Holding

The Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction to award compensation for the 500‑metre belt because such identification of land is not a clerical or arithmetic error and cannot be altered by the civil court after the award under Section 26.

Summary

The Union of India appealed a High Court order that had directed the Additional District Judge to award compensation of Rs. 90,000 per acre for land within a 500‑metre belt (belting) along a road, as identified by a Division Bench of the High Court under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants contended that the District Judge lacked jurisdiction to alter the award because identification of land is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake correctable under Section 13‑A of the Act or CPC 152. The Supreme Court held that the civil court’s power under Section 26 is limited to issuing the award and correcting only clerical or arithmetic errors; any determination of belting is an independent exercise of the Collector’s power under Section 23(1) and cannot be altered by the district court without a remand. Consequently, the Additional District Judge’s order was void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court allowed the appeals and directed the parties to approach the High Court for appropriate relief.

Issues considered

Whether the Additional District Judge had jurisdiction to award compensation for the 500‑metre belt as ordered by the High Court.
Whether identification of land (belting) constitutes a clerical or arithmetical error under Section 13‑A of the Land Acquisition Act or CPC 152.
Whether the High Court, exercising appellate power under Section 54, could authorize the district court to modify the award.
Whether a civil court can alter an award made under Section 26 beyond correcting clerical or arithmetic mistakes.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 152
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984)s. 13-A, s. 23, s. 26, s. 4(1), s. 54

Subjects

Land AcquisitionCompensationBeltingAppellate jurisdictionCivil CourtClerical errorSection 13-ASection 26Section 54CPC 152

Judgment

A . UNION 9F INDIA
v.
SMT. PRATAP KAUR 'cDEAD) THROUGH LRS. AND ANR. ETC.

JANUARY 27, 1995

[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
I, .

. I .
Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Sections 26 and 13-A as amended by Act
68 of 1984-Detennination of compensation under clause firstly of sub-s. (1)
of s.23-High Court in exercise of appellate power identified belting-Civil
C Court ceased to have power to alter award except to correct clerical or arith-
matical errors-identification of land-Not a clerical or arithmatical mistake
-~-
0

under section.13-A or section 152 CPC. -

A notification under section 4(1) or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
was published acquiring a large extent or land. In the determination or
D · compensation, the Division Bench or the High Court, while exercising Its
·appellate power, Identified belting upto a depth or 500 metres and directed
payment or compensation for that land at Rs. 90,000 per acre. Sub-
. · sequently, the. respondents flied an application before the Additional Dis:
__ Irle! Judge for demarcation and award of compensation to the 500 metres
.E as ordered by the. High Court. Accepting the 'applications, the District
. Judge awarded compensation @ R!i; 90,000 per acre to the area coming
mthin the belt of 500 metres as ordered by the High Court. The appellants
challenged. the order or the District Judge by filing revision. The High
Court dismissed the revision In llmlne. The review petitions also stood ·.
dismissed. Hence these appeais. '
F
- · The question raised I~ these appeals Was whether the Dlstrl~t Judge
. had power and Jurisdiction to award compensation@ Rs. 90,000 per acre
·' ... to the area coming mthin the belt or 500 metres as ordered by the Division
. . -Bench or the High Court. .
G -Allomng the appeal, this Court

-._ HELD : l;l. A. Conjoint reading or ss. 26 and _13-A or the Land
Acquisition Act clearly Indicates that while making the award and deter· -
.mining the compensation. under clause. firstly or sub-s. (1) or s.23 the
H . Collector h~djurlsdlctlon t~ determine the ~ompensatlon Including belting
. .. - . - . . • 670. . .
U.0.1. v. PRATAP KAUR 671

for the purpose of determining market value and corr~ct clerical and A
arithmetical mistakes committed in making the award. The High Court
had exercised appellate power under s. 54 of the Act. Appellate power is
co· extensive with that of the Civil Court. Therefore, the High Court, while
exercising the appellate power, could also decide belting. [674·B·C]

