COLLECTOR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMMU Vs. SHIV DUTT
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Collector Assistant Commissioner, Jammu
Click here to view full 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
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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.