COLLECTOR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMMU Vs. SHIV DUTT
LAWS(J&K)-1999-3-30
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on March 22,1999

Collector Assistant Commissioner, Jammu Appellant
VERSUS
SHIV DUTT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

MIR, J. - (1.) A short question involved in this appeal is, as to wherefrom shall the period of limitation start in respect of an appeal arising out of an award passed by a District Judge while answering a reference made to him in terms of Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
(2.) IN the ordinary course, we have no problem in comprehending Art. 156 of the Limitation Act. There can be no two opinions with regard to the interpretation of this provision of law. The facts involved in the present case take out the same from the pedigree of an ordinary case. Here the District Judge, while deciding a reference made to him by the Collector in terms of Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, (Act hereafter), on 13.3.1989 held the interested persons entitled to compensation @ Rs. 80,000/ - per Kanal. They were also entitled to 15% solatium on the compensation and interest @ 6% per annum, from the day possession of the land was taken. The concluding para of the award passed by the District Judge on 13.3.1989 is reproduced as under: - Therefore, compensation @ Rs. 80000/ - per Kanal for land measuring 5 Kanals 11 marls is ordered to be paid to the interested persons in proportion to their entitlement. They will also be entitled to 15% solatium on the compensation and interest @ 6% P. A. from the day possession of the land was taken. An ex -part decree to this effect be drawn.  Unfortunately when the decree in terms of this award judgment was drawn, a clerical error was committed by writing Rs. 8000/ - instead of Rs. 80,000/ -. This clerical error compelled the respondents to file an application under section 152, code of Civil Procedure, (code hereafter), for rectification of this error. Despite notice having been issued and received by the other side, they did not participate. So the Court Proceeded ex -parte against the State on 28.4.90. The application was heard, and on finding it to be a clerical error, same was rectified and the respondent was held to be entitled to compensation @ RS. 8000/ - per Kanal instead of Rs. 80000/ -. This rectification amendment was effected to the decree -sheet only on 9.7.1990.
(3.) THE case of the appellant before the learned Single Bench has been that period of limitation will start from 9.7.1990 and not from 13.3.1989 because it was on 9.7.1990 that the emended decree was passed. Learned Single Bench has turned down this argument. He has relied upon the interpretation of the words date of decree  occurring in order 20 Rule 7 of the Code. According to him date of decree  and date of signing of the date  are two different clauses connoting two different situations etc. A birds eye view of the letters patent. Appeal itself provides answer to the question. In our opinion no support is required to be drawn from Rule 7 of order 20 of the Code.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.