KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KARNAL versus SMT. PARKASH WANTI (DEAD) AND ANR.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 136 · Decided: 09-05-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST, KARNAL 
v. 
SMT. PARKASH WANTI (DEAD) AND ANR. 
MAY 9, 1995 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
Punjab Improvement Trust Act 1922-S.60( 1)-Tribunal deciding land 
acquisition reference to consist of President and two assessors-President 
making awards in absence of assessors-Held, adjudication by three member 
C body mandatory; award made in disregard thereof void and inoperative. 
D 
E 
Constitution of India-Article 141-Punjab Improvement Trust Act 
1922, S.60 (1)-Stare decisis, doctrine of-Appellant acquiescing in single 
member awards for number of years-Held, applying stare decisis will defeat 
statutory objective; Court will not shirk from overruling illegal decision. 
Constitution of India-Article 141-Punjab Improvement Trust Act 
1922, S.60 (1)-Prospective operation-Supreme Court holding awards by 
President singly void-Held, decision to operate prospectively; will not unsettle 
single member awards that have become final-Practice and procedure. 
Under s.60(1) of Punjab Improvement Trust Act, 1922 ('Act), the 
Tribunal constituted to hear a reference under s.18 of the Land Acquisition 
Act, 1894 "to consist of a President and two assessors". Under s.59(d) 
award of a Tribunal shall be deemed to be that of a court. In the instant 
cases, dissatisfied will\ award of the Land Acquisition Collector the 
F respondent sought reference to the Tribunal. The President heard the 
reference in the absence of the two assessors and then prepared and signed 
the award. The High Court following its decision in Sohan Lal v. State of 
Haryana, AIR (1981) P & H 349 held that the President alone could make 
the award and upheld its validity. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
Held : 1. The award prepared and signed by the President is not an 
award of the Tribunal. Adjudication by the three-member Tribunal is 
imperative and mandatory. Determination of the compensation in dis· 
H regard thereof renders the adjudication void, invalid and in operative. Any 
136 
-
-
KARNALIMPROVEMENTTRUSTv. PARKASHWANTI 
137 
other interpretation would be inconsistent with and derogatory to the A 
scheme, purpose and intendment of the Act. [143-F, 145-E] · 
Sohan Lal v. State of Haryana, AIR (1981) Punjab & Haryana 349, 
overruled. 
Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normandin, AIR (1917) Privy B 
Council 142 at 147, referred to. 
2. The doctrine of state decisis, if applied, would perpetrate an 
erroneous interpretation defeating the statutory objective of the Act and a 
decree by an incompetent adjudicator would get executed. Acquiescence C 
does not confer jurisdiction. Normally decisions which have been followed 
for a long period of time and should generally be followed but this rule is 
not inexorable, inflexible and universally applicable in all situations. The 
appellate ~ourt will not shirk from overruling decisions which establish a 
ratio plainly outside the statute. [150-E, F, 146-B] 
Raj Narain Pandey v. Sant Prasad Tiwari, [1973] 2 SCC 35, distin-
guished. 
Maktul v. Manbhari, AIR (1958) SC 918; Washington v. Dawson & Co., 
D 
264 U.S. 646 (68 L.Ed 219); Mark Graves v. People of the State of New York, E 
306 U.S. 466; The Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [1955] 2 SCR 
603; A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and Another, [1988] 2 SCC 602 and The 
Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North, 
AIR (1965) SC 1636, followed. 
Darshan Singh v. Rampa/ Singh, [1992] Supp. 1 SCC 191 and F 
Kesavananda Bharati v. State or Kera/a, AIR (1973) SC 1461, referred to. 
Halsbury's Laws of England; Corpus Juris Secundum paras 192, 193 
at page 322, referred to. 
3. Any award made from this date by the member-President of the 
Tribunal only shall be void and it does not have the effect of unsettling the 
single member awards made and becoming final. [151-B] 
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, [1993] 4 SCC 
G 
727, followed. 
H 
138 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4237 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.4.91 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in LP.A. No. 1042 of 1990. 
B 
Mohan Lal Verma, S.K. Bagga, Muni Lal Verma, D.V. Sehgal, 
Madhava Reddy, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. Tanuj Bagga, Ms. Shuresh Bagga, 
Debasi~ Misra, Bhuvneshwar Bawa (Intervenor-in-person), KG.Bhagat, 
Ms. K Choudhary, Tara Chandra Sharma, Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neelam 
Sharma, Ajay Sharma, K.C. Bajaj and D.B. Vohra for the appearing 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.