9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 521X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court remanded the matter to the District Judge, with certain directions, for fresh disposal thereof. The District Judge by order dated November 19, 1985 enhanced the compensation to ₹ 11.50 per square foot and on further revision and remand by the High Court by order dated December 18, 1989 also applied the provisions of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Central LA Act] as amended by Act 68 of 1984 and awarded solatium, interest and additional amount under Sections 23 [2], 28 and 23 1-A] of the Central LA Act. In the meanwhile, the appellant had paid the compensation amount on March 7, 1977 in a sum of ₹ 1,18,760/- and a further sum of ₹ 44,195.60 on May 11, 1982. The respondent claimed adjustment of the said amounts towards interest and filed the execution for the balance amount. The High Court by order dated August 4, 1988 dismissed the revision of the respondent claiming adjustment of the amounts paid towards interest and his entitlement to claim the balance amount observing that the respondent is not entitled to benefit under Act 68 of 1984. The respondent filed the execution for recovery of the balance amount. The appellant filed objections under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived the notice as per the orders of this Court dated March 18, 1996. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. It is stated in the written arguments of the counsel or the respondents that the District Judge by order dated May 27, 1995 brought the legal representatives of the first respondent on record. When application came to be filed in the District Court on May 5, 1995 to the knowledge of the counsel or the appellant, it was ordered on May 27, 1995. The application for substitution is barred by limitation. The special leave petition had abated and, therefore, appeal is not maintainable. We find no force in the contention. Under Order 22, Rule 10A, CPC, whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to the knowledge of the death of the party, he has to inform about it and the court thereupon gives notice of such death to the other party and for this purpose the contract between the pleader and the deceased party is deemed to subsist. It would, therefore, be clear that though the legal representatives have been brought on record in the executing Court on May 27, 1995 pending proceedings in this Court, since the counsel for the appellant did not have had the inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent to contend that the decree is a nullity. It is further contended that Section 47, CPC contemplates correcting the errors in execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. The modification sought by way of objections amounts to review of the decree which has become final. Therefore, it does not come within the ambit of Section 47, CPC. The question, therefore, is: whether the District Judge and the High court were right in concluding that the appellant was not entitled to raise the objections to the execution of the decree? The admitted position is that the Act does not provide for payment of solatium and additional amount. It empowers the Court to award interest @ 6% on the amount awarded from the date of taking possession. The appellant having allowed the enhanced compensation at ₹ 11.50 per square foot, though on wrong principle, to become final, it si bound by it. The only objection raised by the appellant is as to the executability of the decree of additional benefits under Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The respondent is entitled only to the principal amount and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking possession, viz., June 22, 1965. The amounts cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons 23 [2], 28 and 23 [1-A] as well as damages for severance and additional benefits thereon should not be set aside. When the matter came up on reference before a three Judge Bench, this had held that payment of solatium under Section 23 (2) and additional amount under Section 3 (1-A) are "in addition to" the compensation determined under Section 23 [1]. Payment of interest under Section 28 is on the excess amount or part thereof awarded on reference under Section 26 or on appeal under Section 54. The award of each component is independent, after determination of market value under Section 23 (1). The Court gets jurisdiction to awarded additional benefits under Sections 23 [2], 28 and 23 [1-A] only when the Court enhances the compensation and is not independent of the power under section 23 (1). It was held that the claimants were not entitled to solatium under Section 23[2], interest under Section 28 and additional amount under Section 23(1-A). The liability to pay interest subsists till date of deposit of the amount into Court. There is no liability to pay interest on salatium; or solatium and interest on additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) which cannot be calcula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Upon that the High Court on July 22, 1986, had granted the benefits under Act 68 of 1984. On appeal, this Court had held that the High Court had no power to award the additional benefits. The same view was reiterated in stats of Punjab & Anr. vs. Babu Singh & ors. [(1995) supp. 2 SCC 406, major Pakhar Singh Atwal & ors. vs.. state of Punjab & ors. [1995 supp (2) SCC 401], Union of India vs. Rangila ram (Dead) by LRS. [(1995) 5 SCC 585]. Gurdial Singh & Anr. vs. state of Punjab [(1995) 3 SCC 333] and Improvement Trust. Patiala vs. Land Acquisition Tribunal & Ors. [(1995) 3 SCC 724]. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Pratap Kaur (smt.) (Dead) through LRs. & Anr. [(1995) 3 SCC 263], the facts were that the High Court had disposed of the appeals under Section 54 of the Central LA Act which became final. Thereafter, miscellaneous applications were filed before the Additional District Judge to redetermine the compensation. He enhanced the compensation on redetermination applying the principle of belting. When the order came to be questioned, the High Court dismissed the revision. On appeal, this Court had held that District Court had no jurisdiction under Section 13-A of the Central LA Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition Officer did not make an award in terms of the form prescribed which included the additional amounts. This Court had held that payment of additional amounts is not part of the compensation. They are distinct and independent. On the parties having entered into an agreement under Section 11 [2], they are entitled to compensation only in terms of the contract and not under the Act. In Union of India v. Hari Kishan Khosla [(1993) Supp. 2 SCC 149] a three-Judge Bench of this Court had held that payment of solatium, interest and additional amount for the properties acquired under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 would not be made, since the Act does not provide for such payment. In umed Industries and Land Development Co. & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. [(1995) 2 SCC 563], the question arose: whether the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 would be available to the lands acquired under the Act, and Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953? It was held that by operation of Section 60A of Rajasthan Amendment Act 29 of 1987, the Central Amendment Act would be applicable only with effect from August 1, 1987. Since the proceedings were pending for determination of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id Act. The Civil Court granted decree of eviction. When objection was raised in execution the executing Court rejected the same. On appeal, this Court had held that a decree passed by a Court jurisdiction over the subject matter or on any other ground which goes to the root of its exercise of jurisdiction or inherent jurisdiction, is a nullity. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings. The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the court to pass a decree which cannot be cured by consent or waiver of the party. If the court has jurisdiction but there is any defect in its exercise of jurisdiction it does not go to the root of its authority. Such a defect like territorial jurisdiction could be waived by the party which could be corrected only by way of an appeal or revision. In that case it was held that since the decree was a nullity the validity was upheld in execution. In Jaipur Development Authority vs. Radhey Shyam & Ors. [(1994) 4 SCC 370] this Court had upheld the same objecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
