STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MAHARAU SRAWAN HATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the respondent had not been represented, we requested learned Advocate Shri G. K. Bansal, to assist the court which he accepted and has given good assistance for which we express our gratitude to him.

(2.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division bench of the High court of Bombay in First Appeal No. 169 of 1987, dated 24/4/1987. Notification under Section 4 (1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was published on 13/8/1979 in the State Gazette acquiring the land for percolation tank in Village Kasampura. The Land acquisition Officer by his award dated 17/12/1981 awarded the compensation. At the instance of the claimants, on reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in his award and decree dated 25/10/1983, enhanced the compensation. It would appear that no appeal was preferred. After the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 had come into force on 24/9/1984, the claimants made an application to the reference court for awarding the enhanced solatium, additional compensation and interest under the Amendment Act. The Civil Judge by his order dated 31/3/1986 allowed the application and awarded as under:

(3.) The only question that arises for consideration is whether the civil court has power and jurisdiction to award the benefits of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Shri Bhasme, the learned counsel for the State contended that the civil court gets jurisdiction to determine compensation under Section 23 (1 of the Act only on reference. On its making the award enhancing the compensation under Ss. (1 of Section 23, it would be a decree under section 26 (2. The court thereafter has no power to amend the decree except in accordance with law. This is not either a clerical or arithmetical mistake for correction under Section 152 of Civil Procedure Code or under Section 13-A of the Act, but is an independent exercise of power. Unless the court is empowered to do so by law, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give the benefits under the Amendment Act.