AMAR NATH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated the 27th April, 1965 by which he amended two awards No. 869 of 1960 and No. 870 of 1960 given by his predecessor under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the exercise of his powers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Government acquired considerable area of land for the purpose of Nangal Fertilizer Factory. This also included 60 Kanals and 16 Marlas situate in village Maid Majra and owned by Amar Nath, Tirath Ram, Mangtu and Yog Raj in equal shares out of which first of them had mortgaged 19 Kanals and 14 Marlas for a sum of Rs. 4,000/- with Munshi Ram, Bhagar Ram. Sattan Jeev and Pohu Ram, I was informed by Mr. P.R. Jain, learned counsel for the Fertilizer Corporation of India, Nangal respondent No. 2, that the said Amar Nath along with Tirath Ram had mortgaged 2 Kanals and 18 Marlas in Khewat Nos. 28 and 29, Khasra Nos. 297, 375, 298, 433/316 for a sum of Rs. 614.90 in favour of Brahma Nand. The collector assessed compensation for this 60 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land at Rs. 9913-79, out of Amar Nath's share which came to Rs. 2478,78, Munshi Ram and others, mortgages were paid Rs. 2315-72 and Brahma Nand, the other mortgagee Rs. 162-73. Amar Nath as well as Munshi Ram and others were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector and so they separately moved him under Section 18 of the Act that the matter be referred for the determination of the Court. It may be mentioned here that the other owners of the land which had been acquired for the same purpose had also similarly moved the Collector and thus 410 references came up for disposal before the Court (Additional Senior Sub-Judge, Nangal). The proceedings in all these references were consolidated and the learned Additional Senior Sub-Judge passed a common order on 26th August, 1960 in the following terms :-

(2.) Munshi Ram and others mortgagees resisted the above prayer on the ground that they had not received anything from the Court which was not due to them while Amar Nath and others denied the applicants claim and in doing so pleaded that the application was barred by time and there was no error patent on the record which could be rectified in exercise of inherent powers. This application came up for hearing before Shri Joginder Singh, Senior Sub-Judge, who vide his order dated 3rd January, 1964 allowed it and directed that reference No. 869 of 1960 of the owners be corrected. The owners felt aggrieved from the above order and filed a revision petition in this Court, which was allowed on 25th September, 1964 on the short ground that Shri Joginder Singh had ceased to exercise powers under the provisions of the Act at the time he disposed of their application. The case was remanded to the District Judge for re-hearing which he did and passed the impugned order as follows :-

(3.) The learned counsel for the applications before the learned District Judge, as has been observed by him in paragraph No. 5 of his impugned order, pressed his claim by only under Sections 151 and 152 and not under Section 144 or Order 47 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge also passed the order under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below was not justified in modifying awards given by his predecessor in reference Nos. 869 and 870 of 1960 in exercise of those powers. There is no doubt that the amount of compensation as entered by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge in his original order in reference No. 869 of 1960 was properly worked out because the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Collector was Rs. 9913.79 P., and after allowing an increase to the tune of 75 per cent therein the total came to Rs. 17349.13 P., out of which Rs. 28/- were deducted as price of trees. It is also evident from the record that the learned Senior Subordinate Judge in his first order also allowed 75 per cent enhancement in the amount paid to the mortgagees out of the compensation originally assessed by the Collector and made payable to the owners. This according to the learned District Judge was not proper because in his view the Senior Subordinate Judge had ordered enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector for lands only. The above interpretation of the first order passed by the Senior Subordinate Judge may be correct but there is no escape from the fact that he in his order failed to note on the file of reference No. 869 of 1960 that out of the compensation available to Amar Nath owner, Rs. 1736.79 P., should be paid to Munshi Ram and other mortgagees which was indispensable. This omission in the original order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge could not have been made good by the learned Judge in exercise of his powers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code for the simple reason that it was neither a clerical nor arithmetical mistake in the order or an error arising from any accidental slip or omission. In the circumstances a Civil Court is not entitled to exercise inherent powers provided in Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code even for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court because the aggrieved party could seek proper relief by way of review, revision or appeal. The applicants who are respondents before me, if they felt aggrieved from the first order of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, should have taken appropriate step at the proper time to get the same rectified. It cannot be urged now that they were not in the know of the original orders because in pursuance thereof they deposited the amounts of compensation ordered by the Court in both the reference Nos. 869 and 870 of 1960. If the view propounded by the learned District Judge that mistakes of the present category can be rectified in the exercise of the inherent powers is to be accepted, then the provision made in the Civil Procedure Code for filing of review, revision petition and appeals would become almost meaningless. I am of the opinion that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction in the exercise of is powers under Sections 151 and 152 of the Civil Procedure Code to modify the original orders passed by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge in both the references.