Dadarao Babarao Lute vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The present petition challenges order dated 09.02.2022, passed by the Civil Judge, Junor Division, Wardha. By way of said order, the application filed by the present petitioner under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. As can be seen from the narration of the facts in the petition, the petitioner being owner of Survey No.249, admeasuring 1.50 HR. Out of which the respondents acquired an area of 0.22 HR for Pimpalgaon Minor Canal No.1. The petitioner was granted a compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- per hectare vide award dated 23.02.2016. Since the petitioner was not granted statutory benefits, he filed a Reference before the competent Court, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.17/2017. The said Reference was decided on 04.02.2019, thereby enhancing the amount. However, since according to the petitioner, a wrong a multiplier was never applied, he filed an application, even though titled as an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Mr. Madhur Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the solatium which is to be granted mandatorily in view of the 2000 Act was also not granted as per the provisions of the said Act. The said application, being filed under Section 152 came to be rejected, which is impugned in the present petition.

Mr. Madhur Deo, learned counsel initially in his fairmindedness conceded that the application may not have been styled as an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, which speaks about only amendment of judgments, decrees, or orders which are clerical in nature. The said Section obviously restricts itself to clerical or arithmetical mistakes or any accidental slip or omission. But it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prayer of the said application ought to have been gone into by the trial Court. The prayer in the said application reads as under:

Per contra, Mr. Kunal Nandukar h/f. Mr. N.M. Gaidhane, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the impugned order and submits that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application which was filed under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code.

I have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. True, it is that the application was filed under Section 152 of C.P.C. which, as stated supra, is limited to arithmetical errors or omissions. However, it seems that the trial court has not gone into the contents made in the application and more particularly the prayer which is reproduced supra. It can also be seen from the award that neither the multiplier was applied which is mandatory as per the provisions of Section 26(2) of the Act of 2013, neither 100% solatium was awarded.

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed.

The Order dated 09.02.2022, passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Wardha, in Special Civil Suit No.08/2017 in M.A.N.R.J.E. No.06/2019 is quashed and set aside.

The matter is relegated back to the trial Court i.e. the Court of Joint Civil Judge Senior Division to decide the application filed by the petitioner.

The trial Court is directed to reconsider the said application, even though titled as an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code, as if it is an application for review, taking into consideration the powers under Section 60(1)(f) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The petition is disposed of in above terms. No costs.