ORDER
1. This revision under Section 115 of the CPC arises from the judgment and order dated 11-6-1993 passed by Sri C.G. Himgund, Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi, dismissing the application for review filed by the present revision petitioner before the learned Civil Judge under Order 47(1) read with Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC.
2. The facts of the case in the nutshell are that, in Land Acquisition Case No. 57 of 1980 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, the award was given on 8-3-1983 by the reference Court i.e., the Principal Civil Judge. The claimant-respondent moved an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC to amend the decree in view of the of amendment of the provisions of Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act by the [Karnataka Amendment Act No. 69 of 1984] and prayed for enhancement of the compensation in view of the amendment by [Act No. 69 of 1984]. The Court below considered that application and by its orderdated 24-8-1991 allowed the Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1991 and held that the present respondents would be entitled to 30% solatium as well as the benefit of 9% p.a. and 15% p.a. interest i.e., interest at the enhanced rate. The operative portion of the order passed in the Land Acquisition Case No. 57 of 1980 as amended by its order in Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1991 reads as under:
The petition is allowed partly with costs. The market value of the acquired petition land bearing R.S. No. 359/1 measuring 4 acres 10 guntas of Kanagala Village is fixed at Rs. 8,580/- per acre.
The claimants are also entitled to receive 30% solatium and 9% interest on the said amount for one year and at 15% p.a. thereafter if the amount is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession.
Deduct the amount already paid.
Draw a decree accordingly'.
It is after this order passed in Miscellaneous Petition No. 7 of 1991 in Land Acquisition Case No. 57 of 1980, the Assistant Commissioner/Competent Authority, Belgaum Sub-Division, Belgaum, filed the application for review of the order dated 24-8-1991 which has been referred to above. The learned Civil Judge by his order dated 11-6-1993 rejected the review application moved by the present revision petitioner i.e., by the Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum, after having held that the application for review has been abnormally delayed and no satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the Assistant Commissioner who is the present revision petitioner to explain the delay in filing the review application. It further found that the benefit of Section 23(2) (i.e., 30% solatium) and of Section 28 namely the benefit of enhanced interest at the rate of 9% and 15% cannot be said to have been granted illegally. It held that it has been granted in accordance with law on the enhanced compensation and rejected the application for review. Feeling aggrieved from the order of rejection of the review application, the Assistant Commissioner has come up in revision under Section 115 of the CPC.
3. I have heard the learned Government Pleader Sri M.H. Ibrahim and Smt. Sona Vakkund, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the claimants were not entitled to either of the benefits and it has been illegally given. He further contended that interpretation of provision of Section 18 has wrongly been given and on the basis of wrong interpretation, the Court below awarded the interest. Learned Government Pleader contended that it was not open to the Court to grant enhanced interest on the entire amount. Learned Government Pleader contended that grant of interest from 1-11-1972 was without jurisdiction. It could only have been granted from the date of preliminary notification under Section 4(1).
5. These contentions of the learned Government Pleader have been hotly contested. It is admitted position that possession was taken at a date earlier to issuance of preliminary notification under Section 4(1). Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that in view of provisions of Section 30(2) of the Amending Act, the present respondents had been entitled to the benefit of Section 23(2) as well as Section 28 i.e., for enhanced compensation and enhanced solatium. Reference has been made by the learned Counsel for the respondents to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v Raghubir Singh (dead) by L.Rs. Learned Counsel contended that no error had been committed by the learned Civil Judge in giving the benefit of these two amended provisions in view of the Supreme Court decision and even otherwise if there would have been any error, not amounting to error apparent as two views are possible to review petition was not maintainable, the proper course could be appeal. The learned Counsel for the respondents Ms. Sona Vakkund further contended that review application was barred by time and no explanation has been given. No sufficient cause has been shown. The finding that no sufficient cause has been shown is a pure and simple finding of fact. Hence, the order does not suffer from jurisdictional error.
6. I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
So far as Section 28 of the Act and enhancement of compensation is concerned, it will be proper to quote in extenso the following passage from the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh's case, supra.
'In construing Section 30(2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Parent Act, and the award made by the Court is the award made by the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Parent Act on a reference made to it by the Collector under Section 19 of the Parent Act. There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30(2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, even-though it be upon reference from an award made before 30th April, 1982'.
XXX XXX XXX.'In other words, Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefits of enhanced solatium to cases where award by Collector or by Court is made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by theHigh Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before 24th September, 1984 or after that date. All that is material is that the award by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984'.
7. In the present case, the award had been given by the Civil Court on 8th March, 1983. 8th March, 1983 is a date falling after April 1982 and earlier to 24th September, 1984. So Section 28 as amended was applicable to the case and the claimants-respondents had been entitled to the benefit of enhanced solatium as well as enhanced rate of interest and on this aspect, there is no error committed by the Court below what to say of error apparent. Secondly, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that interest should have been awarded only from the date of notification under Section 4(1) and not from the date of taking over possession, in my view, this contention is fallacious and based on incorrect appreciation of the provisions of Section 28. The material words of Section 28, I may quote.-
The Court may direct that Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess to the Court'.
The date from which the interest has to be calculated has been mentioned as, from the date of taking of possession to the date of payment. The language of the Act is per se very clear as to from what date the interest has to be calculated and is payable by the Government and section says it shall be calculated from the date the possession has been taken from it.
8. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Civil Judge when he passed the order dated 24-8-1991. Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. Review only lies in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and error apparent is one which may be pointed out without lengthy arguments and on no two opinions are possible. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Civil Judge when he held that there is no error apparent on face of the record, has been justified and it cannot be taken or said that by taking a wrong decision, he has refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested.
9. Thus considered in my opinion, the present revision petition is without force and without any merits. Revision is hereby dismissed with costs at Rs. 660/-.