C.R. No. 4403 of 2003 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4403 of 2003 Date of Decision: 12.10.2009 1. The State of Haryana through Collector, Gurgaon. 2. The Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estates, Haryana, Sector 14, Gurgaon. ... Revision-Petitioners Versus 1. Yog Bal; 2. Subhash; 3. Braham Dutt; 4. Ved Parkash; all sons of Pt. Net Ram, residents of village Khandsa, Tehsil and District Gurgaon. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Ms. Rajat Goyal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the revision-petitioners. Mr. Shailender Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This revision-petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 29.04.03, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurgaon, vide which, the application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, C.R. No. 4403 of 2003 2 filed by the respondents, seeking amendment of judgement, in land reference case No.183/2000, decided, on 29.07.02, was allowed. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, in land reference case No. 183/2000, titled as 'Yog Bal etc. Vs. Haryana State', an award was passed, on 29.07.02. On 02.12.02, an application, was moved, by Yog Bal and others, petitioners/decree holders, that their Counsel made a statement, to the effect, that they claimed enhanced compensation of half share, in khasra No. 653 (0-5-0), in the reference petition, as the enhanced compensation, in respect of the remaining half portion thereof, had already been claimed, in Land reference Case No. 134 of 2000, but due to over-sight, it was mentioned, in paras No. 5 and 13 of the award dated 29.07.02, that they only claimed compensation of half share, in khasra No. 653 (0-5-0). It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the judgement debtors, were not ready to pay the enhanced compensation of the remaining acquired land, which was the subject matter of the reference petition. Accordingly, a prayer, was made, that correction, in paras No. 5 and 13 of the award dated 29.07.02, be made. 3. The application, was contested by the judgement debtors/revision-petitioners, by filing reply thereto. It was stated that the Executing Court, could not go behind the decree. It was further stated that the Reference Court, had passed a specific award, in respect of khasra No. 653, to the extent of half share. 4. Before the decision of this application, another application dated 25.04.03, in continuation of the earlier application, was filed, C.R. No. 4403 of 2003 3 wherein, it was stated that the decree holders, had already relinquished their right of compensation, in respect of the entire khasra No. 653, in Land Acquisition Case No. 431 of 1999, titled as 'Dropti etc. Vs. Haryana State'. Accordingly, a prayer, was made, that claim of the decree holders, in respect of compensation of entire khasra No. 653, be deleted, and consequent amendment/correction, in the award dated 29.07.02, be made. Other typographical mistakes, which occurred, in the award dated 29.07.02, were also sought to be corrected. The details of such mistakes, were mentioned, in paras No. 3 to 6 of the second application dated 25.04.03. 5. Reply to the second application, was filed, by the judgement debtors/revision-petitioners, to the effect that since the award dated 29.07.02, had attained finality, the application, was not maintainable for amendment/correction of the same. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record of the case, the Executing Court, accepted the application. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the judgement-debtors/revision-petitioners. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the revision-petitioners, submitted that once the award, was passed, by the Reference Court, no correction/amendment therein, could be made, by the Executing Court. She further submitted that the Executing Court, could not go behind the C.R. No. 4403 of 2003 4 decree, as the same, was required to execute the same, in the manner, it was passed. She, however, admitted that claim, in the Reference Petition, for enhancement of compensation, was only relinquished by the decree holders/respondents, in respect of khasra Nos. 41/77 and 9/8-9-10-11-12-18, and 620/10 and 620 min, as, these were not acquired, and, in respect of entire khasra No. 653, as they relinquished their claim therein. She further submitted that the remaining land, which was the subject matter of the Reference Petition, was acquired, by the judgement debtors/revision-petitioners, and compensation, had not been paid, with regard to the same. She further submitted that, since the Executing Court, could not go behind the decree, the order impugned, being illegal, was liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for the decree holders/respondents, submitted that it was only, on account of clerical/typographical mistake, that enhanced compensation, in respect of the land, which was the subject matter of the Reference Petition, except the land, in respect whereof, the claim, was relinquished, by the decree holders, was not granted, and when this mistake, was brought to the notice of the concerned Court, it was duty bound, to correct the same, especially when, there was no dispute, that the land, which was the subject matter of the Reference Petition, except the land, in respect whereof, the claim, was relinquished, by the decree holders, was acquired, and no enhanced compensation, had been paid, to them regarding the same. He further submitted that the order impugned, being legal and valid, was liable to be upheld. C.R. No. 4403 of 2003 5 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Samarendra Nath Sinha and another Vs. Krishna Kumar Nag, AIR, 1967 (SC), 1440, while dealing with the provisions of Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Apex Court, held that, errors, arising from accidental slip, can be corrected subsequently not only in decree drawn up by ministerial officer, but even, in the judgement pronounced and signed by the Court. In Mam Raj Vs. Smt. Sabiri Devi and others, 1999(1), PLJ, 701, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that under Section 151 CPC, the Court has to look into the contents of the application and prayer made, on such basis, and need not necessarily be guided by the provisions of law, under which, the application is made. It was further held that, what is to be seen is, whether, the applicant is entitled to the relief prayed for, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court is not powerless to grant relief, if the ends of justice and equity so demand. The Court, is not required to be swayed by the technicalities. If the technicalities and the substantial justice, are pitted, against each other, then the latter will prevail over the former. The Court below, was not powerless, to correct the clerical mistake/ typographical/inadvertent mistake, while passing the award. It is the fundamental principle of law, that nobody should suffer for the mistake of the Court or its officials. Once a typographical/clerical/inadvertent mistake committed by the Court, comes to its notice, it can be corrected C.R. No. 4403 of 2003 6 by it at any stage of the proceedings. Once, there was no dispute, between the parties, that the land of the decree holders/respondents, was acquired, and the same, was the subject matter of the Reference Petition, whereby, enhanced compensation, was claimed and granted, and that, it was only, on account of the clerical/typographical/inadvertant mistake, which occurred, in the award, which was required to be corrected, the Court below, in my opinion, may be the Executing Court, was vested with the inherent power, to correct the same. As stated above, it was admitted by the Counsel for the judgement debtors/revision-petitioners, that the land, other than the land, bearing khasra Nos. 620/10 and 620 min (0-6-0), 41/77 and 9/8-9-10-11-12-18, was acquired and compensation, in respect of khasra No. 653, was relinquished. It was not that the Counsel for the decree holders, relinquished their claim for enhanced compensation, in respect of the other land, which was acquired. The order impugned, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The submission of the Counsel for the revision-petitioners, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same, is dismissed. 12.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE