SARUP SINGH AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 131 · Decided: 25-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 131 
SARUP SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3568 of 2005) 
NOVEMBER 25, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ. ] 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
ss. 23(1 A), 23(2) and 34 -
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 such 
A 
B 
c 
of the claimants whose cases for payment of compensation 
were finalized prior to coming into force of the aforesaid 0 
Amendment Act of 1984 - Held: For entitlement to enhanced 
rates under the Amendment, the award of the Land Acquisition 
Officer/Collector or of the Reference Court must, have been 
made between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, i.e., the dates of 
introduction of the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill, 1982 in 
E 
the House of the People and that of commencement of 
operation of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 
respectively - In the instant appeals, the award of the 
Collector and that of the reference court in their case was 
passed prior to 30.04.1982 - Therefore, the said amendment 
brought in by the Act of 1984 to the concerned provisions 
F 
could not have been made applicable to the proceeding of 
th.e present cases. 
Judgment given by High Court enhancing the quantum 
of compensation by giving benefit of enhanced solatium from 
G 
15% to 30% and interest from 6% to 9% per annum in view 
of the Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 - Whether, on facts, the 
judgment could be negated by the Executing Court - Held: 
Though the Executing court cannot go behind the decree and 
131 
H 
132 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A grant interest not granted in the decree, but, if a decree is 
found to be nullity, the same could be challenged and 
interfered with at any subsequent stage, say, at the execution 
stage or even in a collateral proceeding - In the instant 
appeals, the judgment passed by the High Court before the 
B 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 filed civil miscellaneous applications for the 
grant of 30 per cent solatium and 9 per cent interest for first 
c year and 15 per cent interest thereafter, which was allowed by 
the High Court - Such a judgment and decree which has 
become final and binding could not have been reopened by 
the High Court on the basis of revision applications filed under 
ss.151 and 152 of CPC - The orders passed by the High 
0 Court granting enhanced solatium and interest as amended 
by Act 68 of 1984 is without jurisdiction and a nullity - If a 
particular Court lacks inherent jurisdiction in passing a decree 
or making an order, a decree or order passed by such Court 
would be without jurisdiction and the same is non-est and void 
ab initio - The defect of jurisdiction strikes at the very root and 
E authority of the Court to pass decree which cannot be cured 
by consent or waiver of the parties - The validity of any such 
decree or order could be challenged at any stage - Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 - ss.151 and 152. 
F 
The questions which arose for consideration in the 
instant appeals were 1) 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 such of the claimants whose cases for payment 
G of compensation were finalized prior to coming into force 
of the aforesaid Amendment Act of 1984; and 2) whether 
the judgment and order given by the High Court 
enhancing the quantum of compensation by giving 
benefit of enhanced solatium from 15% to 30% and 
H 
SAR UP SINGH AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA AND 133 
ANR. 
interest from 6% to 9% per annum in view of the 
A 
Amendment Act of 68 of 1984 could be negated by the 
Executing Court and whether the Executing Court could 
go behind the judgment and decree passed by the High 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to 
B 
be amended by virtue of the Amendment Act of 68 of 
1984. The said amendment became effective from 
24.09.1984. By the aforesaid Amendment Act of 68 of C 
1984, amendments were brought into the provisions of 
Section 23, in that provisions of Sub-Section 23 (1A) and 
Sub-Section 23(2) were inserted and added. Similarly, an 
amendment was brought into the provisions of Section 
34 by way of Amendment Act of 68 of 1984

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