C.R. No. 1318 of 2008 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 1318 of 2008 Date of decision: February 24,2009 Ramesh Kumar ..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Mr. S.S.Antal, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.J.S.Sular, AAG, Haryana for the respondents ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. The present revision petition has been filed by the claimant- petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 28.11.2007 whereby the Additional District Judge, Ambala has dismissed his application filed under Section 152 C.P. C. for correction of error in judgment dated 17.2.2005 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.3. As per the averments made in the petition, the petitioner had purchased half share of plot No.61-B measuring 615 Square Yards comprised in Khasra No.12/4/2 situated in the area of Patti Mehar, Hadbast No. 58 Ambala City vide sale deed dated 25.2.1981, which was later on acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector Ambala and compensation was awarded to the petitioner vide award No.13 dated 23.2.1988. Petitioner filed an application under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the 'Act'), which was disposed of vide award dated 17.2.2005. It has been further averred in the petition that while passing the award dated 17.2.2005, the Additional District Judge, Ambala wrongly mentioned the area owned by the petitioner in the aforesaid plot to be 302.50 square yards, C.R. No. 1318 of 2008 2 whereas in actual, the petitioner has owned the half of aforesaid plot No. 61-B measuring 615 Square Yards, which comes to 307.50 square yards. Petitioner filed an application under section 152 CPC for making correction in the award dated 17.2.2005 to the effect that the area owned by the petitioner was 307.50 square yards. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order dated 28.11.2007 illegally. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that while passing the award dated 17.2.2005, the Additional District Judge, Ambala has not gone into the entire revenue record i.e., sale deed and only mutation of the plot was made the basis for determining compensation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the mutation,the land in dispute has been shown in marlas and not in square yards and thus a mistake occurred in computing the exact measurement for determining the compensation. It has been further argued that because of the aforesaid mistake, an irreparable loss and injury has been caused to the petitioner. The said mistake was liable to be corrected and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside and the award dated 17.2.2005 is liable to be modified as prayed. On the other hand learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana appearing on behalf of the State of Haryana has vehemently argued that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality as there was no error while computing exact measurement of the plot of the petitioner, which was done on the basis of the revenue record and therefore, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. While passing the impugned order, it has been noticed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala that as per the revenue record, Plot No.61-B was measuring 20 marlas and as per the statement No.19 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the State, the total area for Plot No.61-B was 20 marlas and half share of the same comes to 10 Marlas i.e., 302.50 Sq. Yards. It C.R. No. 1318 of 2008 3 has also been noticed in the impugned order that the petitioner has not produced copy of the mutation to show as to what area was mutated in his name. It is also relevant to note here that even before this court the petitioner has not placed on record copies of mutation as entered in the revenue record. Neither the application filed by the petitioner under Section 28-A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 nor the notice under Section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, received by him, which gives the measurement of the land acquired by the respondent has been produced on record. Even notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has not been produced. Thus, there is no document/evidence on record from which it can be deduced that how much area of the petitioner has been acquired by the respondent-State. Even from the award dated 17.2.2005 (Annexure P-2), it can be clearly made out that the petitioner had made an application for redetermining of market value of his acquired land measuring 302.50 Square Yards. There is no mention of the fact that the acquired area of petitioner's land is 307.50 Square Yards. In view of the aforesaid factual position, it cannot be made out that there was a typographical/clerical error in the award dated 17.2.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ambala which could be corrected under Section 152 of CPC. In any case, the petitioner is disputing the measurements of acquired area and is basing his claim on the basis of the sale deed Ex.P1, in which it has been shown that petitioner has been sold half share of Plot No.61-B measuring 615 Square Yards, the same could be determined in an appropriate forum and not by moving an application under Section 152 C.P.C. For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this petition, the same is hereby dismissed. February 24, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE