Page 1

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5115 of 2005

STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.    ...Appellant(s)

   VERSUS

KARTAR SINGH (D) THROUGH LRS.    ...Respondent(s)

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 5116 of 2005

Civil Appeal No. 5096 OF 2005

Civil Appeal Nos. 5097-5098 of 2005

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

R.M. LODHA, J.

Civil Appeal No. 5115 of 2005

This Appeal, by special leave, has been filed  

under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by the  

State of Haryana and the Land Acquisition Collector,  

Urban  Estate,  Panchkula  against  the  judgment  and  

order  of  the  Punjab  &  Haryana  High  Court  dated

Page 2

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

2

April 1, 2003.

2. The  controversy  arises  in  this  way.   On  

May  2,  1973,  the  Government  of  Haryana  issued  

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition  

Act, 1894 (for short, 'LA Act') proposing to acquire  

land   for   residential  and  commercial  area  as  

Sector  13  and  Sector  13  Extension  at  Karnal,  

Haryana.

3. Subsequent thereto, declaration was made under  

Section 6 of the LA Act and then the award came to  

be  passed  by  the  Land  Acquisition  Collector  on  

November 23,  1973 fixing  the market  value of  the  

acquired land at the rate of Rs. 270/- per Biswa.  

The  respondents'  land  is  part  of  the  above  

acquisition in the award.

4. The respondents were not satisfied with the  

market  value  determined  by  the  Land  Acquisition  

Collector and sought reference under Section 18 of  

the LA Act. The matter was referred to the civil  

court  for  determination  of  compensation  for  

compulsory acquisition of the respondents' land.   

5. The reference court on May 17, 1980 decided

Page 3

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

3

the  reference(s)  and  enhanced  compensation  at  the  

rate  of  Rs.  22/-  per  square  yard.  The  reference  

court also awarded solatium at the rate of 15% on  

the enhanced amount of compensation and interest at  

the rate of 6% from the date of dispossession till  

the payment was made as awarded.

6. The  respondents  did  not  carry  the  matter  

further.  However,  the  State  of  Haryana  was  

dissatisfied with the determination of compensation  

by the reference court and, accordingly, preferred  

first  appeal  before  the  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  

Court.

7. On  January  16,  1981,  the  first  appeal  

preferred by the State of Haryana was dismissed by  

the single Judge of the High Court and the judgment  

and award by the reference court was upheld.  It is  

pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the  

first  appeal,  the  respondent  No.  1  had  laid  

execution of the award passed by the reference court  

by making an execution application in 1980.

8. The State of Haryana preferred special leave  

petition against the award and decree of the High

Page 4

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

4

Court but was unsuccessful. Special leave petition  

was dismissed by this Court on December 12, 1983.

9. Vide  Land  Acquisition  (Amendment)  Act,  1984  

(for  short,  'Amendment  Act'),  LA  Act  came  to  be  

amended with effect from September 24, 1984.  By the  

Amendment Act, Section 23 of the LA Act was amended.  

There was amendment in Section 28 of the LA Act as  

well.  Section 30 of the Amendment Act provided for  

transitional provisions.  

10. On  April  28,  1989,  the  respondents  made  an  

application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code  

of  Civil  Procedure  (for  short,  'CPC')  before  the  

High Court in the disposed of first appeal against  

which the special leave petition preferred by the  

State of  Haryana had  already been  dismissed.  By  

this  application  the  respondents  prayed  for  the  

benefits  of  the  amended  provisions  in  LA  Act  

particularly Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) thereof.

11. The High Court allowed the application made by  

the respondents for grant of benefits of the amended  

provisions on April 28, 1989 and granted benefits of  

the amended provisions of Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2)

Page 5

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

5

of the LA Act to them.

12. The respondents then filed another execution  

petition for execution of the award and decree dated  

April 28, 1989.  On behalf of the appellants, an  

objection  was  raised  that  the  award  and  decree  

passed  by  the  High  Court  on  April  28,  1989  was  

without jurisdiction and, therefore, not executable  

and enforceable.

13. The  executing  court,  vide  its  order  dated  

April 6, 1999, overruled the objection taken by the  

appellants  and  held  that  it  was  not  open  to  the  

executing court to go behind the decree. The present  

appellants  challenged  the  order  of  the  executing  

court by filing a revision petition before the High  

Court.  The revision petition has been dismissed by  

the impugned order.

14. Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate  

General, appeared for the appellants and submitted  

that  the  decree  passed  by  the  High  Court  on  

April  28,  1989  giving  the  benefits  of  amended  

Sections  23(1-A)  and  23(2)  of  the  LA  Act  to  the

Page 6

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

6

respondents was a nullity and without jurisdiction.  

He relied upon the decisions of this Court in State  

of Punjab and another  Vs.  Babu Singh and others1,  

Union of India  Vs.  Swaran Singh &  others2   and  

Sarup Singh and another  Vs.  Union of India and  

another3.   

15. Mr.  Manoj  Swarup,  learned  counsel  for  the  

respondents,  in  the  first  place  distinguished  the  

decision of this Court in  Swaran Singh2   by making  

reference to the observations made by this Court in  

para 7 which reads, “Admittedly, as on that date the  

claimants  were  entitled  to  solatium  at  15%  and  

interest at 6%”.  Secondly, learned counsel for the  

respondents submitted that Swaran Singh2 did not lay  

down good law.  He cited the decision of this Court  

in  Balvant N. Viswamitra and others   Vs.  Yadav  

Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through LRs. and others4   to  

draw a distinction between a 'void decree' and an  

'illegal, incorrect and irregular decree'.  Learned  

counsel  submitted  that  the  judgment  and  decree  

1   1995 Supp (2) SCC 406 2   (1996) 5 SCC 501 3   (2011) 11 SCC 198 4   (2004) 8 SCC 706

Page 7

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

7

passed by the High Court on April 28, 1989 could at  

best  be  termed  as  an  'illegal,  incorrect  and  

irregular  decree'  but  surely  it  is  not  a  'void  

decree'.  He also referred to the decision of this  

Court in National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing  

Federation of India Ltd. and another  Vs.  Union of  

India  and  others5 to  butress  his  point  that  the  

decree dated April 28, 1989 having attained finality  

as its correctness, legality and validity was never  

challenged and, therefore, could not have been set  

up in the execution proceedings.     

16. In   Babu  Singh1 a  two  Judge  bench  of  this  

Court  was  concerned  with  an  appeal  filed  by  the  

State  of  Punjab  and  its  functionary  against  the  

judgment and  order of  the High  Court whereby  the  

High  Court  allowed  the  applications  made  by  the  

expropriated owners under Sections 151 and 152, CPC  

to  amend  the  decree  by  awarding  the  benefits  of  

enhanced  solatium  and  additional  amount  available  

under  Section  23(1-A)  and  Section  23(2)  and  

Section 28 of the LA Act as amended by the Amendment  

Act.   This  Court  held  that  the  High  Court  was  

5   (2003) 5 SCC 23

Page 8

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

8

clearly  without  jurisdiction  in  entertaining  the  

applications  under  Sections  151  and  152,  CPC  to  

award  additional  benefits  under  the  amended  

provisions of the LA Act.  The discussion of this  

Court in Babu Singh1 reads as follows :

“4.  It is to be seen that the High  Court acquires jurisdiction  under Section  54  against  the  enhanced  compensation  awarded  by  the   reference  court  under  Section  18,  under  Section  23(1)  with  Section 26 of the Act. The Court gets the  jurisdiction  only  while  enhancing   or  declining to enhance the compensation to  award higher compensation. While enhancing  the  compensation  "in  addition"  to  the  compensation  under  Section  23(1),  the  benefits enumerated under Section 23(1-A)  and Section 23(2) as also interest on the  enhanced compensation on the amount which  in the opinion of the Court "the Collector  ought to have awarded in excess of the sum  which  the  Collector  did  award",  can  be  ordered.  Thus,  it  would  be  clear  that  civil  court  or  High  Court  gets  jurisdiction  when  it  determines  higher  compensation under Section 23(1) and not  independently of the proceedings.

5. This is the view taken by this  Court in  State of Punjab v. Satinder Bir  Singh (sic.), disposed of on 22-2-1995.The  same ratio applies to the facts in this  case,  since  as  on  the  date  when  the  judgment and decree was made by the High  Court,  the  law  was  that  the  High  Court  should award solatium at 15% and interest  at  6%.  Payment  of  additional  amount  as  contemplated under Section 23(1-A) cannot  be  made  since  the  notification  under

Page 9

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

9

Section 4(1) was dated 11-12-1974 and even  the award of the District Court was dated  23-2-1978. Under these circumstances, the  LA  Amendment  Act  68  of  1984  has  no  application and there is no error in the  award or the decree as initially granted.  The  High  Court  was  clearly  without  jurisdiction  in  entertaining  the  applications under Sections 151 and 152 to  award  the  additional  benefits  under  the  Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or to amend the  decrees already disposed of.”

17. In Swaran Singh2  the correctness of the decree  

passed  by  the  High  Court  giving  the  expropriated  

owners  benefits  of  amended  provisions  of  solatium  

and  interest  under  Section  23(2)  and  proviso  to  

Section 28 of the LA Act as amended by the Amendment  

Act  was  in  issue.   That  was  a  case  where  

notification under Section 4(1)  of the LA Act was  

published on June 10, 1977 proposing to acquire the  

land for extension of Amritsar Cantonment at Village  

Kala Ghanpur. The award was made by the Collector  

under Section 11 on August 28, 1978.  On reference  

under Section 18, the reference court enhanced the  

compensation by its award and decree dated December  

24,  1981.   The  award  and  decree  passed  by  the  

reference court was confirmed by the single Judge as

Page 10

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

10

well as by the Division Bench of the High Court and  

special  leave  petitions  from  the  judgment  of  the  

High Court were dismissed.  On July 28, 1987, after  

the amendments were made in LA Act by the Amendment  

Act, the owners made applications under Sections 151  

and  152,  CPC  for  award  of  enhanced  solatium  and  

interest. The High Court allowed the applications.  

