High CourtDivision Bench2011-04-21Appeal allowed; typographical corrections order...

V. Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. & ANR.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2004

Neutral Citation:[2011] 5 S.C.R. 557

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: G.S. Singhvi
Asok Kumar Ganguly
Judgment Date: 2011-04-21
Court Decision / Holding: The application for correction of typographical errors in paragraphs 3, 12 and 13 of the judgment is allowed. The last 4 lines of paragraph 3 and the last 7 lines of paragraph 12 are substituted as specified, and paragraph 13’s appeal number is corrected. The Court confirms that the Reference Court’s order and the figures/entitlements (including market value, subsoil mineral rights, solatium, and interest) are to be understood as reflected in the corrected text. The I.A. (application for correction) is allowed in the manner indicated. The judgment thus stands corrected without altering the substantive outcome, reaffirming the maintainability of the Section 28A(3) application and the earlier appellate result.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; typographical corrections ordered; maintainability of Section 28A(3) affirmed; substantive outcome unchanged.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

V. Ramakrishna Rao

Respondents

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.
ANR.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sridhar Potaruju
• D. Julius Riamei
• Faichang P. Gangmei

Counsels for Respondents

• P. Parmeswaran
• C.K. Sucharita
• Nirada Das

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court order relates to a Civil Appeal arising out of a Land Acquisition Act dispute concerning compensation for land acquired and the maintainability of an application under Section 28A(3). The appellant, V. Ramakrishna Rao, challenged the High Court’s decision in a writ appeal against the Reference Court’s order and the manner in which compensation and related benefits were determined. The Court’s prior judgment, delivered against the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s posture, held that the appellant’s application under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was maintainable, and the appeal was allowed, reversing the High Court’s judgment. In the present order, the Court addresses an application for correction of typographical errors in paragraphs 3, 12 and 13 of the judgment dated October 5, 2010 (as referenced in the order), noting that both sides’ counsel agree to make the corrections. The corrections are aimed at accurately reflecting the Reference Court’s order dated 17.7.2000, which fixed the market value of the acquired land and detailed the compensation including subsoil mineral rights, solatium, and interest. The order confirms the maintainability of the 28A(3) application and crystallizes the appellate outcome without altering the substantive decision, other than rectifying transcriptional errors to reflect the true posture of the case.

Provisions of Law Cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 s.28A(3)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant’s counsel contends that the judgment containing the earlier determination must be corrected to faithfully reflect the proceedings and the Court’s decision regarding maintainability under Section 28A(3). Both sides agree to rectify typographical errors in paragraphs 3, 12 and 13 so that the reference to the Reference Court’s 17.7.2000 order, the market value fixed at Rs. 30,000 per acre, the Rs. 15,000 per acre for subsoil mineral rights, the 30% solatium on enhanced compensation, and the accrual of interest are stated accurately and consistently with the record. The fundamental relief sought is limited to transcriptional accuracy without altering the substantive outcome, namely that the 28A(3) application is maintainable and the appeal remains allowed.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents join in the request for correction, emphasizing that the requested changes are typographical and do not alter the legal reasoning or the outcome. They acknowledge the need to align the judgment’s language with the record, including references to the Reference Court’s order and the figures for market value, subsoil mineral rights, solatium, and interest, as previously determined. Their position is that the corrections should simply eliminate ambiguity and ensure precise transcription of the High Court’s and Reference Court’s orders, preserving the already settled conclusions about maintainability under Section 28A(3) and the appellate result.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against V. Ramakrishna Rao v. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. & ANR. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2011] 5 S.C.R. 557 ## V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO A _v._ SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD. & ANR. I.A. No. 2 IN (Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2004) 8 APRIL 21, 2011 **[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.)** - - _Land Acquisition Act, 1894 s.28A(3) Appeal before_ c _Supreme Court allowed and the application u/s.28A(3) held_ - _maintainable Application for correction of typographical_ - _errors in the judgment passed by the Supreme Court Held: In view. of the agreement between the counsel for the appellant and the respondents, direction issued that the errors_ D _be corrected._ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: l.A.N0.2 IN E Civil Appeal No. 7655 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order 19.07.2001 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Writ Appeal No. 997 of 2001. F SridharPotaruju, D. Julius Riamei, Faichang P. Gangmei for the Appellant. P. Parmeswaran, C.K. Sucharita, Nirada Das for the Respondents. G The following order of the Court was delivered 557 H 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 5 S.C.R. A ## ORDER This is an application for correction of typographical errors in paragraphs 3, 12 and 13 of judgment dated October 5, 2011 vide which this Court allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant-applicant, reversed the judgment of the Division 8 Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and held that the application filed by the appellant under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is maintainable. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the C respondents who agree that the typographical errors in paragraphs 3, 12 and 13 of judgment dated October 5, 2010 may be corrected. In view of the above we direct that: i) The last 4 lines of paragraph 3 shall stand substituted D with the following: "The Reference Court reconsidered the matter and passed order dated 17.7.2000, whereby it fixed market value of the acquired land at Rs.30,000/- per acre and also granted compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- towards subsoil E mineral rights apart from 30% solatium on enhanced compensation with 12% interest on additional market value from the date of notification to the date of award and 9% interest per annum from the date of taking possession ·for a period of one year and thereafter 15% per annum till F realisation of the enhanced compensation. The appeals fifed by the parties against the fresh determination of market value by the Reference Court are pending before the High Court." G ii) The last 7 lines of paragraph '/2. of judgment dated October 5, 2010 shall stand substituted.with the following: "If the High Court dismisses both the appeals, then too the appellant will be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre for the acquired land and H . ## V. RAMAKRISHNA RAO _v._ SINGARENI COLLIERIES 55'9 COMPANY LTD. & ANR. compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per acre towards A subsoil mineral rights with other benefits. If, on the other hand, the amount of compensation payable in terms of order dated 17.7.2000 passed by the Reference Court is reduced by the High Court then the amount payable to the appellant will have to adjusted accordingly." B' B' iii) In paragraph 13, the number of Appeal Suit shall be substituted and shall always be deemed to have been substituted as 1634 instead of 1643. I.A. is allowed in the manner indicated above. c N.J. I.A. allowed.