BALWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision is directed against the order dated 26-2-1980 of the learned District Judge, Ropar recalling his order/award dated 21-12-1979, on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as earlier award of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 3-3 -. 1979, on the merits of the case has become final and reference was wrongly ordered to be restored by the learned District Judge vide his order dated 15-5-1979.

(2.) IN brief the facts are that some land belonging to Balwant Singh petitioner was acquired by the State of Punjab for public purposes under the relevant provisions of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded some compensation of the acquired land. Being dissatisfied with the adequacy of the compensation of the acquired land, Balwant Singh sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Court of District Judge, Ropar. This reference was assigned to the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar then presided over by Shri Hira Lal Garg. On 3-:-1979, the petitioner or his counsel failed to turn up which resulted in affirming the award of the Land Acquisition Collector due to lack of evidence. The petitioner then filed an application on 27-3-1979 for restoration of the original award. Meanwhile the Court of the Additional District Judge at Ropar was abolished and this application came on the file of the learned District Judge. On 15-5-1979, on the statement of the learned Government Pleader that he has no objection to the restoration of the reference such restoration was ordered on payment of Rs 100/as costs. Thereafter, the learned District Judge, allowed the parties to contest the reference on merits and ultimately vide order dated 21 12-1979 the reference of the landlord was accepted and compensation or the acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 30,000/- per acre, by taking into consideration the copy of the judgment of the High Court, relating to similar land acquired vide the same Notification. Just after pronouncing the award on merits it came to the notice of the learned District Judge that he had no jurisdiction to do so as Mr. Garg, Additional District Judge had already disposed of the reference on merits vide his award dated 3-3-1979. Under these circumstances, notices were issued to both the parties in order to rectify the inadvertent mistake of accepting the application for restoration of the reference. The State of Punjab on 16- 1-1980 also filed an application for reviewing the order dated 23-12-1979 of the learned District Judge, on the similar grounds Ultimately, the learned District Judge, after hearing counsel for both the parties reviewed its own decision dated 15-5-1979 regarding the restoration of the original reference besides revoking its own order dated 21-12-1979, for enhancement of compensation, by holding that a reference under Section 18 of the Act cannot be equated with a suit as the petitioner had no dominus litus.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under the provision of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the power of the District Judge regarding the review of its own judgment was limited to the correction of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. He further stressed that the order of restoration having been passed with the consent of both the parties, there was no question of revoking the same. Reliance has been placed on the decision of Privy Council in Chhaju Ram v. Neki and Ors. , A. I. R. 1922 P. C 112 as well as of the Oudh Judicial Commission in Ram Autar and Ors. v. Mahammad Abdul Hasan Khan, A. I. R. 1916 Oudh 104 of Calcutta High Court in Hazzra Sardar and Ors. v. Kunja Behari Nag Choudhury, A. I. R. 1919 Cal. 525 of the Supreme Court in Phuman and Ors. v. The State of Punjab, LL. R. 1963 (11) Vol. XVI, 442 besides of this High Court in Jaswant Singh v. Balbir Singh, 1975 Rev. L. R. 594 in support of the proposition that no such review was possible. Mr. Nipun Mittal, learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, maintained that a reference under Section 18 of the Act could not be equated to a plaint in the suit. He, however, frankly conceded that the learned District Judge had no power to review his order passed under wrong conception of law.