LALJI Vs. VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE VARANASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. In a proceeding under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act being L. A. R. Case No. 178 of 1986 an award was passed by the Court on 28th March, 1987. The petitioners claim to be the heirs of the deceased applicant in the said L. A. R. Case No. 178 of 19s6. They have filed an application under Sections 114,151,152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, since been registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 1990. In the said application, it was alleged that the award was given @ Rs. 8,000/- per biswa, whereas the Court in some other proceedings under Section 18 of the said Act, had given award, in respect of the lands acquired by the same notifica tion from other than the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners, at a higher rate and, therefore, the rate of Rs. 8,000 per biswa should be corrected or reviewed or en hanced in consonance with the awards given by the same Court in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, since been relied on by the petitioner.

(2.) MR. Triveni Shankar, learned coun sel for the petitioners contends that the application was not an application for review. It was, in fact, an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Proce dure, for which no period of limitation is provided. Even if it is slated to be a case falling within the meaning of Article 147 of the Limitation Act, in that event, the period of limitation would be three years, since no period of limitation has been provided in the schedule to the Limitation Act. On the other hand he contends that the Court exercises inherent power under Section 151 of the Code for which there cannot by any period of limitation, which can be exercised at any point of time and in such cases, Article 147 of the Limitation Act would not come in their way. There fore, according to him, rejection of the application of the petitioners by the learned Court below by order dated 22nd July, 1999 passed by the learned Addition al District Judge, Vllth Court, Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 6 of 1990 on the ground of limitation, cannot be sustained. He then contends that the claim of the petitioners was refused on the ground that all the judg ments relied upon by them were given after 28th March, 1987, namely, the date of decision in the said Land Acquisition case of the Predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. From the impugned order, he points out that one of the decision was given on 27th April, 1984. Though it appears that other four orders were passed after 28th March, 1987 but one order was passed ear lier in the year 1984. Therefore, the said ground of rejection also cannot be sus tained. On merits, according to him, in the other orders, the amount has been awarded at a higher rate in view of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court should have awarded equal amount of compensation since the land of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners was acquired by the said notification on the basis whereof said decisions was given. He had also relied on the decision in the case of Sri Ram Awasthy v. State of U. P and another, 1999 (3) AWC 2197, of the Lucknow Bench. He contends that though the application was sought to be described as an applica tion under Section 114 of the Code as well as under Sections 152 and 153 of the Code, but in effect and in substance, it was an application under Section 151 of the Code. Therefore, the said application could not be said to be barred by limitation and the same should have been allowed.

(3.) NOW Section 151 of the Code can be applied in a proceeding when the same is pending before the Court itself and the Court is in seisin of the matter, with few exceptions, as settled in law, through various decisions of different High Courts and the Apex Court. It cannot be invoked when the matter is concluded and it is not in seisin of the matter unless it comes within the exceptions. Section 151 does not apply in a concluded proceedings, when there are remedies available to chal lenge the same through proceedings provided in the Code itself. Here, a decree was passed in the form of passing an award in the land acquisition proceedings. Thus, the proceedings stood concluded and as such, Section 151 of the Code could not be invoked since this case does not satisfy the ingredients that at tracts the exceptions.