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

PETITIONER: THE UNION OF INDIA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI SUBE RAM & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       26/08/1996

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

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.      Notification  under   Section  4   (1)  of   the   Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (for  short, the "Act") was published on March  8, 1957 acquiring the land for planned development of  Delhi   city.  The   Land  Acquisition  officer  awarded compensation on October 3, 1974 under Section 11 of the Act. The Additional  District Judge  enhanced the compensation on October 5,  1976. On appeal, the High Court further enhanced the compensation  on July  24, 1984  to Rs.  10/- per square yard with  solatium  and  interest  at  old  rates,  namely, solatium at  15% under  Section 23  (2) and  interest at  6% under proviso  to Section  28 of  the Act  on  the  enhanced compensation.  Consequently,   the  respondents   filed  the petition under  Sections 151  and 152  of the  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  and the  High Court  by the  impugned order dated  March   22,  1985  allowed  the  benefits  under  the Amendment Act  68 of 1984 and awarded solatium at 30% on the enhanced compensation  and interest  under  the  proviso  to Section 28  at 9%  for one  year from  the  date  of  taking possession for  one year  and @  15% thereafter till date of deposit   into   court   on   the   enhanced   compensation. Subsequently, that  view was reversed by this Court in Union of India  Vs.  Raghubir  Singh,  [(1989)  2  SCC  754].  The application came  to be filed for review of the judgment and the High  Court in the impugned order dater December 1, 1993 dismissed the  review application.  Thus  these  appeals  by special leave.  Appeal also  was filed  against the original appellate order with a delay of 3379 days.      Shri Pankaj  Kalra, learned counsel for the respondents with  his   usual  vehemence,   contended  that  the  review application came to be filed eight years after the order was passed by  the Division  Bench  and  five  years  after  the judgment of  this Court  in Raghubir  Singh‘s case. The High Court, therefore,  was right  in refusing  to entertain  the review petition. In view of the Explanation to Order 47 Rule

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

1, CPC,  he also contended that change of law as interpreted by court  would not  be a  ground for  review. There  is  an inordinate  delay  in  filing  the  special  leave  petition against the  original order  and the delay has been properly explained. Therefore,  the orders of the courts below is not vitiated by  any error  of law.  We find  no  force  in  the contentions.      It is  now settled  legal position  that the  claimants would be entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest only if the  proceedings were  pending  either  before  the  Land Acquisition  Officer  or  Court.  The  Court  defined  under Section 2  (d) of  the Act  as on the date of Amendment Bill was introduced  and Act  made by  the Parliament. Therefore, the question  that arises  is: whether  the High  Court  has jurisdiction to  entertain the  application for  enhancement under the  Amendment Act  68 of  1984 came into force. It is true that  if it  were a  case of  a superior  Court  having interpreted the  law and  the law  having become  final,  by order 47  Rule 1,  CPC it  could not constitute a ground for review of the judgment. But here is the case of entertaining the application  itself; in  order words,  the  question  of jurisdiction of  the Court. Since the appellate Court has no amend the  decree and grant the enhanced compensation by way of solatium and interest under Section 23 (2) and proviso to Section 28 of the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, it is a question of  jurisdiction of the court. Since courts have no jurisdiction, it  is the settled legal position that it is a nullity and it can be raised at any stage.      The learned counsel sought to place reliance on an order passed by this Court on July 31, 1995 in SLP (C) No. 22639 of 1994 dismissing the special leave petition in limine. In view of the settled legal position that the order dismissing the special leave petition in liming does not constitute res judicata; that too in a dispute which was not even between the parties in this case. The above decision may not stand in the way of this Court‘s exercising the power under Article 136 of the Constitution.      The learned  counsel has  contended that  the Court has power to  grant or  to refuse  to grant  the relief  and  it having gone into the question and decided the same on merit, it can  be said  that the  High court  committed no error of law. So  the  order  is  valid  in  condone  the  delay  and entertain the  appeal filed against the original order dated March 22,1985 and also the review petition.      The appeals are accordingly allowed. The award of, the solatium @ 30% under Section 23 (2) of the Acct and interest @ 9% for one year from the date of taking possession and 15% thereafter till the date of deposit under proviso to Section 28 stands set aside and the original order of the High Court dated July 24, 1984 stands restored. But in the circumstances without costs.