http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KARAN SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/04/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned. Substitution ordered.      Leave granted.      We have learned counsel on both sides.      Under Section  7 of  the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable  Property Act,  1952, the  property in question Collector determined  the compensation which the respondents had received  under protest;  and on  being dissatisfied the respondents filed  objections and  arbitrator was  appointed who,  by   his  Award   dated  July  6,  1982  enhanced  the compensation at  different  rates.  rates.  On  appeal,  the learned Single  Judge set  aside the award of the arbitrator and awarded  the enhanced compensation uniformly at the fate of Rs.3,000/-  per kanal.  Letter Patent  Appeal against the same was  dismissed on  10th January,   1985 It appears that the amount awarded was deposited in court on March 14, 1986.      However, on  January 2,  1987 the  respondents filed an application under  Sections 151  & 152  of the Code of Civil Procedure before  the District  Judge for direction to grant enhanced solatium and interest in view of the Amendment Act, i.e., Act  68 of  1984 which was of allowed, On revision the High Court  by the  impugned order  dated  13th  May,  1987, dismissed the same. Thus, appeal by special leave.      It is now well settled legal position in law that under the Requisitioning  and Acquisition  of  Immovable  Property Act, there  is no  provision to  pay enhanced  solatium  and interest; and  Amendment Act,  I.e. Act  68 of  1984 has  no application. It is also well settled legal position that the grant of  solatium and  interest is  an integral part of the process of determination of compensation. The District Court has no  jurisdiction to  amend  the  award  and    to  grant Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a case of  inherent lack  of  jurisdiction.  The  High  Court, therefore, has  committed manifest  error of jurisdiction in not removing the error committed by the Tribunal.      Under the  circumstances the appeals are allowed to the extent of  grant of grant of enhanced solatium and interest, but in the circumstances, without costs.

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