A. P. RAVANI, S. L. TALATI, J. ( 1 ) THE two special civil applications are directed against the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal which was rendered in Appeal No. GRT. A. 74/70 decided on 1/02/1974 by the President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal Ahmedabad. The Sagbara Estate Regulation 1962 known as Gujarat Regulation No. 1 of 1962 was passed and as a result compensation was required to be paid to Shri Ramsinhji Karsansinhji Vasava of Sagbara Estate. Shri Ramsinhji has now expired and his heirs are on record. It appears that after the coming into force of Regulation No. 1 of 1962 on 1/12/1962 no petition for compensation was filed by Shri Ramsinhji. But on 24/04/1969 a meeting was held in Sachivalaya in the office of the Secretary Legal Department where apart from Secretary Legal Department several other officers of the Revenue Department and Solicitors of the Government and an Advocate for Shri Ramsinhji. remained present. The matter was discussed at length and the minutes of the meeting are produced at page 50-A of Special Civil Application No. 154 of 1975. Thereafter on 25/08/1969 advocate of Shri Ramsinhji Vasava addressed a letter to the Secretary Revenue Department Government of Gujarat and that letter is produced at page 50-C. Government gave a reply to that letter on 9/09/1969. The letter of the Government addressed to the advocate of Shri Ramsinhji Vasava is produced at page 50-F. The result of all these negotiations was that Regulation No. 1 of 1962 was amended and by amendment Section 12 (A) was inserted. By insertion of that section persons who had right to apply for claiming compensation could apply before the end of December 1970. Thus the right which had become barred by law of limitation by original Regulation No. 1 of 1962 was saved and by insertion of sec. 12 (A) persons who were entitled to claim compensation got extension to prefer application and taking advantage of that position Shri Ramsinhji Vasava submitted an application on 12/10/1969. In that application large amounts were claimed as compensation for waste lands for Gaothan lands for trees and also for cultivable lands roads abolition of miscellaneous revenue rights related and compensation for agricultural lands. The Deputy Collector after recording evidence passed an award on 24/04/1970 and an amount of Rs. 30 15 905. In that application large amounts were claimed as compensation for waste lands for Gaothan lands for trees and also for cultivable lands roads abolition of miscellaneous revenue rights related and compensation for agricultural lands. The Deputy Collector after recording evidence passed an award on 24/04/1970 and an amount of Rs. 30 15 905. 88 was awarded and it was awarded on the following five heads as under: Rs. P. (a) Compensation for waste lands under sec. 10 (a) 189. 01 (b) Compensation for lands over which public got 435. 87 right under sec. 10 (b) (c) Compensation for Gaothan lands under sec. 10 (b) 17,30,179. 00 (d) Compensation for forest land under sec. 10 (d) 7,56,154. 00 (e) Compensation for trees on lands (other than 5,28,968. 00 forest) vesting in Government under sec. 10 (c) total 30,15,925. 88 thereafter the order mentioned that compensation would be payable in cash or in bonds at the desire of the estate holder. Appeal as preferred and the appeal was heard by the President of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal and the decision was rendered on 1/02/1974. Now in appeal the total amount awarded came to Rs. 58 72 359. 63 Now so far as the order is concerned it appears that six heads are mentioned. The first five heads are the same as mentiond by the Special Deputy Collector and they are from (a) to (e ). The amount in (a) and (b) were common in both the awards. Now so far as (c) is concerned which was compensation for Gaothan lands under section 10 (b) the Tribunal awarded Rs. 34 60 358 Again so far as head (a) is concerned the amount in both the awards is the same. So far as head (s) is concerned compensation for trees on lands (other than forest) vest in Government under sec. 10 (c) the Tribunal awarded Rs. 8 89 353 The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 7 65 879. 75 on the sixth head and that sixth head is Solatium. The tribunal further awarded interest at the rate of 3 per cent on Rs. 56 72 369. 63 from 1-12-1962 State of Gujarat challenged this award by filing Special Civil Application No. 1388 of 1974. Learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State submitted first in regard to item at (c ). The tribunal further awarded interest at the rate of 3 per cent on Rs. 56 72 369. 63 from 1-12-1962 State of Gujarat challenged this award by filing Special Civil Application No. 1388 of 1974. Learned Advocate General who appeared on behalf of the State submitted first in regard to item at (c ). He submitted that so far as item at (c) is concerned the Tribunal practically gave double the amount as compared to the amount awarded by the Special Deputy Collector. Now it is because the Deputy Collector awarded at the rate of 25 paise per Sq. yd while the the Tribunal awarded at the rate of 50 paise Sq. yd. Here we may state that as far as the claimant is concerned his claim was at the rate of 75 paise per sq. yd and learned advocate Shri B. R. Shah who addressed us in Special Civil Application No. 1388 of 1974 vehemently urged that the Tribunal have awarded at the rate of 75 paise per Sq. yd. