2010 (11) TMI 1094 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the enhanced rate of solatium and interest due to the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 to cases finalized before the amendment.
2. Jurisdiction of the Executing Court to negate the High Court's judgment enhancing the compensation and whether it can go behind the judgment and decree passed by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Enhanced Rate of Solatium and Interest
The primary issue was whether the benefit of enhancement in the rate of solatium and interest as introduced by the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 could be given to claimants whose compensation cases were finalized before the amendment came into force on 24.09.1984. The Supreme Court referred to the provisions of Section 23 and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984, which provided for enhanced solatium and interest rates. The Court also referred to the transitional provisions under Section 30(1) & (2) of the Amendment Act, which specified that the enhanced benefits were applicable to awards made by the Collector or the Court between 30.04.1982 and 24.09.1984.

The Court cited the decision in Union of India & Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754, which clarified that only awards made by the Collector or the Court within the stipulated period could benefit from the enhanced rates. The Court concluded that since the awards in the present cases were made prior to 30.04.1982, the amendments could not be applied to these proceedings. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the High Court granting enhanced solatium and interest were deemed inapplicable.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Executing Court
The second issue addressed whether the Executing Court could negate the High Court's judgment and decree that enhanced the compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed that an executing court cannot go behind the decree as per the decision in State of Punjab & Others v. Krishan Dayal Sharma (AIR 1990 SC 2177). However, it was also established that if a decree is found to be a nullity due to a lack of inherent jurisdiction, it could be challenged at any stage, including during execution or in collateral proceedings.

The Court emphasized that a decree or order made without jurisdiction is non-est and void ab initio, as stated in Union of India v. Sube Ram & Others (1997) 9 SCC 69 and other cases. Therefore, the High Court's order enhancing the compensation based on the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984, which was not applicable, was without jurisdiction and a nullity. Consequently, the Executing Court was justified in dismissing the execution applications based on such a null judgment.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the orders passed by the High Court granting enhanced solatium and interest were without jurisdiction and nullities. The Executing Court and the High Court were justified in holding that the amendments could not be applied to the cases finalized before the stipulated period. The appeals were dismissed, and the orders of the Executing Court and the High Court were upheld as legal, valid, and justified.