PANCHANAN BHOWMICK Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners of these two applications claimed to be persons interested in respect of certain plots in mouza Hasia, P.S. Jagaddai district 24 Parganas which were originally requisitioned under section 3(1) of the West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act 1948 (West Bengal Act 2 of 1948). Thereafter the State Government, under section 4(1)(a) of the said Act had acquired these requisitioned lands for construction of Barrackpore Kalyani Expressway, On 21st Dec. 1980, the Land Acquisition Collector, 24 Parganas, after determining compensation, made his award under section 7(2) of the West Bengal Act 2 of 1948. The present petitioners being aggrieved, by the said award, made applications under section 8(1) of the West Bengal Act 2 of 1948, requiring the matter of compensation to be referred to the court. The Collector accordingly referred the matter; to the decision of the court. The learned Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, 3rd Court Alipore heard analogously several reference cases including there made upon two applications under section 8 of the said Act by the present petitioners of the applications under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India On 14th Nov., 1984 the Learned Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge delivered his judgment disposing of the said references. The learned Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, inter alia, enhanced the market values of the different classes of acquired lands and ordered, that in addition to the said land values, the referring claimants would be entitled to recurring compensation at the rate of 6% till final payment of the compensation, interest at the rate of 6% and statutory allowance at the rate of 15%.

(2.) The petitioners filed two applications for review of the judgment and decree dated 14th Nov., 1984 of the learned Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, 3rd Court, Alipore on the ground that the learned Judge had committed errors apparent on the face of the record in not awarding statutory allowance and interest at the rates provided respectively in section 23(2) and Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) which had come into force on 24th Sept. 1984. The amended section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act stipulated payment of statutory allowance at the rate of 30% and under amended section 28 of the Act, the rate of interest was 9%. The said review applications were registered as Misc. Cases. On 50th Sept. 1985 the learned Additional District Judge, 9th Court, Alipore, dismissed the misc. cases. He rejected the contention that his predecessor in office had committed any error apparent on the face of the record by not awarding statutory allowance and interest at the rate specified in section 25(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the rejection of their review applications the petitioners have filed these two Revisional applications which have been heard in the presence of the State respondents. The first point for consideration is whether in the judgment and decrees dated 14th Nov., 1984 passed by the Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore, there was any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. In other words, whether by not awarding statutory allowance at the rate mentioned in section 23(2) and interest according to section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 the learned Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge had committed an evident error it is immaterial whether or not the referring claimants had relied upon the said amended provisions at the time of the original hearing or how the alleged error or omission to award statutory allowance and interest at the enhanced rates had occurred. In case, the learned Judge had failed to apply the correct law regarding grant of statutory allowance and a ward of interest, same would be an error apparent on the face of the record When a court did not apply the provisions of an enactment which on the face of it would apply to a case, name would be a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record (vide paragraph 10 of Mulla on Civil Procedure Code, 13th Edition, Vol II page 1671) At the same time a mere error of law is not a ground of review. A distinction has been always drawn between an error simpliciter and an error apparent on the face of the record. In other words, only a manifest error would be a ground of review. Mr. Dasgupta learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Shatrunjit Vs. Mohammad Azmat Khan and others AIR 1971 SC 1474 , in support of his submission that retrospective amendment of law was a sufficient ground for review of a judgment which was rendered before the said retrospective amendment of law was punished in the Official Gazette In the case of Raja Shatrunjit Vs. Mohammad Azmat Khan (supra), on 27th Nov. 1962 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed the revisional application upholding the view of the Special Judge that until and unless the decree charged the mortgaged property, no reduction could be ordered under U.P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act 1952. After disposal of the revision petition the U.P. Debt Reduction Act, 1952 was amended and it had received the assent of the President on 27th Nov., 1962 which happened to be the date of the order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the revision petition. On 4th Dec. 1962 the said Amendment Act was published in the Official Gazette. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court order accepting the review application of the judgment debtor, setting aside the order of the Special Judge and remanding the case for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the amended U.P. Zamindars Debt Reduction Act 1952. We are unable to distinguish the Supreme Court decision. In the case of Raja Shatrunjit Vs. Mohammad Azmat Khan (supra), as suggested by Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Standing Counsel, on the ground that while in the said reported case the amended law was published in the Official Gazette after the High Court had already dismissed the Revisional application. In the instant cases, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge delivered his judgment after the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 had already been published in the Official Gazette on 24th Sept. 1984. We have already pointed out that. In case the referring claimants were entitled to receive statutory allowance and interest according to the said amended provisions of sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act 1984 the learned Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge had clearly committed errors apparent on the face of the record by applying unamended section 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act which were no longer in. The court under sub section (2) of section 23 of the said Act, In addition to the market value of the land, shall in every case award a sum at the prescribed rate on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.