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ His Lordship after discussing the evidence and averments observed about several items that there were concurrent findings of facts and nothing was required to be done. His Lordship further observed: ]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 2 ) NOW before we go the other two aspects of solatium and interest we say that we have come to the above conclusions because we ate hearing this matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is conceded by learned advocate Shri B. R. Shah that vires of the Regulation are not challenged. Therefore so far as Regulation 1 of 1962; is concerned it is valid and on that footing negotiations were carried or Ultimately because the petitioners like Shri Ramsinhji and many. others lost limitation sec. 12 (A) was added and Shri Ramsinhjis petition was entertained. Now when we sit to decide a petition under:" Article 227 of the Constitution of India our jurisdiction is limited. The first case which we would like to refer is the case of NIBARAN CHANDRA V. MAHENDRA NATH REPORTED IN AIR 1965 SC 1895. others lost limitation sec. 12 (A) was added and Shri Ramsinhjis petition was entertained. Now when we sit to decide a petition under:" Article 227 of the Constitution of India our jurisdiction is limited. The first case which we would like to refer is the case of NIBARAN CHANDRA V. MAHENDRA NATH REPORTED IN AIR 1965 SC 1895. In that case the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction conferred by Article 277 of the Constitution of India was not by any means apellate in its nature for correcting errors in the decisions of Subordinate Court or Tribunals but was merely a power of superintendence to be used to keep them within the bounds of their authority. Therefore we had only to consider as to whether the Tribunal had outstepped the limits of its jurisdiction or whether the findings were based on no material or were otherwise perverse. The Supreme Court further held that while considering the materials even if the Revenue Authorities erred in their interpretation of the compromise between parties it could not be a ground on which their finding could be set aside under Article 227 in view of the fact that the compromise was but one of the several items of evidence on which the finding was based. If thus there was material the order could not be characterised as perverse. The second case is the case of SATYANARAYAN V. MALLIKARJUN REPORTED IN AIR 1960 SC 137 . The Supreme Court in that case held as under: Article 227 of the Constitution corresponds to sec. 107 of the Government of India Act 1915 However wide it may be than the provisions of sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is well established that the High Court cannot in exercise of its power under that section assume appellate powers to correct every mistake of law. Where there is no question of assumption of excessive jurisdiction or refusal to exercise jurisdiction or any irregularity or illegality in the procedure or any breach of any rule of natural justice but if anything it may merely be an erroneous decision which error not being apparent on the face of the record cannot be corrected by the High Court in revision under sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Art. 227 of the Constitution. "the third case we want to refer to is DHARANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Art. 227 of the Constitution. "the third case we want to refer to is DHARANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. V. STATE OF SAURASHTRA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1957 SC 234. In that case it was held that the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was not competent to set aside the finding of fact recorded by the Industrial Tribunal and the Supreme Court entertaining an appeal from the decision of the High Court should also not interfere with that finding of fact. Now that therefore what we have found is that the Revenue Tribunal exercised its jurisdiction which it had. It never overstepped its jurisdiction. It was neither a case of lack of jurisdiction or of excessive jurisdiction. All findings of fact were based on findings of fact where evidence which was led before the Special Deputy Collector was required to be appreciated. That evidence was appreciated. Every argument which was urged at that particular stage was heard and either accepted or rejected. Therefore it is a case where we do not find any jurisdictional error. We also do not find any fact which is so erroneously decided which could be considered to be perverse or a view which is an impossible view Now therefore no interference is required to be called for so far as items at (a) to (e) are concerned in the judgment rendered by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. ( 3 ) NOW so far as solatium is concerned the amount awarded is Rs. 7 65 819. 75 That solatium was awarded because of a judgment rendered by this Court. In the case of THAKARANI SHRI GUMANKUNVERBA KARAMSINHJI AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF GUJARAT REPORTED IN 11 GLR 956. Now this judgment is overruled and is no longer a good law. The State of Gujarat had filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and the judgment is reported and the case is STATE OF GUJARAT THAKARANI SHRI GUMANKUNVARBA KARAMSINHJI AND ANOTHER V. