THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, MALAPRABHA PROJECT, SAUNDATTI Vs. CHANNABASAPPA TIPPANNA NAVALGUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the judgment and order dated 10-11-1995 delivered by the Additional Civil Judge, Bailhongal, in the matter of land acquisition case on a petition moved under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code for amendment of the decree.

(2.) The claim of the respondent was that he was entitled to higher solatium arising out of Sec. 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in the year 1984. The land acquisition proceedings were started by publication of notification in the year 1990. The award was delivered by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10-6-1992 and by the Reference Court on 26-8-1994. It appears that while passing the award or giving the award, the Reference Court or the Civil Judge concerned failed to take notice of and to consider Sec. 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and failed to award additional amount at the rate of 12% on the market value under Sec. 23(1-A). The Additional Civil Judge, Bailhongal, opined that it was a case of error apparent and mistake on the part of the Court itself as the Court had failed to take into consideration Sec. 23(1-A). The Trial Court referred the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), P. W.D. Schemes, Vijayawada Vs. M.A. Jabbar, AIR 1995 SC 762 : (1995) 2 SCC 142 , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court had held that under Sec. 23(1-A), the claimant would be entitled to additional amount of enhanced market value at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Sec. 4(1) till the date of award. Relying on this case and taking note of this decision, the learned Civil Judge opined that the petition under Sec. 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has to be allowed and award is to be amended. Feeling aggrieved from that order, the State has come up in revision under Sec. 115 of the CPC.

(3.) The learned Government Counsel Sri M.V. Shamanna contended that in view of Sec. 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, the award and decree could not be amended and therefore, the Court below acted in excess of jurisdiction in passing the order amending the award particularly when there was no clerical mistake.