9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 1094X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The High Court by an order dated 08.12.1982, determined the market value of the land and the appellants herein were also granted solatium at 15 per cent and also interest at 6 per cent per annum. The aforesaid judgment and order passed by the High Court became final and binding as no appeal was brought to this Court thereafter. 3. Subsequently, however, the decree holders-appellants filed Civil Miscellaneous Applications No. 1296 of 1985 under Sections 151 and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "C.P.C."] praying for solatium and interest at the enhanced rate as provided for by the amendment in the Act (by way of Act 68 of 1984) which was given effect from 24.09.1984. The High Court allowed the said Miscellaneous Petition by order dated 17.02.1986 by passing an order enhancing the payment of solatium from 15 per cent to 30 per cent and interest from 6 per cent to 9 per cent per annum for the first year after acquisition and 15 per cent per annum thereafter till the date of actual payment of the enhanced amount of compensation. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid order dated 17.02.1986, the appellants filed an execution application before the Additional Distri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30.08.2001 and the aforesaid execution applications of the appellants were dismissed by holding that they were not entitled to enhanced rate of solatium and interest as the award of the Collector and that of the reference court were prior to 30.04.1982. Additional District Judge, Bhatinda further held that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court is nullity in the eyes of law as the benefit of the order of the High Court dated 18.12.1985 cannot be given to the appellants in view of various decisions rendered by the Supreme Court. 8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda the appellants filed Civil Revision which was registered as Civil Revision No. 6171 of 2001. The aforesaid matter was also heard along with the Civil Revision No. 5481 of 2001 filed by Sarup Singh and Gurdip Singh which was disposed of by the impugned judgment and order which is under challenge in Civil Appeal Nos. 3568 and 3566 of 2005. Civil Appeal No. 3567 of 2005 9. In this case, the lands of the appellants were acquired by Bhatinda Cantonment in the year 1976 and Special Land Acquisition Collector of Bhatinda Cantonment gave his award on 18. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the judgment and order given by the High Court enhancing the quantum of compensation by giving benefit of enhanced solatium from 15 per cent to 30 per cent and interest from 6 per cent to 9 per cent per annum in view of the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 could be negated by the Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda while acting as an Executing Court and whether the Executing Court of Additional District Judge, Bhatinda could go behind the judgment and decree passed by the High Court? 12.In order to answer the aforesaid two issues which arise for our consideration, we need to point out that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be amended by virtue of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The said amendment became effective from 24.09.1984. By the aforesaid Amendment Act of 68 of 1984, amendments were brought in to the provisions of Section 23, in that provisions of Sub-Section 23 1(A) and Sub-Section 23 (2) were inserted and added, which read as follows: - "Section 23 - Matters to be considered in determining compensation [...] [...] [(1A) In addition to the market value of the land above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People] and before the commencement of this Act.." 15.The aforesaid amended provisions and their application came to be considered in various decisions of this Court. Reference in this connection can be made to the decision of Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc. reported in (1989) 2 SCC 754. This Court in the aforesaid case was called upon to determine as to which awards, references and/or appeals would be entitled to avail of the enhanced rates of interest by virtue of the Amendment of 1984. In adjudicating the matter, this Court clearly held that the award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9- 1984, i.e., the dates of introduction of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder in appeal is an appellate order made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 -- in which case the related award of the Collector or of the Court may have been made before 30-4-1982. To our mind, the words `any such award' cannot bear the broad meaning suggested by learned counsel for the respondents. [...] The words `any such award' are intended to have deeper significance, and in the context in which those words appear in Section 30(2) it is clear that they are intended to refer to awards made by the Collector or Court between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984. In other words Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before 24-9- 1984 or after that date. All that is material is that the award by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 [...] [T]o our mind it must necessarily intend that the appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court, in which the benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red with at any subsequent stage, say, at the execution stage or even in a collateral proceeding. This is in view of the fact that if a particular Court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree or making an order, a decree or order passed by such Court would be without jurisdiction and the same is non-est and void ab initio. 20.The aforesaid position is well-settled and not open for any dispute as the defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very root and authority of the Court to pass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the parties. This Court in several decisions has specifically laid down that validity of any such decree or order could be challenged at any stage. In Union of India v. Sube Ram & Others reported in (1997) 9 SCC 69 this court held thus: "5. [...] here is the case of entertaining the application itself; in other words, the question of jurisdiction of the court. Since the appellate court has no power to amend the decree and grant the enhanced compensation by way of solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, it is a question of jurisdiction of the court. Since courts have n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party. ............." 24.In the present cases the judgment and order passed by the High Court before the amendment Act of 68 of 1984 became final and binding as no appeal was brought to this Court thereafter. However, consequent to the Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants had filed civil miscellaneous applications for the grant of 30 per cent solatium and 9 per cent interest for first year and 15 per cent interest thereafter. This Court has also held in a catena of decisions that a decree once passed and which has become final and binding cannot be sought to be amended by filing petition under Sections 151 and 152, C.P.C. In the case of Union of India v. Swaran Singh & Others reported in (1996) 5 SCC 501 this Court held thus:- "8. The question then is whether the High Court has power to entertain independent applications under Sections 151 and 152 and enhance solatium and interest as amended under Act 68 of 1984. This controversy is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh and also in a catena of decisions following thereafter in Union of India v. Pratap Kaur; State of Maharas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Dwaraka Das v. State of M.P. & Another reported in (1999) 3 SCC 500 this Court described the scope of Section 152, C.P.C. thus: "6. Section 152 CPC provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders of errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its ministerial actions and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or order, the court or the tribunal becomes functus officio and thus being not entitled to vary the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed. The corrections contemplated are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is beyond the scope of Section 152 for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file appeal or review application. It implies that the section c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as clearly wrong in directing reinstatement of the respondent by a mandamus with all consequential benefits." 28.In the case of State of Bihar & Others v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Another reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94 this Court held thus: - "30. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner... Benefits extended to some persons in an irregular or illegal manner cannot be claimed by a citizen on the plea of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution by way of writ petition filed in the High Court. The Court observed: (SCC p. 465, para 9) "Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to oth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