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 1976 SC 1721 . In paragraph 13 of that judgment the Supreme Court held that the Legislature did not intend nor did it provide to give any solatium on the amount of compensation awardable to the erstwhile Jagirdar. In paragraph 13 of that judgment the Supreme Court held that the Legislature did not intend nor did it provide to give any solatium on the amount of compensation awardable to the erstwhile Jagirdar. Now that was a case under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act. Learned advocate Shri B. R. Shah conceded that Regulation 1 of 1962 stands on a similar footing and solatium cannot be awarded. ( 4 ) NOW we go to the last item of interest. Now so far as the Special Deputy Collector is concerned he passed an order stating as under;"compensation will be payable in cash or ill bonds at the desire of the estate holder. "we may say that that order was wrong in view of sec. 19 of Gujarat Regulation No. 1 of 1962. Sec. 19 reads as under: 19 Mode of payment of compensation (1) The amount of compensation payable under this Regulation shall be payable in cash in or transferable bonds as provided in sub-sec. (2) or partly in cash and partly in transferable bonds according as the State Government may think fit. (2) Where any amount of compensation is to be paid in transferable bonds such bonds shall from the date of issue carry interest at the rate of three per cent per annum and shall be repayable during a period of twenty years from the said date by equated annual instalments of principal and interest. (3) The bonds shall be of such denomination and shall be in such forms as may be prescribed. " Now so far as the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is concerned it passed an order which says that interest should be awarded at the rate of 3 per cent on Rs. 58 72 369. 63 from 1/12/1962. We may say that this is an error not only of law but of jurisdiction. Sec. 19 clearly provided that it was for the State Government to decide as to whether the amount was required to be paid in cash or in bonds. It was clearly mentioned that if the amount was required to be paid in cash no interest was required to be paid If it was decided to pay the money in bonds repayable during the period of 20 years then interest at the rate of 3 per cent was provided by sec. 19. It was clearly mentioned that if the amount was required to be paid in cash no interest was required to be paid If it was decided to pay the money in bonds repayable during the period of 20 years then interest at the rate of 3 per cent was provided by sec. 19. Now in this particular case what we find is that so soon as the Special Deputy Collector passed an order awarding a particular amount the State Government decided to pay the amount in cash and the order No. TMB. 1970/ 50187-Y dated 16/05/1970 was passed and it was ordered that the amount be paid in cash. That was the order of the State Government. Now that therefore the State Government has decided to pay the amount in cash. Learned Advocate General stated that no rules are framed and no forms are prescribed and therefore it is not possible to give any bonds unless the rules are framed for that purpose. Now that therefore the intention was to pay in cash and in fact the amount was paid in cash immediately after the Special Deputy Collector passed his order However when the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal delivered the judgment the additional compensation which was required to be paid was not paid in cash. What was done was that a Special Civil Application No. 154 of 1975 was filed and along with that petition Civil Application No. 54 of 1976 was also filed and stay was obtained in order that the additional compensation may not be paid to Shri Ramsinhji The result was that though the Tribunal passed an award on 1/02/1974 Shri Ramsinhji or his heirs could not get the amount till this date. Now therefore it is clear that because there are no rules it is not possible to pay the amount in bonds to Shri Ramsinhji and it is further clear that Regulation No. 1 of 1962 came into force on 1/12/1962 and 20 years would be over on 1/12/1982. We are practically at the end of October 1982 and it would not be worthwhile preparing rules getting bonds printed calculated and pay them so that they might mature after two months. Perhaps it may not be possible before December 1982 This position has also been considered. We are practically at the end of October 1982 and it would not be worthwhile preparing rules getting bonds printed calculated and pay them so that they might mature after two months. Perhaps it may not be possible before December 1982 This position has also been considered. Now that therefore it is clear that Shri Ramsiahji was required to be paid either cash or bonds when the Tribunal decided the matter. Ultimately the judgment of the Tribunal will be merged with the order passed by the Special Deputy Collector and in fact the amount was required to be paid on the date on which the Special Deputy Collector passed the award. Now that therefore the amount is not paid and if it is not the fault of Shri Ramsinhji and he is put to a loss unnecessarily. In fact the State obtained stay; otherwise he would have got the amount in any case in the year 1974. Now that therefore when bonds were no given and the bonds could not be given and the State Government did not decide to pay cash but decided to obtain a stay order it could be in equity proper that the State Government should pay interest. Now we may again refer to the case which we have already referred to above that is STATE OF GUJARAT. THAKARANI SHRI GUMANKUVARBA KARANSINHJI AND ANOTHER V. GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA ). Now in this case in paragraphs 14 15 and 16 the question regarding interest under the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act was considered and ultimately the Supreme Court held that the Jagirdar will not get interest at 3 per cent on the total 10 instalments of principal for 10 years. On the first amount of is. 3. 