Atiqa Bano & Ors. vs Collector

This revision Petition has been preferred against order dated 20th May, 2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Srinagar, whereby he has

rejected the application of the petitionerclaimants seeking to correct the judgement and decree dated 6.4.1992 passed by that court in reference

under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the extent of granting 6% interest instead of 4% granted by the court.

In proceedings under Land Acquisition act reference was made by the Collector to the learned District Judge, Srinagar, which was accepted and a

decree came to be passed directing the respondents to pay compensation to the claimants with 15% Jabrana and 4% interest from 18th January,

1980 till realisation of the decree. This decree of the court was challenged by means of Civil Appeal NO.37/92 by the State through collector

before this court. The petitioners also, not being satisfied with the decree, filed crossobjections to the appeal in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC.

The appeal came to be dismissed in default, so the crossobjections. The decree passed by the learned District Judge in reference proceedings thus

attained finality.

The petitionersclaimants filed an application on 19th June, 1999 before the learned District Judge, Srinagar, for correction of the judgment and

decree in terms of Sect ion 152 of the Code of civil Procedure to the extent that interest awarded should be 6% instead of 4% in terms of Section

28 of the Land Acquisition Act which provides payment of interest at the rate of 6%. The plea raised by the learned counsel before the learned

District Judge was that the judgment is violative of the statutory provisions of law and thus needs correction. The learned District Judge on

appreciation of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners vide order impugned rejected the application observing in the course of the

order as under :

The short point for consideration is whether any correction can be ordered in the rate of interest and Jabirana as granted in award dated

18.1.1980 and can be altered by the present applicant which has been made at a belated and delayed stage of nearly 20 years. On record it is

shown that the petitioners were associated with the acquisition proceeding in the year 1980 and they received amount of compensation for their

land acquired by the State. The petitioners are also shown to have been continuously, associated with the proceedings before this court till the

conclusion of the reference made vide order dated 6.4.1992. The petitioner in these circumstances are shown to have acquired the knowledge of

an error or mistake in the rate of interest or Jabirana right from 1980. The petitioners have not challenged and approached the court at the earliest

opportunity for correcting the error or mistake. The petitioners seem to have waited for twenty long years without submitting any explanation for

the delay of twenty years.

The petitioners aggrieved of the order of the learned District Judge have preferred this Revision Petition on the same grounds. In Support of their

claim, the petitioners have re lied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1976 Bombay 203 and AIR 1982 P&H 184 with a view to impress upon

the court that the application can be filed at any time and there is no limitation period provided for seeking correction of the judgment and decree.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The judgment and decree of the learned District Judge was appealed against before this Court. The petitioners, respondents in appeal, also

preferred crossobjections which were in the form of appeal, to be decided as an appeal, which is evident from the provision of law contained in

0.41, R.22 CPC which reads as under:

22 upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal. (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed

from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the court be behow in respect of any

issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any crossobjection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided

he has filed such objections in the Appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for

hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow. (2) Form of objection and provisions applicable thereto.

Such crossobjection shall be in the form of a memorandum, and the provisions of rule 1 so far as they relate to the form and contents of the

memorandum of appeal, shall apply thereto "" Opportunity was available to the petitioners while filing the crossobjections to raise a grievance

regardingcorrection of the decree setting up a ground in the crossobjections so as to bring it in tune with the mandate of law in terms of section 28

of the Land Acquisition Act. This ground has not been agitated in the crossObjections which is evident from the perusal thereof Any ground not

taken in the appeal which is available to the party is treated to be abandoned and cannot be reagitated The petitioners have not exhibitted any

grievance against the decree of the learned District Judge in the crossobjections to this extent and this issue cannot be reagitated by filing an

application for correction of the decree. The law cited at the bar and relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners is of no support to them

because of the distinguishable facts and circumstances of this case.

Assuming that the petitioners would have approached the trial court within a reasonable time, even then they having not agitated the matter in

their crossobjections, cannot reagitate the matter by filling an application at a belated stage. The trial court, therefore, has not committed any error

of jurisdic tion or illegality in recording the finding in the course of the impugned order for rejection of the application.

This Revision Petition for the reasons recorded by the trial court, as ob served above, is found without merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.