Bijay Kumar Saraogi Vs. State of Jharkhand
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 848 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.97 of the Patna High Court at Ranchi Bench in C.R.No. 522 of 1996 (R))
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.97 of the Patna High Court at Ranchi Bench in C.R.No. 522 of 1996 (R))
Petitioner: Bijay Kumar Saraogi
Respondent: State of Jharkhand
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 848 of 1999
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.97 of the Patna High Court at Ranchi Bench in C.R.No. 522 of 1996 (R))
(From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.97 of the Patna High Court at Ranchi Bench in C.R.No. 522 of 1996 (R))
Judges: B.P. SINGH & ARUN KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 26, 2005
Appearances:
Mr. T.N. Singh, Mr. V.K. Singh and Mr. P.K. Srivastava, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.
Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent.
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 152 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 23(2), 28 (As amended in 1984) – Application – Land acquired – Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Amended provisions effective in September 1984 – Prior to this, reference court made award on 10.2.83 – Application moved under Section 152 Civil Procedure Code in 1995 that he was entitled to benefit of amended provisions of Sections 23(2), 28 of Act of 1894. Held that there are no grounds to interfere as Section 152 can be invoked only to correct clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes. (Para 4)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 152 – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Sections 23(2), 28 (As amended in 1984) – Application – Land acquired – Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Amended provisions effective in September 1984 – Prior to this, reference court made award on 10.2.83 – Application moved under Section 152 Civil Procedure Code in 1995 that he was entitled to benefit of amended provisions of Sections 23(2), 28 of Act of 1894. Held that there are no grounds to interfere as Section 152 can be invoked only to correct clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes. (Para 4)
Cases Reffered:
1. State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh (2004 (1) SCC 328) (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
B.P. Singh, J.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. The facts not in dispute are that lands belonging to the appellant were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The collector made his award against which the appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was pending when the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill was introduced in the Parliament on 30th April, 1982 and the Amendment Act came into force from 24th September, 1984. In between these two dates Reference Court made its award on February 10, 1983. After the award the appellant received the amount awarded to him and did not prefer a further appeal therefrom.
3. In the year 1995 the appellant filed an application under Section 152 C.P.C. before the Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi claiming that he was entitled to the benefit conferred by Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Amendment Act. The learned Sub-Judge held that the said application was not maintainable and the said finding has been affirmed by the High Court.
4. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court because a mere perusal of Section 152 makes it clear that Section 152 C.P.C. can be invoked for the limited purpose of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. The section cannot be invoked for claiming a substantive relief which was not granted under the decree, or as a pretext to get the order which has attained finality reviewed. If any authority is required for this proposition, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh1 .
5. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
6. No costs.
1. We have heard counsel for the parties.
2. The facts not in dispute are that lands belonging to the appellant were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The collector made his award against which the appellant preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and the same was pending when the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill was introduced in the Parliament on 30th April, 1982 and the Amendment Act came into force from 24th September, 1984. In between these two dates Reference Court made its award on February 10, 1983. After the award the appellant received the amount awarded to him and did not prefer a further appeal therefrom.
3. In the year 1995 the appellant filed an application under Section 152 C.P.C. before the Special Sub-Judge, Ranchi claiming that he was entitled to the benefit conferred by Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Amendment Act. The learned Sub-Judge held that the said application was not maintainable and the said finding has been affirmed by the High Court.
4. We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court because a mere perusal of Section 152 makes it clear that Section 152 C.P.C. can be invoked for the limited purpose of correcting clerical errors or arithmetical mistakes in the judgment. The section cannot be invoked for claiming a substantive relief which was not granted under the decree, or as a pretext to get the order which has attained finality reviewed. If any authority is required for this proposition, one may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh1 .
5. The appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
6. No costs.