·1.2. The Division Bench in the LPA while determining the compen· B
sation, under clause firstly of sub·s. (1) s. 23, had identified belting upto
a depth of 500 metres and directed payment of compensation for that land
at 90,000 per acre. When the High Court exercised the appellate power,
without any order of remand or calling for a finding, the District Judge
was devoid of power or jurisdiction to correct any error either under s.13·A C
of the Act or under s.152 CPC, that too beyond the limitation prescribed
under s.13-A itself. The identification of the land is not a clerical or
arithmetical mistake within the meaning of s.13·A or s.152 CPC. It is an
independent exercise of the power for the purpose of determination of the
compensation under clause firstly of sub·s. (1) s. 23 of the Act. With
making the award under s.26 of the Act, the Civil Court ceased to have D
power to alter the award except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors.
The action of the Additional District Judge was an independent one
without reference or an order of remand or the High Court calling a
finding from it. The Civil Court, therefore, was devoid of jurisdiction and
power to pass the impugned award or order. [674·D·F] E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Clivil Appeal Nos. 3179-81,
3182- 87 of 1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 20.11.92 & 21.5.93 of the
Punjab & Ha;yana in C.R. No. 23019/92, R.A. No. 20Cil/93 and C.M .. No. F
2262/93, R.A. No. 14Cil/93, C.R. No. 3170/92, R.A. No. 16~1I/93, lSCil/93,
17CII, 18CII, 19CII/93, C.R. Nos. 3171•75 of 1992.

N.N. Goswamy, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Naveen Prakash, for Ms. A.
Subhashini for the Appellants. G
Arun J aitley and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave granted. H
_/
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A The appeal~ by special leave arise from the judgment and Order
dated 14.5.95 and 20.11.92 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made
in Review Application No. 20 CII of 1993 and C.M. 2262 of 1993 and C.R
No. 3019/92 respectively.

The notification under s. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for
B short the Act, was published initially on March 31, 1981 acquiring a large
extent of land in Gobindpura and other places for extens.~on of military
cantonment at Bhatinda. In the determination of compensation, the
Division Bench of the High Court in LP.A. No. 1349/89 and batch ul- +
timately held that :
c "Consequently we venture to make the modification in the order
of the learned Single Judge, to the effect that the land falling within
a depth of 500 meters on either side of Bhatinda-Bibiwala Road
shall also assessed at the rate of Rs. 90,000 per acre as its market
value ......."
D
That order appears to have become final. Subsequently the respondents
filed an application before the Additional Dist. Judge in Civil Misc. No. 75
of 10.8.1991 for demarcation and award of compensation to the 500 meters
as ordered by the High Court. By order dated 16.12.1991 the Addl. Dist.
E Judge held that:

"From the eviderce discussed above, it is crystal clear that the land
measuring 70 kanals 13 Marlas belonging to Naib Singh etc., land
measuring 141kanals1 maria belonging to Gurdial Singh etc. land
measuring 30 kanals 3 marlas belonging to Partap Kaur etc. land
F measuring 40 kanals 10 marlas belonging to Bhagwan Kaur etc.
larid measuring 48 kanals belonging to Gurdial Kaur etc., and land
measuring 3 kanals i.e. 1/12 share of 35 kanals 9 marlas belonging
to Sadhy Singh are with 500 meters from Bathinda Bibiwala road.
I may add here that the evidence of the applicants remained
un-changed despite opportunities given to the UOI. On the' other
G hand, the officials of the concerned department have appeared in
the witness b_ox as AW I, AW2 and AW5 to support the case of
the claimants. Even otherwise from the interpretation of judgment
Ex. A3 it clearly goes to show that the land which falls within the
depth of 500 yieters from either side of Bathinda-Bibiwala Road,
H should be assessed at rate of Rs.90,000 per acre. The land of the
U.0.1. v. PRATAP KAUR 673

applicants adjoins the land whicl~ as per evidence on record, was A
assessed at the rate of Rs. 90,000 per acre. I therefore accepting
the applications direct the Naib Tehsildar (MLA) Bhatinda to
prepare the amended memo of costs in respect of the above said
land of the applicants at the rate of Rs. 90,000 per acre. The parties
are left to bear their own costs".
B
Calling in question the above order the appellants filed revision in the High
Court. The High Court dismissed the revision in limine. Thereafter the
review petitions also stood dismissed. Thus these appeal by special leave.

