RAMCHANDRA PATI Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate judge, Cuttack, passed in Misc. Case No. 190/85 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for correction of the decree and to review the order passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 76/77.

(2.) THE facts leading to this revision application may be shortly stated as follows : Ao. 13 decimals of land in mouza Gadkan was acquired by the Government by a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 26. 2. 1965 for the purposes of Engineering Research Institute at Bhubaneswar. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/ - per acre. The Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, on a reference under Section 18 of the Act in Land Acquisition Case No. 14/65 -66 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 43,000/ - per acre by his award dated 1.3. 1977. The said award was challenged in this Court in First Appeal No. 310/80. A large number of First Appeals involving the rate of compensation for the lands acquired for the very same purposes were taken up for hearing analogously and were disposed of by a common judgment dated 25.2. 1982. This Court set aside the awards passed in all those cases and remitted back all the cases including the one in question in this revision directing the Subordinate judge to pass fresh award after calculating the compensation payable on the basis of the observations made in the judgment. It may be noted that this Court in the aforesaid judgment did not determine the compensation payable for different categories of land involved in those appeals, but merely indicated the basis of the determination of the compensation by the Subordinate Judge.The Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties afresh passed an award in conformity with Section 26 of the Act calculating the compensation payable on the guidelines and the basis indicated by this Court. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 68 of 1984) came into force with effect from 24. 9. 1984 Under Section 30(2) of the Amending Act the provisions of the amended Sub -Section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Act were made applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30th April, 1982, or filed subsequent to the said date whether before the Collector or before the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court even if they had been finally terminated before the enactment of the amending Act Section 23(2) of the unamended Act provided for a solatium to be awarded which was a sum of 15 per cent of the market value of the land in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. By virtue of the amendment of the said section the words 'fifteen percentum' was substituted by the words 'thirty percentum'. Section 28 of the unamended Act provided for payment of interest on excess compensation at the rate of six percentum per annum which was enhanced to nine percentum in the amending Act. The Subordinate Judge having passed the award after remand on 15.5.1982, the petitioner in this case made an application to the Subordinate Judge under Section 151 and 152 read with Order 47, Rule 1, C. P. C., praying for the enhanced compensation and the interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment). Act, 1984. The Subordinate Judge after hearing the parties on the said application came to the view that the provisions of the amending Act would not apply in this case inasmuchas it was the High Court who finally disposed of the matter on 25. 2. 1982 by deciding the basis for calculating the compensation and remitted back the matter merely for the purposes of recalculating the compensation on that basis. The petitioner challenges the said order of the Subordinate Judge in this revision. - -

(3.) IT has been held by this Court in First Appeal No. 143/73 that in such circumstances an application for review of the decree is permissible under law as Section 151 or Section 152 of the Civil Porcedure Code would not apply. It, therefore, follows that the Subordinate Judge refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by rejecting the application of the petitioner on a mistaken impression that the compensation payable for the land in question stood finally determined by the High Court prior to 30 -4 -1982.