Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 474 (GUJ)

Govind Mamaiya v. State of Gujarat

2010-10-01

JAYANT PATEL

body2010
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—In all the matters, as common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common judgement. 2. The present revision applications are directed against the judgement and order dated 19.12.1998 passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Gondal in concerned revisions, whereby the applications of the petitioners for modification/correction of the award have been rejected. 3. Heard Mr. V.G. Dave, learned Counsel for Mr. Lakhani, learned Counsel for the petitioners in all the matters. 4. It appears that the lands of the petitioners, who are original claimants were acquired for irrigation scheme. The Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award and had awarded compensation for the lands, trees and other things situated over the acquired lands. As the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, they had raised dispute, which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court i.e. Court of Extra Assistant Judge for adjudication. The Reference Court, after considering the matter, had awarded the compensation. The pertinent aspect is that the increase as per Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was awarded over the market value of the lands and it was not awarded over the trees for which separate compensation was granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The award of the Reference Court was carried before this Court in First Appeals. This Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the award of the Reference Court. It is only thereafter the applications were made by the petitioners herein to the Reference Court under Section 151, 152, and 153 of CPC for correction of the award. The Reference Court after hearing both the sides by the impugned order dismissed the applications. Under these circumstances, the present revision applications before this Court. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that as per the definition of the word ‘land’ in the Land Acquisition Act, land includes the things attached to it, which would include trees and, therefore, the submission is that by virtue of Section 23(1A) of the Act, increase in the compensation would follow. He submitted that under the circumstances, it was required for the Reference Court to correct and modify the award passed by it and as the same has not been done, this Court may interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. 6. He submitted that under the circumstances, it was required for the Reference Court to correct and modify the award passed by it and as the same has not been done, this Court may interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. 6. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that there is no separate bifurcation under Section 23(1A) of the Act and, therefore, it is deemed for land as well as for the trees thereon and the said part was not considered by the Reference Court and hence, there is an error of jurisdiction. 7. As such the said aspects cannot be accepted in view of the two peculiar circumstances; one is that in the award passed by the Reference Court at the initial stage, the said increase in the compensation over the trees has not been granted; and the second aspect is that the award of the Reference Court was carried by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court in the proceedings of First Appeal and in the said First Appeal on behalf of the original claimants cross-objections were also filed. Thereafter, this Court has dismissed all the appeals and consequently it is deemed that the cross-objections are also not granted. Thereafter, the present applications were preferred by the applicants under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of CPC. Once the judgement and award has been confirmed by this Court in appellate jurisdiction no review would be permissible. Further, the Court did not grant the relief, which as per the applicants was to be granted. It means that the same was negatived. Once having negatived the said relief, it cannot be added under the head of correction or clarification of the award, more particularly when the judgement of the award of the Reference Court, including that of negativing the relief is confirmed by this Court in the appellate jurisdiction. In view of the aforesaid, the aspects of entitlement of the increase under Section 23(1A) would stand redundant, nor could be granted by the Reference Court, when this Court had confirmed the judgement and award of the Reference Court. Further, if the applicants were aggrieved by the judgement and award of the Reference Court in the proceedings of First Appeal proper course for the applicants was to carry the matter before the higher forum, which admittedly has not been resorted to. 8. Further, if the applicants were aggrieved by the judgement and award of the Reference Court in the proceedings of First Appeal proper course for the applicants was to carry the matter before the higher forum, which admittedly has not been resorted to. 8. In view of the aforesaid it appears that the Reference Court was right in rejecting the application and it cannot be said that any jurisdictional error has been committed, nor can it be said that any perverse view has been taken by the Reference Court, which calls for interference in the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC 9. Hence, all revisions are meritless and, therefore, dismissed.