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

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SWARAN SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/07/1996

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

CITATION:  JT 1996 (7)   431

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                  THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Rameswamy           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik A.S.Nambiar, Sr.Adv.,(Ms.A.Subhashini)  Adv. for  Mrs.  Anil Katiyar, Adv. with him for the appellant Mansoor Ali, Adv. for the Respondents Nos. 1-6                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered. Union of India V. Swaran Singh & Ors.                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      Substitution allowed.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      These appeals  by special leave arise from the judgment and order  dated August  30, 1994  made  in  Civil  Revision Nos.2144-45 of  1994 by  the Punjab  and Haryana High Court. The admitted  position is  that notification  under  Section 4(1) of  the Land  Acquisition Act,  1894 (1  of 1894)  (for short, the  ’Act) was  published on June 10 1977 acquiring a large track  of land for extension of Amritsar Cantonment at village Kala  Ghanpur. The  Collector made  his award  under Section 11  on August  28, 1978.  On reference under Section 18, the Additional District Judge, Amritsar by his award and decree dated  December 24,  1981 enhanced  the  compensation which was confirmed by the single Judge and on appeal by the Division Bench.  The special  leave petitions  filed in this Court were dismissed confirming the enhanced compensation.      On July  28, 1987  applications under  Sections 151 and 152, CPC  were filed in the High Court for award of enhanced solatium and  interest under  Section 23(2)  Land proviso to Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The High Court allowed  the applications. When execution applications

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

were laid, the executing Court dismissed the same on October 16, 1993, but on revision, as stated earlier, the High Court allowed them and directed execution of the enhanced solatium and interest. Thus, these appeals by special leave.      It is  settled law  that after  the reference Court has granted an  award and  decree under Section 26(1) of the Act which is  an award  and judgment  under Section 26(2) of the Act or on appeal under Section 54, the only remedy available to a  party is  to file  an application  for  correction  of clerical or  arithmetical mistakes  in the decree. The award of solatium  and interest would be granted on enhancement of compensation when  the court finds that the compensation was not correct.  It  is  a  part  of  the  judgment  or  award. Admittedly, as  on that  date the claimants were entitled to solatium at  15% and interest at 6%. The Amendment Act 68 of 1984 came into force as on September 24, 1984. It is settled law that if the proceedings are pending before the reference Court as  on that  date, the  claimants would be entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest. In view of the fact that the reference  Court itself  has answered  the reference and enhanced the  compensation as  on  December  24,  1981,  the decree as on that date was correctly drawn and became final.      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 vs.  Jagir Singh  & Ors. [1995 Supp.(4) SCC 626] and also in catena of decisions following thereafter in Union of  India & Ors. vs. Pratap Kaur (dead) through LRs. & Anr. [(1995)  3 SCC  263]; State  of Maharashtra vs. Maharau Srawan Hatkar  [JT 1995  (2) SC 583]; State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Babu  Singh &  Ors. [1995  Supp. (2)  SCC 406]; Union of India s  Anr. etc.  vs. Raghubir  Singh (Dead)  by Lrs. etc. [(1989) 2 SCC 754]; and K.S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala & Ors. [(1994) 5 SCC 593] this Court has held that reference Court  or  High  Court  has  no  power  or  jurisdiction  to entertain any  applications under  Sections 151  and 152  to correct  any   decree  which   has  become   final   or   to independently pass  an  award  enhancing  the  solatium  and interest as  amended by  Act 68  of 1984.  Consequently, the award by  the High  Court granting  enhanced solatium at 30% under Section  23 (2) and interest at the rate of 9% for one year from  the date  of taking  possession and thereafter at the rate  of 15  till date  of deposit  under Section  28 as amended  under   Act  68   of  1984   are  clearly   without jurisdiction and,  therefore, a  nullity. The  order being a nullity, it  can be  challenged at  any stage.  Rightly  the question  was  raised  in  execution.  The  executing  Court allowed the  petition and  dismissed the execution petition. The High  Court, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the revision  and setting  aside the  order of the executing Court.      The appeals  are accordingly  allowed  and  all  orders passed by  the High  Court after the awards had become final are a nullity and do not bind the Union of India. No costs.