IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
State of Gujarat - Applicant
Versus
Devayatbhai Lakhmanbhai and Jagmalbhai Lakhamanbhai - Respondent
R/Civil Revision Application Nos. 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 590, 591, 592, 593, 594, 595, 596, 597 of 2022
Decided On : 19-10-2022
CPC - Revision Applications - Section 152 - Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Section 54 - [CIVIL REVISION APPLICATIONS] - [COMPENSATION ENHANCEMENT UNDER SECTION 152 OF CPC] - [Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Section 152; Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Section 54] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 152 of the CPC and Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984, and their applicability in the context of enhancing compensation. The court emphasized that the powers under Section 152 of the CPC are limited to correcting accidental omissions or mistakes and cannot be used to alter the terms of the original judgment. It also clarified that the remedy for aggrieved parties in case of omissions going to the merits of the case is to file an appeal or revision before a higher forum or a review application before the same forum, subject to limitations.
Fact of the Case:
The State Authorities filed revision applications challenging the order that enhanced compensation under Section 152 of the CPC. The court examined whether the revision applications were maintainable under Section 115 of the CPC or if the State Authorities had to file first appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision applications were not maintainable and rejected them, stating that the State authorities could file appropriate appeals or amendments against the impugned judgment and decree.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the revision applications filed by the State authorities under Section 115 of the CPC, and whether they had to resort to filing first appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the powers under Section 152 of the CPC are limited to correcting accidental omissions or mistakes and cannot be used to alter the terms of the original judgment. It clarified that the proper remedy for aggrieved parties in case of omissions going to the merits of the case is to file an appeal or revision before a higher forum or a review application before the same forum, subject to limitations.
Final Decision: The court rejected the revision applications, stating that the State authorities could file appropriate appeals or amendments against the impugned judgment and decree.
ORDER :
Learned AGP at the outset has submitted that the present revision applications can be disposed of in terms of the order dated 08.09.2022 passed in the group of matters being Criminal Appeal Nos.479 of 2022 and allied matters.
1. 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.
2. 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.108 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.
3. 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.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleaders have 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.
5. This Court vide order dated 08.09.2022 has already set aside identical orders passed by the lower Court on 02.03.2017.
6. 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 :-
7. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal, initially, by the judgment and award dated 30.06.2016 passed in reference cases had awarded the compensation of Rs.280 per sq. mtr. for the land acquired for villages Charan Samdhiyara and Khajuri Gundala, Taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and
State of Punjab Vs. Darshan Singh
Dwaraka Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.
The powers under Section 152 of the CPC are limited to correcting accidental omissions or mistakes and cannot be used to alter the terms of the original judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the powers under Section 152 of the CPC are limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes and cannot be used to alter the terms of t....
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 j....
Clerical errors in judgments or decrees can be corrected under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, even if they originated from the pleadings, to ensure justice and accuracy in legal documentati....
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 b....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.