appeal Nos.399 of 2017 with allied matters before this Court along with the Civil Applications for Stay and Delay, wherein vide order dated 10.02.2017, the Division Bench of this Court has admitted the appeal preferred by the State Government and further granted stay in Civil Application No.1248 of 2017. The aforesaid First Appeal is pending for final hearing. Meanwhile, the opponents have preferred an application under Section 152 of the CPC, for correcting the arithmetic mistake in the judgment and decree on the ground that the Court has considered 1 sq.yard = 0.8361 sq.mtr., and if the same is converted into sq.mtr, the compensation figure would work out at Rs.280 x 0.8361 = 234.108. The State authorities had objected the aforesaid applications, however the same were allowed by the impugned order dated 02.03.2017, and accordingly, while correcting the arithmetic mistake, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.402/- per sq.mtr., and the same is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the State Authority is compelled to file the present Civil Revision Applications, challenging the impugned order, since the compensation, which was fixed by the earlier Court of Rs.280/- per sq.yard, has been enhanced to Rs.402 per sq.mtr., and since the order is passed under Section 152 of the CPC, the Civil Revision Applications are filed, since no other remedy is available to the State Authorities.

6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Satta appearing for the claimant(s) has submitted that the aforesaid order does not require any interference. While placing reliance on the judgment in the case of State of Punjab Versus Darshan Singh, [(2004) 1 SCC 328], learned advocate has submitted that when there is an effective alteration, the only remedy available would be against the aforesaid order is of filing First Appeal.

7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

8. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The only issue, which is required examination is whether the present civil revision applications filed by the State authorities would be maintainable under the provision of Section 115 of the CPC or they have to resort filing of first appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. Section 54 of the Act, reads as under :-

“[54. Appeals in proceedings before Court. - Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), applicable to appeals from original decrees, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment for the time being in force, an appeal shall only lie in any proceedings under this Act to the High Court from the award, or