Inherent Powers U/S 151 CPC Can Be Exercised Post-Award To Prevent Unjust Enrichment In Land Acquisition Cases: J&K&L High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure even after an award has attained finality, to correct an inadvertent error resulting in excess payment and to prevent unjust enrichment.The Court further held that Section 17-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, which provides for recovery...
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that a court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure even after an award has attained finality, to correct an inadvertent error resulting in excess payment and to prevent unjust enrichment.
The Court further held that Section 17-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, which provides for recovery of excess amount paid at the acquisition stage, is a statutory embodiment of the doctrine of restitution.
“… Section 17-B is a statutory embodiment of the doctrine of restitution under section 144 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). It reinforces the principle that compensation is not a matter of bounty but of strict legal entitlement, regulated by the scheme of the Act. Any amount paid in excess amount, howsoever occasioned by clerical mistake, or otherwise does not confer any indefeasible right upon the claimant”, the court remarked.
The Court was hearing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, which directed recovery of an excess amount of Rs. 2,61,34,972/- along with interest at 6% per annum from a landowner whose land was acquired for the four-laning of the Srinagar-Jammu National Highway.
A Single Bench of Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the petition and upholding the impugned orders, observed that “... the exercise of inherent powers under Section 151 CPC is not barred merely because the main proceedings have culminated, provided such exercise is aimed at preventing abuse of process or securing the ends of justice. The present case does not involve reopening or re-adjudication of the award; rather, it concerns correction of an inadvertent error leading to excess payment.”
Background:
In the instant matter the petitioner's land along with structures existing thereon, was acquired for the four-laning of the Srinagar-Jammu National Highway at Village Sangam, Bijbehara, District Anantnag. The Reference Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, passed an award granting compensation of Rs. 30 lac per kanal for the land and Rs. 1,02,54,693/- towards structures. The award clearly directed deduction of the amount already received from the total compensation.
The award was challenged by respondent No.1 before the High Court which was dismissed. The matter was further carried to the Supreme Court which was dismissed rendering the award final and binding.
Thereafter, respondent No.1 filed an application before the Principal District Judge, Anantnag, alleging excess payment. The trial court allowed the application directing recovery of Rs. 2,61,34,972/- along with interest at 6% per annum. A review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Article 227.
Court's Observation:
Adjudicating the matter the court first addressed the maintainability of the application under Section 151 CPC after the award had attained finality and referred to My Palace Mutually Aided Cooperative Society v. B. Mahesh (2022) 19 SCC 806 , which held that inherent powers under Section 151 CPC can be exercised where a party has obtained a decree by fraud or where an order has been passed by a mistake of the court, to rectify such mistake.
The Court observed,
“.. The inherent powers of the Court are not exhausted upon the conclusion of proceedings; rather they continue to subsist to prevent abuse of its process and to ensure that its orders do not occasion injustice.” The Court held that the trial court's exercise was confined to ensuring that the award is executed in its true spirit and not to reopen or re-adjudicate the award.
On the applicability of Section 17-B of the J&K Land Acquisition Act, the Court observed that the provision explicitly mandates that any amount paid under Section 17-A must be taken into account while determining final compensation, and if such payment exceeds the amount ultimately awarded, the excess must be refunded, failing which it becomes recoverable as arrears of land revenue.
The Court explained that Section 17-B is a statutory embodiment of the doctrine of restitution under Section 144 of CPC and reinforces the principle that compensation is not a matter of bounty but of strict legal entitlement, regulated by the scheme of the Act. Any amount paid in excess, howsoever occasioned by clerical mistake or otherwise, does not confer any indefeasible right upon the claimant, the bench emphasised.
The Court rejected the petitioner's contention that the amount of Rs. 1,02,54,693/- paid towards demolition of structures did not form part of the compensation awarded. The Court held that compensation under land acquisition is not confined merely to the value of the land acquired but extends to all interests therein, including structures and assets attached to such land.
The Court further observed that the award had categorically directed that the amount already received by the petitioner shall be deducted from the total compensation, which necessarily encompassed all payments made to the petitioner in relation to the acquired land.
On the question of interest, the Court held that the obligation to restitute does not remain confined merely to the principal sum, and permitting retention of the benefit without compensating the value of its use would defeat the object of restitution. The Court found the direction to pay interest at 6% per annum to be just, reasonable, and in consonance with settled principles.
The Court also rejected the contention that Jabirana ought to be recalculated on the entire compensation, observing that the award had attained finality up to the Supreme Court and could not be reopened or reinterpreted under the guise of fresh calculation.
Applying the doctrine of unjust enrichment, the Court cited South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of M.P. (2003) 8 SCC 648 and Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (2005) 3 SCC 738 , observing,
“the doctrine of unjust enrichment postulates that no person can be allowed to enrich inequitably at the expense of another. A right of recovery under the doctrine arises where retention of a benefit is considered contrary to justice or against equity.”
The Court further observed that filing of the review petition and the instant petition was a tactic to avoid depositing excess public money, and that the petition was devoid of merit.
The Court thus dismissed the petition, upholding the orders passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag. The Court directed the petitioner to comply with the direction to deposit the excess amount of Rs. 2,61,34,972/- along with 6% interest within one month from the date of the order, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears under the Land Revenue Act.
Case Title: Ali Mohd. Dar v. State of J&K & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)