Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
A.S. SUPEHIA, J.
State of Gujarat - Applicant
Versus
Vajiben Popatbhai Sakariya - Respondent
R/Civil Revision Application No. 578 of 2022
Decided On : 20-10-2022
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION - Land Acquisition Compensation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 152 - Land Acquisition Act, 1984, Section 54 - [CPC Section 152, Land Acquisition Act Section 54] - The court discussed the application of Section 152 of the CPC and Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 in the context of altering the compensation awarded for land acquisition. The court emphasized that the powers under Section 152 of the CPC are limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical mistakes and cannot be used to pass effective judicial orders after the judgment. It held that the State authority's remedy was to file appeals against the altered decree or file appropriate amendments in pending appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The State authorities challenged an order altering the compensation for land acquisition, contending that the alteration was beyond the scope of Section 152 of the CPC. The claimants argued that the only remedy against the alteration was to file a first appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the alteration of the compensation by the Reference Court was beyond the scope of Section 152 of the CPC and that the State authority's remedy was to file appeals against the altered decree or file appropriate amendments in pending appeals.
Issues: The main issue was whether the present civil revision application filed by the State authorities would be maintainable under the provision of Section 115 of the CPC or they have to resort to filing of 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 clerical or arithmetical mistakes and cannot be used to pass effective judicial orders after the judgment. It emphasized that the State authority's remedy was to file appeals against the altered decree or file appropriate amendments in pending appeals.
Final Decision: The court rejected the present revision application, stating that the State authorities should either file an appropriate appeal or file appropriate amendments as permissible under the law against the impugned judgment and decree.
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. The present revision application has 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.
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 Pleader has submitted that the State Authority is compelled to file the present Civil Revision Application, 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 Application is filed, since no other remedy is available to the State Authorities.
5. 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.
6. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.
7. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The only issue, which is required examination is whether the present civil revision application 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 :-
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....
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 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 direction for compounding interest at 12% was intentional and not subject to amendment under Section 152, highlighting the distinction between inherent powers and specific provisions of the law.
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....
Correction of error in judgment and decree – In garb of correcting mere clerical and arithmetic errors, Civil Court cannot embark upon reviewing order/judgment/decree passed by it for which a differe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
