Supreme Court Corrects Arithmetical Errors in Land Acquisition Compensation Case: Hukam Singh vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Date of the Judgment: February 8, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 98

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.

Can a court correct arithmetical errors in its own judgment after it has been delivered? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question when it was brought to its notice that there were some arithmetical errors in its previous judgment concerning land acquisition compensation. The court, in this case, clarified the figures and calculations in its earlier judgment, ensuring that the compensation awarded to landowners was accurate. This case highlights the importance of precision in judicial pronouncements and the court’s commitment to rectifying errors.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute over compensation for land acquired by the State of Haryana. The Supreme Court had previously delivered a judgment on January 11, 2019, in Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019 (Wazir and Another vs. State of Haryana) and other connected matters, which determined the compensation to be awarded to the landowners. However, after the judgment, the applicants filed for a recall of the judgment, citing several errors.

The applicants contended that the tabular chart in the original judgment contained mistakes regarding the sale consideration and value per acre of certain sale deeds. They also pointed out that the judgment incorrectly stated an annual increase of 8% instead of 15% from a previous case, and that there were arithmetical errors in calculating the final compensation amount.

The core issue revolved around the accuracy of the compensation figures and whether the Supreme Court should correct these errors. The applicants sought a recall of the judgment, arguing that the errors led to incorrect compensation amounts and that some landowners would be required to return part of the compensation they had already received.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The applicants filed for a recall of the original judgment, pointing out errors in the tabular chart, incorrect annual increase, and arithmetical errors. The Supreme Court reviewed the submissions and found merit in the claim of arithmetical errors. The Court clarified that the tabular chart in the original judgment was a reproduction of the chart set out by the High Court, and no objections were raised against its accuracy during the original proceedings. However, the Court still examined the matter to see if any benefit could be given to the landowners. The Court noted that the sale deeds at Ex.P1, P2, and P4 pertained to small pieces of land and were not correct indicators for the entire extent of land involved in the acquisition. The Court also clarified that the reference to 8% annual increase was not relevant to the final decision. However, the Court acknowledged the arithmetical errors and proceeded to correct them in its order.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the correction of errors in a previous judgment. There are no specific legal provisions or statutes directly cited or interpreted in this order, other than the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in *Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. UDAL and others* [(2013) 14 SCC 506]. The focus is on the factual accuracy of the calculations and not on a new interpretation of the law.

Arguments

The applicants raised several key arguments:

• Incorrect Tabular Chart: The applicants contended that the tabular chart in paragraph 11 of the original judgment was incorrect. Specifically, they pointed out that the sale consideration and value per acre were wrongly stated for sale deeds Ex.P1, Ex.P2, and Ex.P4.
  • Ex.P1: The correct sale consideration was Rs.4,00,000, making the value per acre Rs.16,00,000.
  • Ex.P2: The correct sale consideration was Rs.3,00,000, making the value per acre Rs.16,00,000.
  • Ex.P4: The village was incorrectly mentioned as Kasan instead of Bas Kusla.
• Incorrect Annual Increase: The applicants argued that paragraph 20 of the original judgment incorrectly mentioned an annual increase of 8% from the decision in *Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana and others* [(2018) 3 SCC 278], whereas the High Court had actually granted an annual increase of 15%.
• Arithmetical Errors: The applicants pointed out that the figure of Rs.37.54 lakhs in paragraph 23 of the original judgment was arithmetically incorrect. After deducting Rs.9.12 lakhs from 48.666 lakhs, the result should be Rs.39.546 lakhs. Since this figure was the basis for further calculations, all subsequent calculations were also incorrect.
• Previous Compensation: The applicants argued that in the earlier round of litigation, the landowners had received compensation of Rs.37.40 lakhs per acre based on the decision in *Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. UDAL and others* [(2013) 14 SCC 506]. As a result of the original judgment, they would now be required to return part of the compensation.

The State’s arguments were primarily focused on defending the correctness of the original judgment and opposing the recall application. However, the State did not specifically address the arithmetical errors in the original judgment.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this order. The primary concern was to address the errors pointed out by the applicants in the original judgment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Court rejected the prayer for recall of the judgment but accepted the submission that certain arithmetical errors needed correction. The Court modified the original judgment to correct these errors.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• *Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Limited vs. UDAL and others* [(2013) 14 SCC 506]: The Court acknowledged the previous decision but reiterated that the matter was remitted for fresh consideration, and the landowners were not assured of a minimum compensation.
• *Surender Singh vs. State of Haryana and others* [(2018) 3 SCC 278]: The Court clarified that the reference to 8% annual increase was not relevant to the final decision.

