JUDGMENT
H.S. Brar, J.
1. This is an application Under Section 151/152 C.P.C. read with High Court Rules and order on behalf of the applicants/objectors. (Hereinafter to be referred as applicants)
2. It has been stated in the Application that the applicants, had filed cross-objection in the Regular First Appeal under Order 41, Rule 27 C.P.C. claiming enhanced compensation for the land of the applicants rendered ‘Barani’ due to severance and construction of the drain.
3. It is further stated in the application that the said Cross-Objections were allowed vide judgment of this Court dated 19.12.95 and the rate of compensation awarded has been enhanced from Rs. 1,000/- per acre to Rs.4,000/- per acre for the Nehri area rendered ‘Barani’.
4. It is then mentioned in the Application that in-advertantly, the direction regarding payment of amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded and solatium at the rate of 30% Under Section 23(1-A) and interest Under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession of the land has been omitted to be issued.
5. Ultimately, it is prayed in the Application that it may be held by this Court that the applicants are also entitled to the amounts Under Section 23(1-A) and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
6. Notice of this Application was issued to the State of Punjab as well as to the Advocate General, Punjab. Written reply was filed by P.S. Sahota, Executive Engineer, Bari Doab Drainage Division, Amritsar on behalf of the State.
In reply to para No. 3 of the Application it has been stated as under:-
“In reply to para No.3 of the application, it is submitted that para No.3 is not applicable in this R.F.A. because the possession of the land was taken on 4.12.1970 and the notification was issued on 11.7.77. Hence the market rate for the year 1976 were given to the land owners. Solatium 30% Under Section 23(1-A) has to be awarded on market value of the acquired land. Severance charge cannot be considered as market value. Hence solatium Under Section 23(1-A) is not applicable in this R.F.A. Interest charge Under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, interest has to be calculated on market value of the acquired land from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 or date of taking possession, whatever is earlier.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/State has, at the outset, taken a preliminary objection that this Application is not maintainable as the relief asked for by the applicants if given shall amount to review of the judgment dated 19.12.95 passed by this Court in the R.F.A. He has cited J.T. 1995(3) S.C. 37, The State of Punjab and Ors. v. Babu Singh and Ors. etc., in which it has been held as under :-
“Held
“It is to be seen that the High Court acquires jurisdiction Under Section 54 against the enhanced compensation awarded by the reference court Under Section 18, Under Section 23(1) with section 26 of the Act, The Court gets the jurisdiction only while enhancing or declining to enhance the compensation to award higher compensation. While enhancing the compensation ‘in addition’ to the compensation Under Section 23(1), the benefits enumerated Under Section 23(1-A), and section 23(2) also interest on the enhanced compensation on the amount which in the opinion of the court ‘the Collector ought to have awarded in excess of the sum which the Collector did award’, can be ordered. Thus, it would be clear that Civil Court or High Court gets jurisdiction when it determines higher compensation Under Section 23(1) and not independently of the proceedings.
Payment of additional amount as contemplated Under Section 23(1-A) cannot be made since the notification Under Section 4(1) was dated 11.12.1974 and even the award of the District Court was dated 23.2.1978. Under these circumstances, the L.A. Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has no application and there is no error in the award of the decree as initially granted. The High Court was clearly without jurisdiction in entertaining the applications Under Sections 151 and 152 to award the additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend the decrees already disposed of.”
On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants has cited 1988(1) C.L.J. (C.Cr.Rev) 471, Matu Ram v. U.T., Chandigarh, a judgment of this Court in which it has been held that Court can correct the error in the judgment by means of an application for review of the judgment.
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
9. Admittedly, in the case in hand, notification Under Section 4 was issued on 11.7.77 and the Collector gave his award on 12.7.1978. The judgment cited by the counsel for the applicants is not applicable in this case as there is no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the judgment rendered by this Court on 19.12.95. Neither there is any accidental slip or omission made by the Court.
10. In the similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and Ors. v. Babu Singh and Ors. case (supra) has held that the High Court was clearly without jurisdiction in entertaining the applications Under Sections 151 and 152 to award the additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend the decrees already dispose of.
11. In view of the discussions made above, I dismiss this Application as not maintainable.