73 he will get interest at 3 per cent for 9 years. On the second installments of Rs. 3. 84 he will get interest at the said rate for 8 years and so on and so forth. On the last amount of Rs. 4. 87 he will get interest for one year only at 3 per cent. This we have illustrated to show that interest at 3 per cent from 1-12-1962 as ordered by the Revenue Tribunal can never be awarded. But as we have observed above. Shri Ramsinhji or his heirs did become entitled to the principal amount much earlier. 4. 87 he will get interest for one year only at 3 per cent. This we have illustrated to show that interest at 3 per cent from 1-12-1962 as ordered by the Revenue Tribunal can never be awarded. But as we have observed above. Shri Ramsinhji or his heirs did become entitled to the principal amount much earlier. But when that principal amount is not paid and the State Government had not chosen to give bonds because of the fact that they did not desire either to frame the rules or pay the amounts in bonds it would be fair and equitable that interest is awarded and therefore we would award interest on the additional amount which the Tribunal awarded and on that amount only interest should be paid at 3 per cent from 24/04/1970 the date on which the Special Deputy Collector decided the matter. ( 5 ) ONE last thing which is required to be mentioned is that the earned Advocate General drew our attention to the letter at page 50-C which was written by learned advocate Shri Vakharia who appeared for Shri Ramsinhji and in that letter in paragraph 1 it was mentioned that Government of Gujarat had agreed to pay at least Rs. 16 lacs only to us by way of compensation for the extinguishment of all our rights in the Sagbara Estate under Gujarat Regulation I of 1962. A faint effort was made to suggest that the Jagirdar was not entitled to anything more than Rs. 16 lakhs. This argument is only required to be stated for the purpose of rejecting it. The reason is obvious. The law does provide that the Special Deputy Collector cannot make an award unless he obtains a concent of the State Government. That is provided sec. 13 of Regulation I of 1962 and it is mentioned by the State Government in its petition in para 3a that the Special Deputy Collector had passed the award of Rs. 30 15 905 after obtaining the approval of the Government. Now that therefore if Rs. 16 lakhs was an agreed amount between the parties it was not necessary to go before the Special Deputy Collector for any award except an award under an agreement. No evidence was required to be led. Now therefore Rs. 16 lakhs was an amount which was not an agreed amount. Now that therefore if Rs. 16 lakhs was an agreed amount between the parties it was not necessary to go before the Special Deputy Collector for any award except an award under an agreement. No evidence was required to be led. Now therefore Rs. 16 lakhs was an amount which was not an agreed amount. It was either minimum amount fixed or maximum amount fixed. If it was a maximum amount fixed the Government would not give approval for Rs. 30 lakhs. Therefore if the minimum amount is fixed and to our mind it was not a fixed amount and it was only a tentative known fact to the parties that at least in any case the award would be of Rs. 16 lakhs and the parties felt that in no case the amount would be for a sum less than 16 lakhs. With this understanding they went to the Special Deputy Collector and therefore when the Special Deputy Collector came to the conclusion that the award was required to be passed for a sum above Rs. 30 lakhs the Government gave concent and therefore it cannot be suggested that nothing can be paid to Shri Ramsinhji which can be more than Rs. 16 lakhs. Further we may state that none of the parties ever urged before any authorities either before the Special Deputy Collector or before the Revenue Tribunal that the matter was settled at Rs. 16 lakhs between the parties. Now therefore the order passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal is modified to the extent that a sum of Rs. 7 65 879. 75 awarded as solatium cannot be awarded. So out of a sum of Rs. 58 72 369. 63 deduction is to be made to the tune of Rs. 7 65 879. 75 From that amount the amount awarded by the Special Deputy Collector is required to be deducted that amount is Rs. 30 15 509. 88 After deducting these two amounts whatever will remain will be the additional compensation which is required to be paid to Shri Ramsinhji. That amount the State shall pay with running simple interest at the rate of 3 per cent from 24/04/1970 We hope that the amount so worked out will be paid by the State Government to Shri Ramsinhji at the earliest and not later than three months from today. Petition partly allowed. .