\
KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST
A
v.
RAM PARKASH AND ORS.
MARCH 21, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
B
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :
Detem1i11ation of compensation-Pending detennination execution ap-
plication filed by respondent for realisation of amount due--Objection raised C
by appellant Tntst that in view of the fact that amount deposited was more
than what was due to respondent execmion application should be dis-
missec}-Rejection of objection raised-;-Confinnation by Hilff1 Cou!f-Ap-
peal-He/d on an earlier occasion-Supreme Court has set aside the award
made by the Tribunal on the ground that it was made by President wiOwut
participation by other members-In this case award being non est responde/11 D
cannot execute the decree until fresh award is mad~Amount already paid
to respondelll would be subject to the result of the fresh award.
Kamal Improvement Trust, Kamal v. Smt. Parkash Wanti (dead) &
Anr., JT (1995) 5 SC 151, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5259 of
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.93 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1307 of 1993.
M.L. Verma, S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. S. Bagga and Ms.
Monika Banot for the Appellants.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
F
Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing on G
behalf of the respondents.
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana made in C.R. No. 1307 of 1993 on December 14, H
767
768
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1996) 3 S.C.R.
A
1993. It is not necessary to dilate upon all the material facts. Suffice it to
state that this Court on an earlier occasion had remanded the self-same
matter for determination of the compensation of the Phar land. Pending
the determination, the respondents filed Execution Application for realisa-
tion of certain amount said to be due. The appellant-Trust filed objection
B stating that the appellant had deposited more than what was due to the
respondents. Therefore, the execution application deserves to be dis-
missed. The objection was over-ruled and on revision, the High Court
confirmed the same. Thus appeal by special leave.
In an analogous situation when the very award of the Tribunal was
C questioned by the appellant, this Court in Kamal Improvement Trust,
Kamal v. Parkash Wanti (Dead) & Anr., JT (1995) 5 SC 151 bad held that
the judgment of the Tribunal without there being participation by the other
members, is illegal and non est. Accordingly, it was set aside. Consequently,
in law as on date, there is no award in existence. Resultantly, the respon-
dents cannot execute the decree until an award is made afresh in accord-
D ance with law. The appellant admittedly had deposited the amount pending
revision in the High Court. In view of the fact that the award was set aside,
any amount paid would be subject to the result in the award that could be
made by the Tribunal under the Act.
E
The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal disposed of.
<
Lex