Krishna Devi vs Union of India

D.V. Sehgal, J.—The land of the petitioner was acquired by the Union of India under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short ''the Act''). The land so acquired included his land comprising Khasra Nos. 2343/1, 2344/19 and 2647/270. This fact was not disputed on behalf of the respondents before the Court below.

No agreement with regard to compensation could be arrived at between the Union of India and the petitioner. As a result, the Additional, District Judge, Bhatinda, was appointed as Arbitrator u/s 8(b) of the Act. He was required to determine the amount of compensation which appeared to him to be just having regard, to the circumstances of the case. It is not in dispute that the Additional District Judge made his award determining the market value of the land acquired. The amount of total compensation payable to the petitioner was to be computed at the market value so determined in respect of her land acquired by the respondents and due compensation was to be paid to her.

When, however, the amount of compensation was so computed by the respondents on the basis of the market value determined by the Arbitrator (Additional District Judge, Bhatinda), the lard of the petitioner comprising the aforesaid three Khasra numbers was not included in the total land on the ground that these Khasra numbers did not find mention in the award of the Arbitrator. The clerical mistake in the description of the land had taken place because in the original notification also these Khasra numbers had not been mentioned. But the fact remains that the land comprising these Khasra numbers had been acquired in pursuance of the said notification.

The petitioner, therefore, approached the learned Additional District Judge with a prayer that she should be allowed to amend her execution application so shat she could add the aforesaid three Khasra numbers for compensation of the total amount of compensation payable to her. This application has, has however, been declined by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 1-12-1986. This is how the petitioner has approached this Court.

After hearing the learned counsel, I find that it would be highly unjust to deprive the petitioner of the amount of compensation legitimately due to her for the acquisition of her land comprising the aforesaid three Kharsa numbers because of a mere clerical error which had crept in the reference application made by her and the consequent award made by the Arbitrator. I cannot find fault with the observation of the learned Additional District Judge that without there being any mention of these Khasra numbers in the award, the compensation in lieu of the same could not be claimed by a mere amendment of the execution application but at the same time the real relief to which the petitioner is appropriately entitled ought to have been afforded to her. It would be very hard on the petitioner if she is made to seek a fresh reference for determination of compensation in respect of the aforesaid three Khasra numbers, or in the absence of such an exercise she is completely deprived of the compensation in respect of this part of her land. The litigants in this country particularly the ruralites owning small pieces of land are generally illiterate. When their cause comes before the Court, it is its duty to afford them relief which can be granted consistent with law. Their claims should not be defeated on hyper-technical grounds.

In the context of the present case, I find that amendment of the reference application as also the award made by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, in his capacity as Arbitrator should be effected so as to include the land of the petitioner comprising the three Khasra numbers mentioned above That would entitle her to receive the compensation which is her due.

I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the order dated 1-12-1986 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhatinda, and direct that the reference application of the petitioner as also the award made by the Arbitrator on its basis should be amended so as to add therein the land comprising Khasra Nos. 2343/1, 2344/19 and 2647/270 in the description of the land of the petitioner which has been acquired and in respect of which the compensation was to be determined as payable to her. In the circumstances of the case, however, the parties are left to bear their own costs.