MULAMBATH KUNHAMMAD Vs. ACHARATH PARAKAT KATHIRI KUTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case I have had the advantage of perusing the Judgment of my learned brother and agree in the orders proposed by him. With all respect I am by no means satisfied that the District Judge s order reviewing his award was without jurisdiction. It is not necessary to accept Mr. Menon s argument that Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act extends even to appellate proceedings and would confer the ordinary right of appeal given by the Code of Civil Procedure, even if Section 54 were nonexistent. But I see no reason why review proceedings under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not be regarded as " proceedings before the Court under this Act " within the meaning of Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act or why, as Mr. Sundram would have it, the application of Section 53 should necessarily terminate with the pronouncement of the award by the Court? If this view is correct, it would seem to follow that even Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure is inapplicable to such proceedings as the present; and the Court would be unable to rectify even clerical and arithmetical mistakes in its award. This is not seriously contended ; and if a Court is entitled to correct such a mistake on the application of a party, as part of the proceedings under Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, it is difficult to see why it should not exercise a similar power in respect to material errors in its award, which may be no less patent. I think a distinction can be drawn between the power of the Court to alter its own order (review) and the power of another Court to alter it (appeal) and that the one might be legitimately viewed as proceedings before the Court " though not the other.

(2.) I do not find anything contrary to this in the judgment of the Privy Council in Rangoon Botatoung Co., Ltd. v. The Collector of Rangoon (1912) I.L.R. 40 Cal. 21=23 M.L.J. 276. Their Lordships merely say with reference to Section 53 that it " applies to an earlier stage of the proceedings and seems to have nothing to do with an appeal to the High Court." In my opinion Mr. Menon is justified in laying stress on the concluding words quoted.

(3.) I do not think it necessary to add anything more, because in the present case even if I am wrong and my learned brother is right, I entirely agree with him that it is one in which we are not bound to and should not, exercise our powers of revision.