THE UNION OF INDIA versus SHRI SUBE RAM AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 219 · Decided: 26-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
SHRI SUBE RAM AND ORS. 
AUGUST 26, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) 
B 
Land Acquisition Ac4 1894: 
Sections 2(d), 23(2) and 28-Enhanced solatium and interest under the 
Amendment Act 68 of 1984-Held : Claimants would be entitled to only if C 
proceedings were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer or 
Cowt-Ente1taining of application by High Cowt-Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, [1989] 2 SCC 754, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 11913-14 D 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.94 of the Delhi High Court 
in R.F.A. No. 33 of 1977. 
K. Lahiri, B.K. Prasad, S.A. Meeta and S.N. Terdol for the Appel-
E 
!ants. 
Pankaj Kalra and Brij Bhushan for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
F 
We-have heard learned counsel for both the parties. 
Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 
(for short, the "Act") was published on March 8, 1957 acquiring the land G 
for planned development of Delhi city. The Land Acquisition Officer 
awarded compensation on October 3, 1974 under Section 11 of the Act. 
The Additional District Judge enhanced the c.ompensation on October 5, 
1976. On appeal, the High Court further enhanced the compensation on 
July 24, 1984 to Rs. 10 per square yard with solatium and interest at old 
rates, namely, solatium at 15% under Section 23 (2) and interest at 6% H 
219 
220 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
under proviso to Section 28 of the Act on the enhanced compensation. 
B 
c 
Consequently, the respondents filed the petition under Sections 151 and 
152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the High Court by the 
impugned order dated March 22, 1985 allowed the benefits under the 
Amendment Act 68 of 1984 and awarded solatium at 30% on the enhanced 
compensation and interest under the proviso to Section 28 at 9% for one 
year from the date of taking possession for one year and @ 15% thereafter 
till date of deposit into court on the enhanced compensation. Subsequently, 
that view was reversed by this Court in Union of India v. Raglmbir Singh, 
[1989) 2 SCC 754. The application came to be filed for review of the 
judgment and the High Court in the impugned order dated December 1, 
1993 dismissed the review application. Thus these appeals by special leave. 
Appeal also was filed against the original appellate order with a delay of 
3379 clays. 
Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel for the respondents with his usual 
D vehemence, contended that the review application came to be filed eight 
years after the order was passed by the Division Bench and five years after 
the judgment of this Court in Raghubir Singh's case. The High Court, 
therefore, was right in refusing to entertain the review petition. In view of 
the Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1, CPC, he also contended that change 
of law as interpreted by Court would not be a ground for review. There is 
E an inordinate delay in filing the special leave petition against the original 
order and the delay has not been properly explained. Therefore, the orders 
of the courts below are not vitiated by any error of law. We find no force 
in the contentions. 
F 
It is now settled legal position that the claimants would be entitled 
to the enhanced solatium and interest only if the proceedings were pending 
either before the Land Acquisition Officer or Court. The word "Court" 
defined under section 2( d) of the Act as on the date the Amendment Bill 
was introduced and the Act made by the Parliament, was Civil Court. 
Therefore, the question that arises is: whether the High Court has jurisdic-
G tion to entertain the application for enhancement after the Amendment 
Act 68 of 1984 came into force. It is true that if it were a case of a superior 
Court having interpreted the law and the law having become final, by Order 
47 Rule 1, CPC it could not constitute a ground for review of the judgment. 
But here is the case of entertaining the application itself; in other words, 
H the question of jurisdiction of the Court. Since the appellate Court has no 
U.O.l.. v. SUBERAM 
221 
power to amend the decree and grant the enhanced compensation by way A 
of solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 of 
the Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984 it is a question of jurisdiction of 
the court. Since courts have no jurisdiction it is the settled legal position 
that it is

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