9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an application for enhancement under Amendment Act 68 of 1984 and the validity of the delay in filing the special leave petition against the original order. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain application for enhancement: The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for enhancement under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. It was clarified that claimants are entitled to enhanced solatium and interest only if proceedings were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer or Court. The Court emphasized that the question of jurisdiction arises when the appellate Court has to amend the decree and grant enhanced compensation by way of solatium and interest under relevant sections of the Act. It was established that if the Court lacks jurisdiction, the action is considered a nullity and can be challenged at any stage. Validity of delay in filing special leave petition: The counsel for the respondents argued that the delay in filing the review application and special leave petition was justified. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the delay in filing the special leave petition against the original order was significant, amounting to 3379 days. The Court found no merit in the argument that the delay was properly explained, emphasizing that the orders of the lower courts were not vitiated by any error of law. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the award of enhanced solatium and interest. The original order of the High Court dated July 24, 1984, which awarded compensation at a specific rate with solatium and interest, was restored. The Court highlighted that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for enhancement under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The appeals were allowed without costs.
|