The question that arises in these appeals is whether the District C
Judge has power and jurisdiction to award compensation @ Rs. 90,000 per
acre to the area coming within the belt of 500 meters as ordered by the
Division Bench of the High Court.

Section 26 of the Act gives power to the Civil Court to give award
thus : 1)

"(1) Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the
Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of
sub-s. (1) of s.23, and......."
E
Section 13-A of the Act as amended under Act 68 of 1984 provides power
for correcting clerical errors thus : ·

"13-A. Correction of clerical errors, etc ...... (1) The Collector may,
at any time but not later than six months from the date of the
award, or where he has been required under s.18 to make a F
reference to the Court, before the making of such reference, by
order, correct any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the award
or errors arising therein either on his own motion or on the
application of any person interested or a local authority.

Provided that no correction which is likely to affect prejudicial- . G
ly any person shall be made unless such person has been given a
reasonable opportunity of making a representation in the matter."

(Sub-~s.(2) and (3) are not material for the purpose of this case,
hence omitted). H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 1 S.C.R.

A . Perforce, it has no applic~tion to t4e Civil Court. Even if_ the prin-
ciple is extended to the Civil Court, the Court committed manifest error
of juris~ictio.n a\lowing t~e application, as it did ~ot correct any dericaf
p1·
error.

B A conjoint reading of ss.26 and 13-A of the Act clearly indicates that
while niaking the award and determining the compensation under clause
firstly of sub-s~ (1) of. s.23 the Collector had jurisdiction to determine the1
compensation including belting for the purpose , of determining market
value and correct clerical and arithmetical mistakes committed in making
) the award.· The High Court,had exercised appellate power under s.54 of
C the ~ct 'Appellate power ·i~ co-extensive with that of the Civil Court.
Therefore, the High Court, while exercising the appellate power, could also
dedde belting. The Division Bench in the LPA while determining the
compensation under clause firstly of sub-s.(1) of s.23, had identified belting
upto a depth of 500 meters, and directed payment of compensation for that
D land at 90,000 per acre. When the High Court exercised the appellate
power, without any order of remand or calling for a finding, the District
Judge was devoid of power or jurisdiction to correct any error either under
s.13-~ of the Act ot under s.152 CPC, that 'too beyond the limitatiotJ.
prescribed under s.13-A itself. The identification of the land is not a
·I clerical or arithmetical mistake within the meaning of s.13-A or s.152 CPC.
E It is an itidependent exercise ofthe power for the purpose of determination
of the compensation under clause firstly of sub"s.' (l)'of s.23 of the Act.
With making the award under s.26 of the Act the Civil Court ceased to
have 'pow~r to alter the award except to correct clerical or arithmetical
errors. The action of the Additional District Judge was an independent one
p ·without reference· or atl :o~der of re~ana or the High Court· calling a
'fmdirig froni it. The Civil Court, theref~re; was devoid of jurisdiction and
·power to pass the impugned award or order, as stated by the Additional ·
'District JUdge; and· that too ~fter it had mad~· the award.

. Since the Addi. Dist. Judge was· not called upon to determine the
G ·~o~pensatio~ after identificati~n · of the land within the belting of 500
m~ters 'as. determined by the Division B~n~h,. the orde~ c:if 'the Di~trict is
clea:~ly without jnrisdiction and power and is 'a nuliit)i. Therefore, the High
Court ."'.as not right in dismissing the application without adverting to these
''imaterial questions touching the jurisdiction· and pqwer of the Addl. Dist.
H Judge. Though Sri Arun Jetley, the learned Se~ior' counset"~epeatedly
U.0.1. v. PRATAP KAUR 675

requested this Court n~t to interfere under Art. 136, it is necessary to A
correct legal error to set the procedure in order.

The appeals are accordingly allowed. It is open to the respondents,
if so advised, to approach the High Court for appropriate relief and it is
for the High Court to consider and dispose of it according to law. No costs.
B
In CA. Nos. 3182-87 of 1995 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 18320- 25/94:

Leave granted. Substit~tion allowed.

In view of the above judgment, these app~als also are allowed. No
costs. c
A.G. Appeals allowed.

.'