Union Of India vs Hari Ram & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 188 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                       LA APP. NO. 1076 OF 2008

                                  Date of Decision: 13th January, 2011

#      UNION OF INDIA                                    ..... Appellant
                                Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate.

                                 Versus
$      HARI RAM & ANR.                                 ..... Respondents
^                             Through: Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate for
                                       R-1.

       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
   the Judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?(No)



                          JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J:(ORAL)

This appeal was filed by the Union of India challenging the

judgment and decree dated 27th October, 2010 passed by the Additional

District Judge in LAC No. 456A/1/06 whereby while giving some

enhancement in compensation to the respondent No.1 herein in respect of

his land in village Dallu Pura which stood acquired by the Government

awarded interest also on the enhanced compensation for the period during

which the reference proceedings had remained stayed because of the

pendency of another reference under Section 30-31 of the Land

Acquisition Act between the respondent No.1 herein and one Prahalad

Gandhi from whom the respondent No.1 claimed to have purchased the

land in question and the right to get compensation in respect thereof. The

appellant has also challenged the order dated 20 th December, 2006 passed

by the learned Additional District Judge whereby the application of

respondent No.1 under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil

Procedure was allowed and the earlier judgment and decree were modified

by including the relief of payment of additional benefit also under Section

23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act in the reliefs earlier granted to the

respondent No.1 vide judgment dated 27th October, 2006.

2. As far as the enhancement in compensation awarded by the

Reference Court is concerned the appellant was not aggrieved in view of

the fact that the same had been awarded following the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "DDA vs. Baliram Sharma and Others": 2000

(8) Apex Decision (SC) 81.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused

the record of the Reference Court which was sent for.

4. A perusal of the Reference Court's records shows that after

entertaining the Reference made by of the Land Acquisition Act at the

instance of respondent No.1 herein, the Reference Court on coming to

know that there was another reference also made under Sections 30-31 of

the by the Land Acquisition Act because of some dispute between

respondent No.1 and one Prahalad Gandhi from whom Hari Ram claimed

to have purchased the land in dispute passed an order on 24 th September,

1985 staying the reference proceedings sine die till the decision of the

reference under Sections 30-31. That reference came to be decided in

favour of respondent No.1 herein by the Reference Court and I was told by

counsel for respondent No.1 that the challenge to the decision of the

Reference Court by the previous owner came to be rejected firstly by this

court and then by the Supreme Court also. After that matter had attained

finality the respondent No.1 had moved the Reference Court for revival of

the present reference and the same came to be revived in August 2006 and

after trial it was disposed of by the Reference Court vide impugned

judgment dated 27th October, 2006. While granting enhancement in

compensation the Reference Court, however, did not include in its

concluding para of the judgment the relief of additional amount under

Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act while awarding other

statutory reliefs to the respondent No.1 herein.

5. As far as the challenge of the appellant to the grant of interest to

respondent No.1 for the period during which the reference proceedings had

remained stayed is concerned, this Court finds no merit in it in view of the

decision of full bench of this Court in "Chander Vs. Union of India &

Anr".: 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 125. In that case it was held that where

reference proceedings are stayed sine die by an order of the Court to await

the decision of some proceedings under Sections 30-31 of the Land

Acquisition Act the land owner is entitled to interest on the enhanced

compensation in case of his succeeding in the reference proceedings

ultimately. In the present case, since the respondent No.1 had not made

any request for staying the reference proceedings because of the pendency

of the reference under Sections 30-31 and the Reference Court on its own

had stayed the proceedings the respondent No.1 could not be denied the

benefit of interest on the enhanced compensation for the period the

proceedings had remained stayed.. Therefore, the appellant's challenge

against the grant of interest on the enhanced compensation granted by the

Reference Court is liable to be rejected.

6. I am also of the view that the appellant's other challenge in this

appeal against the decision of the Reference Court correcting its judgment

and decree by invoking Section 152 CPC. Learned counsel for the

appellant had very fairly submitted that respondent No.1 herein was

entitled to get the benefit of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act

in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in "K.S. Paripoornan vs.

State of Kerala & Ors.": AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1012. However, it

was contended that after the reference had been decided and that relief was

left out the Reference Court could not have invoked the provisions of

Section 152 CPC as it had become functus officio after the pronouncement

of the judgment. However, a perusal of the impugned order dated 20 th

December, 2006 shows that the learned trial Judge had observed that the

relief under Section 23(1A) had been inadvertently left out in the judgment

and that was purely a clerical mistake. Before the Reference Court Union

of India had not filed any reply to the application of respondent No.1 for

including this relief also in the judgment and it had been admitted on its

behalf that there was a clerical mistake in the judgment and decree dated

27th October, 2006. Therefore, this Court does not find any fault with the

decision of the learned Trial Court correcting its judgment in exercise of

its powers under Section 152 CPC and considering the fact that the

Reference Court had extended all other statutory benefits to respondent

No.1, the omission of mention the relief under Section 23(1A) was clearly

inadvertent error on the part of the Court.

7. For the forgoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed but without any

order as to the costs.

January 13, 2011                                      P.K. BHASIN,J
nk