Narain Dutt Ojha, J. - (1.) These applications Under Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure read with Sec. 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, have been filed in First Appeals Nos. 39 and 40 of l973 respectively which were decided by a Division Bench of this Court by a common Order on 9th August, 1983. Some land belonging to the applicants in First Appeal No. 39 of 1973 and the applicant in First Appeal No. 40 of 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and the amount payable to the applicants as compensation was finally determined by this Court in the first appeals aforesaid on 9th August, 1983. In the present applications, relying on the amendment in Sec. 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (here after referred to as the Act) made by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act) a prayer has been made that the applicants should be awarded solarium at the rate of 30 per cent in place of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent in place of six per cent.
(2.) For the Respondents it has been urged that an application Under Sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure for the aforesaid relief is not maintainable and the proper course for the applicants was to file an application for review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure on payment of requisite court fees thereon. It was also urged that the applications, if treated as review applications, are highly time barred. Reliance in support of the submission that proper course for the applicants was to move an application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure has been placed on the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan v/s. Raja Shatranji, 1963 AWR 100. In that case a revision application arising out of an order passed by the Civil Judge rejecting his application made Under Sec. 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act for amendment of several 'money decrees passed by a Special Judge Under Sec. 14 of the Encumbered Estates Act had been rejected by this Court. The applicant had contended in his application Under Sec. 4 that there were mortgaged properties charged under the decrees but this Court held that no charge was created by the decrees and consequently the applicant was not entitled to apply Under Sec. 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act. Subsequently the said Sec. 4 was amended on 4th December, 1962, by Amendment Act 20 of 1962 and the words " charged under the decree " occurring in the said Sec. were deleted. Sec. 2 of the Amendment Act land down that the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act shall, from the date of its enforcement, have effect subject to the amendments made by this Act as if this Act had been in race on all material dates. On the commencement of the Amendment Act an application for review was filed. A question arose as to whether the review application was maintainable ? It was urged that even though the amendment was retrospective but since the amended provision was actually not on the statute book on the date when the revision was initially dismissed it could not be said that any of the grounds contemplated by Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure for reviewing a judgment was made out. This contention was repelled and it was held that the amending act having been given retrospective effect its result was that at the time of deciding the application for review the Court has to assume as real all consequences and incidents flowing from the Amending Act being given retrospective effect In other words, this Court has to assume today and proceed on the footing that even on the date when the revision was initially dismissed Sec. 4 of the Zamindar's Debt Reduction Act did not contain the words " charged under the decree ". On the view that in judgment dismissing the revision application there was an apparent error of law on the face of the record the review application was allowed. The decision of this Court in the case of Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan (Supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Raja Shatrunjit v/s. Mohammad Azamat Azim Khan : AIR 1971 SC 1474.
(3.) Counsel for the applicants on the other hand submitted that the prayer made in the instant applications was not for review in the sense contemplated by Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure but was for giving effect to the statutory provision in regard to payment of solarium and interest which more or less cast a duty on the court itself to pass an order in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 23(2) and Sec. 28 of the Act as amended by the amending Act. It was also urged that since no court fee was payable on the claim for solarium or interest no question of payment of any court fees on the review application under the Court Fees Act arose.;