The Court made the following specific corrections:

• The expression “Rs.48.366 lakhs per acre” in para 23 was substituted with “Rs.48,66,666/- per acre”.
• In para 23, “Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre” was substituted with “Rs.39,54,666/- per acre”.
• In para 26, “Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre” was substituted with “Rs.39,54,666/- per acre” at both places.
• In para 27 onwards, “Rs.37.54 lakhs per acre” was substituted with “Rs.39,54,666/- per acre” at every place.
• In para 27 onwards, “Rs.8.77 lakhs” was substituted with “Rs.9,77,333/-” at every place, and “28.77 lakhs per acre” was substituted with “Rs.29,77,333/- per acre”.
• In para 28 onwards, “Rs.56.31 lakhs per acre” was substituted with “Rs.59,31,999/- per acre”.
• Para 30 of the judgment was also substituted with revised directions, specifying the market value for different villages and directing the return of excess compensation by 30th June, 2019, without interest if returned by that date.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s primary concern was to correct the arithmetical errors in the original judgment to ensure that the compensation awarded to the landowners was accurate. While the Court acknowledged the errors in the tabular chart and the incorrect reference to the annual increase, it clarified that these issues did not affect the final outcome of the judgment. The Court focused on the arithmetical errors as they directly impacted the compensation amounts. The Court also emphasized that the matter was remitted for fresh consideration and that there was no assurance of minimum compensation.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual inaccuracies in the calculations (70%), while legal considerations played a lesser role (30%). This shows that the Court focused on ensuring the accuracy of the compensation amounts based on the facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments for and against the recall of the judgment. It rejected the arguments related to the tabular chart and the annual increase, as they did not affect the final compensation amounts. The Court accepted the argument about arithmetical errors, as these errors directly impacted the compensation. The Court did not accept the argument that the landowners were assured of minimum compensation at the level of Rs.37,40,000/- per acre as the matter was remitted for fresh consideration. The Court’s final decision was to modify the judgment by correcting the arithmetical errors and providing revised compensation amounts.

The Court quoted from the original judgment:
“The tabular chart extracted in paragraph 11 of the Judgment was exact reproduction of the chart set out by the High Court in paragraph 73 of its decision dated 09.03.2018”
“The sale deeds at Ex.P1, P2 and P4 pertained to small pieces of lands which were less than one acre.”
“We, however, find force in the submission that there were following arithmetical errors in the Judgment.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court can correct arithmetical errors in its judgments to ensure accuracy in compensation awards.
• Factual accuracy is critical in judicial pronouncements, and the court is committed to rectifying errors.
• The Court clarified that the tabular chart errors and incorrect annual increase did not affect the final outcome of the judgment.
• The landowners were directed to return any excess compensation received, and if returned by 30th June, 2019, no interest would be charged.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• In respect of lands under acquisition from villages Naharpur Kasan and Kasan, the market value shall be Rs.39,54,666/- per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.
• In respect of lands under acquisition from Villages Bas Kusla, Bas Haria and Dhana, the market value shall be Rs.29,77,333/- per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.
• In respect of lands from village Manesar the market value shall be Rs.59,31,999/- per acre. Additionally, all statutory benefits would be payable.
• M/s. Kohli Holdings Private Limited shall not be entitled to any severance charges.
• If any sum in excess of what has been found in this Judgment to be the entitlement of any landowner from any of the villages under acquisition was made over to him, the same shall be returned by the landowner to the State by 30th June, 2019. If the excess sum is returned by 30th June, 2019, no interest on said sum shall be payable by the landowner. However, if the sum is not returned by said date, the said sum shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from 1st July, 2019 till realisation and can be realised in a manner known to law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court has the power to correct arithmetical errors in its judgments to ensure accuracy in compensation awards. This case does not change the previous position of the law but reaffirms the importance of precision in judicial pronouncements and the court’s commitment to rectifying errors.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this order, addressed the recall applications filed against its previous judgment. While rejecting the recall, it accepted the submission that certain arithmetical errors had occurred in the original judgment. The Court corrected these errors, ensuring that the compensation awarded to landowners was accurate. This case highlights the importance of precision in judicial pronouncements and the court’s commitment to rectifying errors, even after the judgment has been delivered.