When execution applications were laid, the executing  

court dismissed them, but on revision the High Court  

allowed  them  and  directed  execution  of  enhanced  

solatium and interest. It is from this order that  

the appeals, by special leave, were preferred by the  

Union of India before this Court.  This Court in  

para 7 and 8 (pages 502-503) held as under :

“7.  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

Page 11

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

11

solatium at 15% and interest at 6%. The  Amendment Act 68 of 1984 came into force  as on 24-9-1984. 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  24-12-1081,  the  decree as on that date was correctly drawn  and became final.

8. 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 V. Jagir Singh [1995 Supp. (4)  SCC  626]  and  also  in  catena  of  decisions following thereafter in Union of  India V. Pratap Kaur [(1995) 3 SCC 263];  State  of  Maharashtra  V.  Maharau  Srawan  Hatkar [(1995) 3 SCC 316 : JT 1995 (2) SC  583]; State of Punjab V. Babu Singh [1995  Supp.  (2)  SCC  406];  Union  of  India  V.  Raghubir  Singh  [(1989)  2  SCC  754];  and  K.S.  Paripoornan  V.  State  of  Kerala  [(1994)  5  SCC  593]  this  Court  has  held  that the Reference Court or the 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 is clearly

Page 12

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

12

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.”

18. In Swaran Singh2   it has been clearly held that  

the  High  Court  has  no  power  to  entertain  an  

independent  application  under  Section  151  and  

Section  152  of  the  CPC  and  enhance  solatium  and  

interest as amended under the Amendment Act.  

19. The sentence “Admittedly, as on that date the  

claimants  were  entitled  to  solatium  at  15%  and  

interest at 6%” in para 7 in  Swaran Singh2 is hardly  

a distinguishing feature.   Swaran Singh2  is on all  

fours and is squarely applicable to the present fact  

situation.  We  have  no  reason,  much  less  a  

justifiable reason, to doubt the correctness of law  

laid down in Swaran Singh2.

20. Swaran  Singh2  has  been  referred  to  by  this  

Court in para 26 (page 208) of comparatively recent  

judgment in  Sarup Singh3 and followed.  In para 25

Page 13

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

13

(page 208 of the report) this Court in Sarup Singh3  

held as under :

“25. In the present cases the judgment  and order passed by the High Court before  Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 became final  and binding as no appeal was brought to  this  Court  thereafter.  However,  consequent to the amendment in the Land  Acquisition Act, the appellants had filed  civil miscellaneous applications for the  grant of 30% solatium and 9% interest for  first year and 15% interest thereafter.  This Court has also held in a catena of  decisions that a decree once passed and  which has become final and binding cannot  be  sought  to  be  amended  by  filing  petition  under  Sections  151  and  152,  CPC.”

21. Legal position is no more res integra that an  

award and decree having become final under the LA  

Act cannot be amended or altered seeking enhancement  

of  the  statutory  benefits  under  the  amended  

provisions brought in by the Amendment  Act in the  

LA Act  by filing  petitions under  Section 151  and  

Section 152 of the CPC. In view of this, the award  

and decree passed by the High Court on April 28,  

1989 has to be held to be without jurisdiction and

Page 14

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

14

nullity.  It  goes  without  saying  that  a  plea  of  

nullity of a decree can always be set up before the  

executing court. Any judgment and order which is a  

nullity never acquires finality and is thus open to  

challenge in the executing proceedings.

22. The  decisions  of  this  Court  in  Balvant  N.  

Viswamitra4  and  National  Agricultural  Cooperative  

Marketing Federation of India Ltd.5 relied upon by  

the  learned  counsel  for  the  respondents  have  no  

relevance  to  the  controversy  in  hand.   The  

propositions  of  law  laid  down  therein  are  beyond  

question but these propositions have no application  

to the facts of the present case.

23. Civil Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.  The  

order of the High Court dated April 1, 2003 and the  

order of the Additional District Judge, Karnal dated  

April 6, 1999 are liable to be set aside and are set  

aside.  The  execution  petition  filed  by  the  

respondents  seeking  execution  of  the  award  and  

decree dated April 28, 1989 stands dismissed. The  

parties shall bear their own costs.

Page 15

C.A. NO. 5115/2005 with connected matters

15

Civil Appeal No. 5116 of 2005

24. In  view  of  judgment  passed  in  Civil  Appeal  

5115/2005 above, this Civil Appeal is also allowed in  

the  same  terms.  The  parties  shall  bear  their  own  

costs.

Civil Appeal No. 5096 of 2005 and Civil Appeal Nos.  5097-5098 of 2005

25. In  view  of  the  judgment  passed  in   Civil  

Appeal 5115 of 2005 and Civil Appeal No. 5116 of 2005  

today, these Civil Appeals do not survive and stand  

disposed of as such.

.........................J. ( R.M. LODHA )

NEW DELHI; ..........................J. NOVEMBER 29, 2012 ( ANIL R. DAVE )