AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bellie, J.—This civil revision petition arises out of an order passed by the trial court dismissing an application filed for amendment of the
decree.
It appears in favour of the petitioners an award was passed by the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act for acquisition of his land.
Dissatisfied with the amount granted by the Collector the petitioners filed Land Acquisition Original Petition 46 of 1988 in the Court for
enhancement of compensation. The Court passed an order enhancing the compensation. Opposing that order the respondent-Government
preferred an appeal to the High Court. Along with that a stay application was also filed. In that stay application the High Court passed a
conditional order to the effect that stay is granted on condition of the Government depositing 50% of the enhanced compensation which the
claimants will be entitled to receive. The claimants raised an objection stating that the amount deposited by the Government is less than the amount
ordered to be deposited stating that the Government is liable to pay interest on the solatium amount also but the Government has not deposited that
interest and they must be directed to deposit that amount also. But the Court held that in the decree it is not mentioned that the respondent-
Government is liable to pay interest on solatium also and if the claimants are entitled to interest they have to get the decree suitably amended and
that can be done only by the original court.
Thereupon the claimants filed C.M.P.No.1259 of 1991 in the High Court for modifying the stay-order passed by it so as to enable the claimants
to file an amendment petition. In that the High Court passed an order stating that the stay granted will not bar the claimants from filing a petition for
amendment of the decree. After this modification of the stay order the claimants filed a petition in the original Court I.A.No.174 of 1990 for
amendment of the decree. In that application the original Court ordered that the stay has been lifted only for filing a petition for amendment of the
decree but the decree cannot be amended without amending the Judgment. It further held that the amendment sought for is not clerical or
arithmetical mistake in Judgment and decree or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission and therefore the petition filed u/s 152
cannot be maintained. On these findings the original Court dismissed the petition. As against that this Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.
As regards the finding of the original court that the order passed in C.M.P.No.1259 of 1991 is in respect of the amendment of decree only and
not the Judgment also, the claimants filed C.M.P.No.11134 of 1991 in the High Court for clarification whether the said order passed in
C.M.P.No.1259 of 1991 is for amendment of the Judgment also and the learned Judge has clarified by stating that the order is for amendment of
the judgment also. In view of this clarification the finding of the original court that there is slay only with regard to filing of the petition for
amendment of decree and not of Judgment has no force. As such in this C.R.P., were concerned only with the question whether the amendment
petition filed u/s 152 is not maintainable as held by the trial court.
As regards the question whether the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium; the Supreme Court in a recent Judgment in Periyar and
Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, , has answered this question in the affirmative. It is said as follows:
Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that Section 25(3) contemplates payment of interests on solatium to recompensate the owner of the land
for loss of user of the land from the date of taking possession till date of payment into court. The word compensation has been advisedly used by
the legislature. Accordingly we hold that the appellant is entitled to interest on solatium.
(Italicised is mine)
In view of this authorities pronouncement of the Supreme Court there is no gainsaying that the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium.
Now, taking up the question whether the amendment petition is maintainable u/s 152, C.P.C., Mr.P. Peppin Fernando, learned Counsel for the
claimants-petitioners herein submits that when in law the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium non-mention of interest on solatium in the
order of the court in only accidental slip or omission and therefore the order can be amended u/s 152, C.P.C. In support of this contention the
learned Counsel cites one decision of the Orissa High Court in Jayakrishna Mangaraj Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa and Another, , and another
decision of Punjab and Haryana in Nand Ram and Others Vs. State of Punjab, . In the first decision it has been held that,
Statutory interest provided u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is an integral part of the decree to be passed by the Court and the Court, while
determining compensation under the Act, has to award the same. An omission to award statutory interest is an error which can be cured by the
Court in exercise of its power u/s 152, C.P.C.
In the second case, wherein the decision in the first case has been referred to, it is said that,
Interest u/s 28 is an integral part of compensation which is to be awarded by the Court. Omission in the judgment to award interest on
compensation constitutes an accidental slip within the meaning of Section 152, C.P.C. and can be rectified at any time.
I am in respectful agreement with these decisions. When the claimants are entitled in law to interest on compensation awarded that interest must be
directed to be paid to them in the order of the Court. And if there is no such direction that will be indeed an accidental slip or omission. Therefore
it clearly comes within the purview of Section 152, C.P.C.
Even otherwise, I may add that if for any reason it is to be held that Section 152, C.P.C. is not attracted, even then the Court is bound to order
payment of interest at least u/s 151, C.P.C. In this connection an observation of the Supreme Court in yet another recent decision in Shree Vijay
Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat, ,"" is relevant to note:
The costs and interest under the Act if not awarded by the lower court can always be awarded by higher courts in any proceedings under the Act
and to any party entitled to the same under the Act. The payment of interest is not dependent on any claim by the person whose land has been
acquired. There can be no controversy or any lis between the parties regarding payment of interest. When once Section 34 is attracted it is
obligatory for the Collector to pay the interest. If he fails to do so the same can be claimed from the court in proceedings u/s 18 of the Act or even
from the appellate court/courts thereafter.
From these it is very clear that the claimants can seek for amendment of the decree and the order for directing the Government to pay interest to
the claimants on the solatium amount.
In this view of the matter the Revision is allowed and the order and decree passed by the trial Court are amended as prayed for. There will be
no order as to costs.