30 April 1996
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF HARYANA Vs KAMALA .

Bench: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Case number: C.A. No.-008802-008802 / 1996
Diary number: 89407 / 1993
Advocates: Vs ASHOK K. MAHAJAN


1

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

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SMT. KAMALA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       30/04/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                 THE 30TH DAY OF APRIL, 1996 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Ramaswamy               Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik Ms.  Kavita   Walia  and  Ashok  K.Mahajan,  Advs.  for  the Respondents.                          O R D E R      The following Order of the Court was delivered:      Leave granted .      Heard learned counsel for both sides.      This  appeal   by  special  leave  arises  against  the judgment and  order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Revision No. 3319 of 1992 dated January 21, 1993.      A  notification   under  Section   4(1)  of   the  Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (Act 1 of 1894) (hereinafter referred to as  the ’Act’)  was published  on November  4, 1997.  The Land Acquisition  Collector in  his award made under Section 11 of  the act  on October  28, 1981 awarded compensation at the rate  of Rs. 30,000/- per acre.  Dissatisfied therewith, the respondents  filed application  under Section  18 of the act.   The Additional  District Judge by his ward and decree dated April  6, 1985 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 18/- per  square yard.   The  respondents  levied  execution regarding recovery  of the  amount on  October 12, 1992. The District Judge  by his  order dated  July 18,  1992  awarded additional amount  under Section 23(1-A) of the Act and also enhanced the  interest under  Section 28  of the  Act at the rate of  9 per  cent per annum for the first year and 15 per cent per annum thereafter till the date of realisation.  The appellant carried  the matter in revision but the High Court dismissed the revision.  Thus this appeal by special leave.      It  has  been  well-settled  legal  position  that  the claimant is  not entitled to payment of additional amount of compensation  under   section   23(1-A)   when   the   award proceedings  have   been  concluded   long  prior   to   the introduction of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984.  It is settled by catena  of decisions  of this  Court that  the  executing Court  is   devoid  of   jurisdiction  and  power  to  award additional amount of compensation or to enhance the interest in execution.   The  Court gets  power and  jurisdiction  on

2

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

reference when  it enhances  compensation or on appeal under Section 54  enhances the  compensation to  award  additional amount of  compensation under Section 23(1-A) or solatium at 30% under  Section 23(2)  or interest under Section 28 under Amendment Act  68 of  1984.  The executing Court, therefore, travelled beyond its jurisdiction to award additional amount under Section  23(1-A) and also interest under Section 28 of the Act.   The  High Court was, therefore, in clear error in dismissing the  civil revision.   The  amended decree of the execution Court stands set aside.      The appeal is accordingly allowed.  No costs.