http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: RAMESH SINGH (DIED) BY LRS. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (4) 469        JT 1996 (5)   467  1996 SCALE  (2)839

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act [1 of 1894]  [for short,  ’the Act’] was published on August 2, 1973 acquiring  the lands  situated in  Etmadpur Village for public purpose.  The Collector  awarded  compensation  under Section  11   by  his   award  dated   February  19,   1974. Dissatisfied therewith,  Ramesh Singh  and Hari  Singh filed application under  Section 18 which was duly referred by the Collector to  the Civil  Court. The  Addl.  District  Judge, Gurgaon dismissed  the reference  petition on  May 3,  1978. Rumal Singh, one of the claimants equally sought a separate reference in respect of his claim. Thereon, the Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon enhanced the compensation. The Legal Representatives  of Ramesh  Singh, the petitioners and Hari Singh filed an application to implead themselves in the reference of  Rumal Singh  which was  also dismissed  by the District Judge  on May  1, 1986. The petitioners allege that they challenged  the order  in a  revision said to have been filed on  November 3,  1986 and  is  stated  to  be  pending decision in  the High  Court. However,  we are not concerned with the same.      When Rumal Singh filed execution application to enforce his award  made under  Section 26,  the petitioners filed an application  in  the  execution  Court  to  award  the  same compensation on  par with Rumal Singh and the Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon, by his order dated April 8, 1992 allowed the application and  enhanced the  compensation  as  awarded  to Rumal Singh.  The State  filed the  Revision No.2248 of 1992 and by  the impugned  order dated  September  2,  1993,  the learned single  Judge allowed the revision and set aside the order  of  the  District  Judge.  Thus  this  special  leave petition.      Shri  Rohtagi,  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners contended that  the petitioners have a joint interest in the lands  acquired   admeasuring  20   kanals  4   marlas  and,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

therefore, being  co-owners, they  are entitled  to the same compensation as  was awarded  to Rumal  Singh. The execution Court,  therefore,   has  rightly   granted   the   enhanced compensation to  the petitioners.  The High  Court  was  not right in  its revisional  jurisdiction  under  Section  115, C.P.C. to  interfere with  and set aside the order. There is manifest error  of jurisdiction committed by the High Court. We find no force in the contention. In view of the narration of the  facts, it  is clear that Ramesh Singh and Hari Singh dissatisfied with  the award  made by  the  Collector  under Section 11  had sought  reference under Section 18 which was duly made  to the  Civil Court. The District Judge dismissed the reference  Rumal Singh  equally sought  reference and he had the  compensation enhanced in the award and decree dated May 1,  1986 under  Section  26.  The  only  remedy  to  the petitioners  and   Hari  Singh  is  to  have  corrected  the illegality in  the order  of reference  under Section 18. It does not  appear to  have been  availed of. The remedy under Section 28A  is not  available to the petitioners since they have availed of the remedy under Section 18.      The question then is: whether the execution Court which  passed the award in the case of Rumal Singh had jurisdiction to  implead the  non-parties to  the award  and make the  award in  their favour. It is settled law that the execution Court  cannot go  behind the  award and decree. It has jurisdiction  only to  execute  the  decree  made  under Section 26  and in  case of  an appeal, under Section 54 and further appeal  under Art.136  of the  Constitution to  this Court as  may be  modified in  the  appellate  decree  which ultimately would  be  the  executable  decree.  Besides  the decree, the  execution Court  is devoid  of jurisdiction and power to  go behind  the  decree  either  to  implead  third parties to  it who are not persons claiming right, title and interest in the decree through the decree-holder nor does it have power  to pass  an independent  award and  decree under Section 26  in favour  of the third parties. The civil Court gets jurisdiction  to award  compensation  higher  than  the compensation  made  under  Section  11  in  respect  of  the acquired land  only on reference under Section 18. It is not an ordinary  Civil  court  under  Section  9  of  the  Civil Procedure Code  but a  Court constituted  for the purpose of deciding the  compensation for  the acquired  land under the Act on reference to an established Court. Under the Act even a Special  Judge could award compensation on reference under Section 18. The execution Court cannot even amend the decree of inter-parties.  The only  remedy  for  the  inter-parties would be  to have the decree, as engrafted under Section 265 or modified or affirmed in appeal either under Section 54 or under Article  136 of  the Constitution, as the case may be. The execution Court, therefore is devoid of jurisdiction and power to  amend the  decree or  to  award  compensation  and statutory benefits  to  the  petitioners.  The  order  is  a nullity. The  High Court,  therefore, has  rightly corrected obvious and  palpable error of jurisdiction committed by the Addl. District  Judge  Gurgaon,  i.e.,  execution  Court  in awarding compensation and statutory benefit Section.      It is argued by Shri Rohtagi that the petitioners being co-owners, they  are entitled to compensation on parity with other co-owners  and the  denial  thereof  is  violative  of Art.14. We  find no  force in  the contention.  Having  laid independent claims  and sought  reference under  Section 18, the right  and remedy  are only as provided under Section 18 or on  an appeal  under Section 54 but not by way of getting impleaded on the premise of a co-owner. Merely because one of  the claimants had got higher compensation, others do

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

not automatically  get  the  same  compensation  unless  the remedies, as  provided under the Act, are availed of. One of the remedies  under  the  Act  is  Section  28A;  if  it  is available  according   to  law.   Determination  of   higher compensation in  favour of  some claimants  or so-called co- owners  and   denial  thereof  to  other  claimants  is  not violative of  Article 14  of the  Constitution. The  subject matter having  been regulated  under the  provisions of  the Act, the  right and remedy for higher compensation should be sought and had only under the Act. The principle of equality of Art.14 cannot be extended in that behalf.      The S.L.P. is accordingly dismissed.