TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and then the award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on November 23, 1973 fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of ₹ 270/- per Biswa. The respondents' land is part of the above acquisition in the award. 4. The respondents were not satisfied with the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and sought reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. The matter was referred to the civil court for determination of compensation for compulsory acquisition of the respondents' land. 5. The reference court on May 17, 1980 decided the reference(s) and enhanced compensation at the rate of ₹ 22/- per square yard. The reference court also awarded solatium at the rate of 15% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest at the rate of 6% from the date of dispossession till the payment was made as awarded. 6. The respondents did not carry the matter further. However, the State of Haryana was dissatisfied with the determination of compensation by the reference court and, accordingly, preferred first appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 7. On January 16, 1981, the first appeal preferred by the State of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... giving the benefits of amended Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the LA Act to the respondents was a nullity and without jurisdiction. He relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Punjab and another Vs. Babu Singh and others1, Union of India Vs. Swaran Singh others2 and Sarup Singh and another Vs. Union of India and another3. 15. Mr. Manoj Swarup, learned counsel for the respondents, in the first place distinguished the decision of this Court in Swaran Singh2 by making reference to the observations made by this Court in para 7 which reads, Admittedly, as on that date the claimants were entitled to solatium at 15% and interest at 6% . Secondly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Swaran Singh2 did not lay down good law. He cited the decision of this Court in Balvant N. Viswamitra and others Vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs. and others4 to draw a distinction between a 'void decree' and an 'illegal, incorrect and irregular decree'. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the High Court on April 28, 1989 could at best be termed as an 'illegal, incorrect and irregular decree' but surely it is not a &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Section 23(1-A) cannot be made since the notification under Section 4(1) was dated 11-12-1974 and even the award of the District Court was dated 23-2-1978. Under these circumstances, the LA Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has no application and there is no error in the award or the decree as initially granted. The High Court was clearly without jurisdiction in entertaining the applications under Sections 151 and 152 to award the additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend the decrees already disposed of. 17. In Swaran Singh2 the correctness of the decree passed by the High Court giving the expropriated owners benefits of amended provisions of solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 of the LA Act as amended by the Amendment Act was in issue. That was a case where notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act was published on June 10, 1977 proposing to acquire the land for extension of Amritsar Cantonment at Village Kala Ghanpur. The award was made by the Collector under Section 11 on August 28, 1978. On reference under Section 18, the reference court enhanced the compensation by its award and decree dated December 24, 1981. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754]; and K.S. Paripoornan V. State of Kerala [(1994) 5 SCC 593] this Court has held that the Reference Court or the High Court has no power or jurisdiction to entertain any applications under Sections 151 and 152 to correct any decree which has become final or to independently pass an award enhancing the solatium and interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984. Consequently, the award by the High Court granting enhanced solatium at 30% under Section 23 (2) and interest at the rate of 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% till date of deposit under Section 28 as amended under Act 68 of 1984 is clearly without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity. The order being a nullity, it can be challenged at any stage. Rightly the question was raised in execution. The executing Court allowed the petition and dismissed the execution petition. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the executing Court. 18. In Swaran Singh2 it has been clearly held that the High Court has no power to entertain an independent application under Section 151 and Section 152 of the CPC a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
