2012 (11) TMI 1194 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court in granting benefits of amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. Validity of the decree passed by the High Court on April 28, 1989.
3. Executability of the decree passed by the High Court on April 28, 1989.

Summary:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the High Court in granting benefits of amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court had jurisdiction to grant the benefits of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LA Act) through applications u/s 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Court referred to its previous decisions in *State of Punjab v. Babu Singh*, *Union of India v. Swaran Singh*, and *Sarup Singh v. Union of India*, which established that the High Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain applications under Sections 151 and 152, CPC, to award additional benefits under the amended provisions of the LA Act. The Court reiterated that the High Court acquires jurisdiction under Section 54 of the LA Act only while enhancing or declining to enhance the compensation and not independently of the proceedings.

Issue 2: Validity of the decree passed by the High Court on April 28, 1989.

The Supreme Court held that the decree passed by the High Court on April 28, 1989, granting the benefits of amended Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the LA Act, was without jurisdiction and thus a nullity. The Court emphasized that an award and decree having become final under the LA Act cannot be amended or altered to seek enhancement of statutory benefits under the amended provisions by filing petitions under Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC. Consequently, the decree dated April 28, 1989, was declared null and void.

Issue 3: Executability of the decree passed by the High Court on April 28, 1989.

The Supreme Court concluded that since the decree dated April 28, 1989, was a nullity, it could be challenged at any stage, including in execution proceedings. The executing court's order dated April 6, 1999, which overruled the objection taken by the appellants and held that it was not open to the executing court to go behind the decree, was set aside. The Court ruled that a plea of nullity of a decree can always be set up before the executing court, and any judgment and order which is a nullity never acquires finality and is thus open to challenge in the executing proceedings.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court dated April 1, 2003, and the order of the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated April 6, 1999. The execution petition filed by the respondents seeking execution of the award and decree dated April 28, 1989, was dismissed. The parties were directed to bear their own costs. The judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5115 of 2005 was applied to Civil Appeal No. 5116 of 2005, and Civil Appeal Nos. 5096 of 2005 and 5097-5098 were disposed of accordingly.