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

PETITIONER: GURBACHAN SINGH & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/02/1996

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

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (3) 117        JT 1996 (2)   548  1996 SCALE  (2)275

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This writ petition is filed against the order passed by this Court under Article 136 allowing the appeal and setting aside the  order  of  the  High  Court  and  the  arbitrator awarding enhanced  solatium  and  interest  under  the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Amendment Act 68 of l984 in  respect   of  lands   acquired  under   Requisition  and Acquisition of  the Immovable  Property Act,  1952. A three- Judge Bench of this Court had held that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no application to the  award passed  under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act. Consequently, the direction and order for the payment of interest and solatium was held to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be nullity.  The question  then is:  whether  writ  petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would lie?      Dealing with  the same question in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union  of India & Ors. etc. [(1984) 3 SCR 482] this Court had observed thus:           "In  my  views  the  writ  petition      challenging the  validity of  the  order      and judgment  passed by  this  Court  as      nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be      entertained. I  wish to  make  it  clear      that the dismissal of this writ petition      will not  prejudice  the  right  of  the      petitioner, to  approach the  Court with      an appropriate  review  petition  or  to      file any  other application which he may      be entitled in law to file".      Following  the  above  ratio,  in  Khoday  Distilleries Limited &  Anr. v.  The Registrar  General, Supreme Court of India [W.P  (C) No.803 of 1995] decided on December 5, 1995, a three-Judge  Bench [to  which one  of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member] has held that after the decision of this Court

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

in  M/s.  Khoday  Distilleries  Ltd.  &  Anr.  v.  State  of Karnataka &  Ors. [(1995)  1 SCC  574] writ  petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution canvassing the correctness of the decision of this Court, is not maintainable.      Thus the  judgment and order of this Court passed under Article 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.      The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.