PHUSAN DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE five appeals raise a common issue and can thus, be decided by one order. The State Government acquired land for the Haryana Diary Development Corporation. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the award on December 3,1974. The land owners sought reference Under Section 18 which was decided by the District Judge vide order dated December 19, 1980. This award was not challenged by the land owners. However, the State filed appeals which were dismissed on May 30, 1983. After more than four years. The claimants filed applications Under Sections 151,152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 30 of the Act No. 68 of 1984. They also filed separate applications Under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It was claimed that vide Central Act No. 68 of 1984, certain provisions of the 1894 Act had been amended. The District Judge had awarded solatium and interest @ 15% and 6% respectively. It was prayed that the judgment be modified and solatium as well as interest be awarded at the enhanced rates in accordance with the provisions of the amending Act. Vide order dated February 12, 1988, the original order dated May 30, 1983 was modified. It Was ordered that solatium be paid @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking of possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the actual payment is made. After the passing of this order, the Haryana Dairy Development Corporation filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 for being impleaded as a party and another application for restoring the original order passed on May 30, 1983. Notice of these applications was issued to the claimants. After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated February 8, 1991 held that the order increasing solatium and interest could not be sustained in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Raghbir Singh AIR 1989 SC 1933. Accordingly, the order dated February 12, 1988 was recalled and it was held that the claimants shall be entitled to solatium and interest at the rate awarded by the District Judge vide his award dated December 19,1980. Aggrieved by this order, the land-owners have filed these appeals.

(2.) MR . Arun Jain, counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Single Judge had erred in invoking the suo motu jurisdiction to recall the order passed on February 12, 1988. On the other hand, it has been pointed out by Mr. Dalai that the Corporation was a necessary party. It had a right to be impleaded and heard. Still further, the applications filed by the applicants Under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure were highly belated and could not have been entertained. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Swaran Singh, AIR 1997 SC 462. ' 3. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Corporation, had a valid and justifiable reason to be impleaded, as a party. Still further, in view of the decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra) it is clear that the High Court does not have the power or jurisdiction to entertain application Under Sections 151 and 152 to correct any decree which has become final or to independently pass an award enhancing the solatium and interest. . . . " This rule has been settled by their Lordships in the following word: