1. Land acquisition for house sites — Compensation for land and trees — Dispute over number of trees. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2006 Supreme(SC) 1285
Dr. A.R. Lakshmanan & Tarun Chatterjee
Deputy Director Land Acquisition PETITIONER
Versus
Malla Atchinaidu and Ors. RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 6497-6500 of 1994
Decided on: 12/12/2006
Section 152 CPC allows only for the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and cannot be used for judicial adjudication or altering a decree's merits. Separately, timber salvage value of trees may be awarded even when land is valued based on its building potential.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4(1), 17(4), 18, 23(1a), and 23(2) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 152 - Compensation for land and trees - Correction of clerical errors - The power to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes under Section 152 CPC is limited to accidental slips or omissions and cannot be invoked to modify, alter, or add to the terms of a decree to effectively pass a new judicial order after the judgment has become final. Increasing the number of trees on acquired land from a few hundred to several thousand, which requires a re-appreciation of evidence and adjudication, constitutes a deductive function of the court and is not a clerical or arithmetical error. (Paras 33-45)
(B) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Valuation of Land and Trees - Where land is valued with reference to its potential for building purposes, the growth of trees on the land cannot be valued independently on the basis of horticultural value or yield. However, this does not preclude awarding the timber value (salvage value) after deducting costs for cutting and removing them from the land. (Paras 23-24)
(C) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Determination of Market Value - In the absence of other evidence, reliance on registered sale deeds of small plots of land to determine the market value of larger tracts of land is permissible, provided necessary deductions are made for development and amenities. (Paras 60-65)
Facts of the case:
Land was acquired for the provision of house sites for weaker sections. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the land and a limited number of trees. The Reference Court enhanced the land compensation and the value per tree but maintained the number of trees. The claimants Subsequently filed an application contending that the judgment contained a typographical error regarding the number of trees, claiming there were thousands more than recorded. A Single Judge allowed a revision petition, treating this as a clerical mistake and amending the decree. Meanwhile, a Division Bench enhanced the land compensation based on a registered sale deed. The State appealed these findings.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the increase in the number of trees was not a clerical error but a matter for adjudication; therefore, the Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by amending the decree under Section 152 CPC. Regarding land value, the court upheld the market value fixed by the Division Bench based on the registered sale deed, though it noted that for developed areas, development deductions should generally be around 20% rather than 35%.
Issues: 1. Whether the increase in the number of trees was a clerical mistake amenable to correction under Section 152 CPC. 2. Whether the High Court was right in enhancing compensation based on a sale deed covering a small area. 3. Whether land and trees can be valued separately.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 152 CPC cannot be used to resolve disputes of fact or to reconsider the merits of a case once a decree is perfected; such changes can only be achieved through appeal. In land acquisition, while horticultural yield cannot be double-counted if the land's potential is already valued, the salvage/timber value of trees remains awardable separately.
Result: Appeal of the State allowed insofar as the order amending the number of trees is set aside, restores the Reference Court's finding on the number of trees, and affirms the land compensation based on the registered sale deed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land acquisition
-
compensation
- market value determination
-
valuation of trees
- separate valuation of fruit-bearing trees
- valuation of non-fruit-bearing trees
- solatium and interest
-
procedural issues
- correction of decree under section 152 cpc
- revisional jurisdiction under section 115 cpc
-
compensation
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure code
- section 152
- section 115
-
civil procedure code
Table of Contents
JUDGMENT
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.
Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 16443 of 1994.
The appellant in Civil Appeal Nos. 6497-6500 of 1994 is the Deputy Director Land Acquisition and the respondents are Malla Atchinaidu and Ors. These appeals were preferred against the orders dated 31.12.1993 and 18.01.1994 in CRP No. 363 of 1992 and judgment and order dated 11.03.1994 in AS No. 147 of 1994 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. SLP No. 16443 of 1994 was filed by the respondents in CA Nos.6497-6500 of 1994 against the judgment and order passed in AS No. 19 of 1992 dated 11.03.1994.
The facts herein are that, on 07.03.1982, an extent of Ac. 19.87 cents of dry land in Sy. Nos. 3/1 to 3/42 of Pisinikada Village, in the outskirts of Anakapalli Town, was acquired under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for the provision of house sites for the weaker sections. Urgency clause under section 17 (4) of the Act was invoked and a draft declaration under section 6 (1) was also published simultaneously on the same date.
On 31.07.1982, the Land Acquisition Officer and Social Welfare Officer (Land Acquisition) issued notice under section 9(1) of the Act directing that all the matters to be posted on 24.08.1982 for conducting the award
enquiry. On 24.08.1982 and 03.09.1982, award enquiry was conducted.
The Land Acquisition Officer on 03.02.1983, gave an award granting compensation of Rs.11,500/- per acre to the respondents. The Land Acquisition Officer also valued certain Palmyrah trees at Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. 10/- for big Palmyrah tree, Rs. 5/- for small Palmyrah tree and Rs. 50/- for cashew trees.) There were 176 Palmyrah trees and 7 cashew trees. On 24.03.1983, possession of the said land was taken.
The respondents were, however, not happy with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence the matter was referred to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act and it was numbered O.P. No. 21/87.
On 27.04.1991, the Sub-Judge, Anakapalli passed an order whereby the compensation amount was enhanced to Rs. 55,000/- per acre. The compensation with regard to the palmyrah trees was enhanced to Rs. 100/- for a big tree and Rs. 50/- for a small tree and Rs. 200/- for a cashew tree. On 29.07.1991, however, the respondents filed I.A. No. 70/91 in O.P.No. 21/87 contending that there were 10,000 big palmyrah trees and 4,500 small palmyrah trees and that the order of the Sub-judge contained a typographical error.
The Sub-judge in his order dated 28.09.1991, rejected the application of the respondents.
Aggrieved by the order of the Sub-judge, the respondents approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by way of Civil Revision Petition No. 363/92 and filed an appeal in the High Court which was numbered A.S. No. 19/1992.
On 31.12.1993, the Single Judge allowed the revision and directed that the order of the Sub-judge be amended. On the request of the Govt. Pleader on 18.01.1994, the matter was heard again. However, the Single Judge confirmed the order passed on 31.12.1993. An appeal was preferred by the appellants in the High Court against this order of the Single Judge which was numbered A.S. No. 147/1994.
On 11.03.1994, the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents numbered 19/1992 and dismissed the appeal of the appellants and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre relying on Ex.A-11, a registered sale deed.
It is against this decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated 11.03.1994 the appellants are before this court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 6497-6500/1994 and the respondents have also approached this court by way of SLP (C) No.16443/1994.
We heard learned senior counsel Mr. Sundaravardan assisted by Mr. Manoj Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari and Mr. Subhash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
Learned senior counsel Mr. Sundaravardan submitted on facts that after the publication of 4(1) notification on 0
