UNION OF INDIA versus KOLLUNI RAMAIAH AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 694 · Decided: 16-11-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, S. MOHAN, A.S. ANAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
. UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
KOLLUNI RAMAIAH AND ORS.' 
NOVEMBER 16, 1993 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJI, S. MOHAN AND 
DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition-Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable 
· Property Act, 1952-ss.7, 8.(3}-Acquisition of requisitioned Land-Compen-
C sation-Solatium and interest-Held, Award granting solatium @ 15% and 
,,,iierest @ 6% in case of acquisition underAct as bad in law. 
-" 
"' ..... 
Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 136, 142:-Acquisition of land 
.u,,det Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 
O 195~mpensation-Award by Arbitrator enhancing compensation ~s we/( 
· ~ awarding Solatium @_15.%-and Interest @ 6%--0n app~al by land 
owners, High Court }'Uiiher enhancing compensation retaining solatium and 
interest as awarded by Arbitrato~nion of India though main affected party, -
not made a party to proceedings either before Arbitrator or High Couf:t-SpC-
cial leave petitions by Union of India-Held, must be treated as cross-obfec-
E tlons under Order 41, Rule 22 C.P.C. before High Court against award of 
Arbitrator. 
Certain lands of the respondent-land owners were acquired fo~ 
defence purposes under the Requisitioning and Acquisition A~t, 1952. 
Slnce the compensa~icm at the rate of.Rs. 10 .per sq. yard f1Xed under s.8(3) 
F of the Act WaS not acceptable to the respondents, a reference was ~ade to 
the Arbitrator, who enhanced the compensation to Rs.' 15 per sq. yard and 
also awarded solatium at 15% and interest at 6%. 
On appeal by the land owners, the High Court further enhanced the 
G compensation to Rs. 20 per sq. yard and retained the award of Arbitrator 
as regards solatium and interest. 
/ 
The appellant-Union of India, which was the main party affected by 
the enhancement of the compensation but was not a party to the proceed· 
lngs either before the arbitrator or the High Court, flied an application 
H for permission to prefer the appeals by special leave. 
' 
. \ 
694 
U.0.1. I'. K. RAMAIAH 
695 
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that, in view of this A 
Court's pronouncement thut award of solatium and interest was not 
permissible in a case of ac11uisition of property under the Act, this Court 
could set aside the same; and even otherwise since that part of the award 
got merged with the judgment of the High Court; this Court could inter· 
fere. 
The respondents contended that the award had become final not 
having been appealed against, and since the finality of the award could not 
be disturbed in the appeals filed by the land owners in the High Court 
unless the Union of India had filed a separate appeal questioning the grant 
of solatium and interest, the application by Union of India for permission 
to prefer special leave petitions was not maintainable. 
Granting the permission to prefer the special leave petitions and 
disposing of the appeals, this Court. 
B 
c 
HELD : 1. In view of the categoric pronouncement of this Court•, D 
the award granting solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 
6% in the instant case of acquisition of property under the Requisitioning 
and Acquisition Act, 1952, is bad in law, and that part of the award is set 
aside. The enhancement of compensation is not interfered with as con· 
ceded by the Union of India. (699-E] 
E 
*Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla, (dead) by Lrs. JT (1992) 5 
SC 574, relied on. 
2.1. Once there is patent illegality in the award, this Court is not 
powerless as not to grant any relief to the Union of India which was neither F 
impleaded before the Arbitrator nor before the High Court. It cannot be 
said that the award of Arbitrator had become final and cannot be reopened 
because the matter is still kept alive by the Union of India. [698-GJ 
2.2. In exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution 
the special leave petitions must be treated as Cross-objections under G 
Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. before the High Court against the award of the 
Arbitrator. Normally, in such an event the matter should be remitted to 
the High Court, but in the circumstances of this case such a course will 
not only prolong the issue but also would amount to directing the High 
Court to do the obvious. [699·A·DJ 
H 
696 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 s:c.R. 
~ 
A 
2.3. Though in one sense the principle of merger would apply, but 
interference on that count would cause immense prejudice to the respon-
dents. They cannot be worse off for having preferred appeals to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.