R.S. Peter vs The Collector, Land Acqusition/Ukhrul and Others

Laxmi Kanta Mohapatra, J—This Review is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.2.2015 passed in L.A. Appeal No. 1 of 2010. The L.A. Appeal had been preferred by the claimants who are members of Shangshak Land Owners/Holders'' Association against an order passed by the District Judge, Manipur East on a Reference u/s. 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition At, 1894.

After acquisition, the Land Acquisition Collector had classified the acquired land into 4(four) categories such as Class-A, Class-B, Class-C and Class-D lands. After such classification, the L.A. Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 9 per sq. metre in respect of Class-A land, Rs. 6 per sq metre in respect of class-B land, Rs. 4 per sq metre in respect of Class-C land and Rs. 2.50 paise in respect of class-D land. Classification of land made by the L.A. Collector and the award made for such class of land was not interfered with by the learned District Judge on Reference made under Sections 18 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act praying for higher compensation. In appeal, this Court came to the conclusion that classification of land in the facts and circumstances of the case was not proper and the entire acquired land should be taken as one block and accordingly directed for payment of compensation @ Rs. 7.50 per sq metre in respect of the entire acquire land. So far the interest is concerned, Court came to the conclusion in appeal that interest @ 12% having already directed to be paid, claim for further interest was not justified.

In this Review Petition, Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellants submitted that at the time of passing the impugned judgment and order, Court lost sight of Section 25 of the L.A. Act which prescribes that Reference Court cannot reduce compensation awarded by the L.A. Collector and in the present case so far as the land holders of Class-A land are concerned, the L.A. Collector had awarded compensation of Rs. 9 per sq metre whereas it has been reduced to Rs. 7.50 per sq metre. Shri A. Bimol, further, contended that though interest has been paid under section 23 of the Act, no interest has been paid under section 34 and claim of interest in appeal was u/s. 34 of the Act which was not considered by the Court.

Mr. S. Suresh, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the two grounds on which this Review has been filed relate to errors of law and such errors of law cannot be rectified in review and review court cannot assume the jurisdiction of an appellate court to rectify such errors in law.

There is no dispute that the L.A. Collector, while passing the award, had classified the land into 4(four) categories as stated earlier and so far as the class-A lands are concerned, the L.A. Collector had awarded compensation of Rs. 9 per sq metre. In respect of the other classes of lands compensation awarded was less than Rs. 7.50 per sq metre. Relying upon Section 25 of the Act, it was contended by Shri A. Bimol, learned counsel for the Review Petitioner that in respect of class-A land the compensation awarded by the L.A. Collector @ Rs. 9 per sq metre could not be reduced to Rs. 7.50 per sq metre and above provision of law had been lost sight of by the court while awarding the same compensation for the entire acquired land i.e. Rs. 7.50 paise per sq metre.

Section 25 of the Act prescribes that the amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector u/s. 11 of the Act. This provision was not brought to the notice of the Court when the appeal was heard. The Court also lost sight of the provision while delivering the judgment and directing payment of compensation @ Rs. 7.50 paise per sq metre having held that classification of land by the L.A. Collector was not justified. This is an error which had been crept into the judgment. The question, therefore, is as to whether such an error could be rectified in a Review Petition.

The learned counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others, AIR 1979 SC 1047 : (1979) 4 SCC 389 : (1979) 11 UJ 300 . The Apex Court in the said judgment held that there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found and it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all errors committed by the Subordinate Court. A similar view was also taken by the Apex Court in the case of The State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 JT 317 : (2008) 8 SCC 612 : (2008) 2 SCC(L&S) 735 : (2008) 3 SLJ 209 : (2009) 2 SLR 482 . It was held in the said decision that an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on ground that different view could have been taken by the Court on a point of fact or law.

I am conscious of the fact that the power of review is limited and erroneous decision on law or fact cannot be rectified in a review, but so far as the present case is concerned no finding is challenged on the ground that it is erroneous. On the other hand, a submission is made that certain provision of law had not been taken note of while deciding the rate of compensation. I am, therefore, of the view that if a particular provision of law had not been taken into consideration inadvertently while deciding the rate of compensation in respect of a particular class of land, it can be rectified in a review there being no such finding in relation to such a provision which could be stated to be erroneous. Since Section 25 of the Act specifically provides that Court cannot grant compensation less than what has been granted in the award made by the L.A. Collector u/s. 11 of the Act, so far as the class-A lands are concerned, this Court, in appeal, should not have reduced the rate of compensation from Rs. 9 per sq metre to Rs. 7.50 paise per sq metre. I am, therefore, of the view that this prayer in Review should be allowed, and accordingly I direct that so far as class-A lands are concerned, the owners thereof shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 9 per sq metre as had been awarded by the L.A. Collector to be paid u/s. 11 of the Act.

So far as payment of interest is concerned, undisputedly interest has been allowed by the L.A. Collector @ 12% on the awarded amount. A submission was made by the learned counsel for the Review Petitioner that there being delay in payment of compensation, the land owners are entitled to interest u/s. 34 of the Act. The Court, while deciding the above issue, has also taken note of Section 34 of the Act and has come to a specific conclusion that the land owners are not entitled any more interest. Since the question as to whether the land owners are entitled to interest u/s. 34 of the Act or not is a question which can only be decided on the existing facts of the case. Permitting such a prayer to be raised in the Review Petition would amount to re-opening the above issue for reconsideration. I am, therefore, of the view that even if the finding with regard to payment of interest u/s. 34 of the Act is an erroneous finding, the same can only be rectified in appeal and not in Review Petition. Accordingly, the above claim of the land owners is rejected.

The Review Petition is allowed to the above extent.