DEPUTY COMMR Vs. BRIDHICHAND BANSHIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the then District Judge of Hazarbagh (sic). R.K. Sinha), by his judgment dated the 24th November, 1954 raised the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 875/- per acre, besides the statutory compensation of fifteen per cent and directed the preparation of an award. His judgment and award were silent in respect of interest on the amount of compensation, from the date of dispossession by the Collector. The award decree was prepared on the 28th November, 1954 and, without any objection, a was sealed and signed on the 1st December, 1954. On the 4th April, 1956, Bridhi Chand Banshidhar, one of the claimants, filed a petition for amendment of the decree by making a claim for interest before the new District Judge (Mr. A. Mukherjee); Government Pleader was informed of this petition through the Court's order street; and Mr. Mukherjee passed an ex parte order allowing interest at six per cent per annum. On the 11th May, 1957, the Government Pleader filed a petition praying that the order allowing interest to Bridni Chand Banshidhar on the 4th April, 1956 be cancelled. When the petition was being heard, the lawyer for another set of claimants, namely, A.K. Daw and B. Daw requested the Court to allow interest to his clients as well. It was said that a petition had been filed on behalf of his clients, but no such petition could be traced. Relying on the provisions of Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and the decision of the Privy council in Ingiewood Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd., v. New Brurwick Electric Power Commr., AIR 1928 PC 287, Mr. Mukherjee allowed interest to both sets of claimants at 6 per cent per annum from the date of Collector's taking over possession of the lanu. mr. Mukherjee thought that, inasmuch as there was omission in the order dated the 24th November, 1954 not to make any mention of interest and there was no bar of limitation to the claim for interest, the claimants were entitled to the same both in law and equity. This order was passed on the 23rd December, 1957, and the present appeal was preferred by the State on the 24th March, 1958. Mr. Mukherjee, however, amended the award decree of the Court in respect of the interest on the 8th August, 1958.

(2.) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the appeal was not maintainable against the order dated the 23rd December, 1957 rejecting the State's application for review. Of course, no appeal lies against such an order; but this appeal can be treated as an appeal against the award decree amended on the 8th August, 1958, even though it was premature on the 24th March, 1958. It is impossible to accept the argument of Mr. Harilall Agarwana that the amendment of the decree in respect of interest was merely an omission or a clerical error and that it did not amount to variation of the decree.

(3.) Another preliminary objection raised by Mr. Agarwalla was that tne appeal ought to have been preferred by the Union of India, as the acquisition was tor the purposes of the Union, and the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh is not competent to prefer the appeal. But it appears that at all the stages, the Deputy Commissioner was the only opposite party and, therefore, this objection cannot be entertained at this stage.