UNION OF INDIA versus RANGJLA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 28-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
RANGJLA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS. 
AUGUST 28, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 : Sections 23(2) and 28-Proviso (As in-
troduced by Ame11dme11t Act 68 of 1984) 
C 
Land Acquisitio11-Compensatiun as per existing lmv-Ame11dment of 
Act 1894-lnsCltion of provisions for additional benefits of so/atium and 
interest-Grant of such benefits after coming into force of Amendment 
Act-Held not pe11nissible. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 151and152. 
Award for land compensation as per existing law-Finality--Benefits 
introduced by Land Acquisition Amendment Act, 1984-Held sections 151 
and 152 cannot be invoked to award-Such benefits. 
In these land acc1uisition proceedings certain lands were ac<Juired 
for defence purposes. The compensation award was made as per law then 
in force and it attained finality. Subse<Juent to the amendments introduced 
to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the 
land-owners filed an application before the High Court under sections 151 
and 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for amendment of the decree 
seeking addithmal benefits of solatium and interest under section 23(2) 
and proviso to section 28 as introduced by the 1984 Amendment Act. The 
High Court allowed the application against which Union of India preferred 
an appeal before this Court. 
AJlowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : TI1e decree passed by the High Court is clearly "ithout 
jurisdiction and a nullity. The claimant was not entitled to the additional 
benefits and Sections 151 and 152, CPC cannot be invoked to award the 
additional benefits under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The High Court, 
therefore, has no power to amend the decree to award enhanced statutory 
H benefits. [112-G] 
110 
. 
,.. 
u.o.r. v. RAN GILA RAM 
111 
State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Sravan Hetkar, [1995) 3 SCC 316; A 
Union of India and On. v. Pratap Kaur (dead) through L1:1-. and Anr., [1995) 
3 sec 263, relied on . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7983 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.87 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in CM.P. No. 668 of C-1 of l 986. 
R.K. Anand, Anil Katiyar, M.P. Shorawala and P. Parmeswaran for 
the Appellant. 
Sanjay Sarin and Ashok Mathur for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave grant~J. 
On December 2, 1977, a notification under Section 4 of the Land 
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued acquiring 267.2675 
acres of land in viIJage Bhatotarwan for defence purposes. The award was 
made by the Land Acquisition Collector on October 23, 1979. Against the 
award, the District Judge- arbitrator by his award date February 7, 1981, 
enhanced the compensation and further· awarded Rs. 700 per acre for loss 
of livelihood/profession. Dissatisfied thereof, both the State as well as the 
respondent writ petitions in the High Court which by judgment dated 
March 15, 1982 enhanced the compens:ition lo Rs. 11,000 and 10,000 per 
acre rcllpcctively. Following that, respondent's R.S.A. No. 1209 of 1981, was 
di11posl!d of on November 5, 1982. 
An application under Sections 151 and 152, Civil Procedure Code 
(for short, 'CPC') was filed in 1986 before High Court for amendment of 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the decree in the cross-objections to award them 30% of the solatium 9% 
interest for the first year and 15% interest thereafter till the date of deposit G 
as per s.23(2) and proviso to s.28 pursuant to the Amendment Act 68 of 
1984. The High Court allowed the application on November 26, 1987. Thus, 
this appeal by special leave. 
The point is no longer res integra. This Court has considered the 
scope of the power of the.High Court under Ss.151and152, CPC and al'>o H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
under S.13(A) of the Act. This Court has held that once civil court made 
an award as per law then in force which became final and that there is no 
error of law as on that date. Subsequent amendment does not give power 
to the court to amend that decree under Ss.151 and 152, CPC. This was 
held in State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Sravan Hetkar, [1955) 3 SCC 316 
and Union of India and Ors. v. Pratap Kaur (dead) through L1:1'. and Anr., 
[ 1995) 3 SCC 263. In Maharau Sravan Hetkar's case, this Court held that 
the civil court lacked inherent jurisdiction and was devoid of the power to 
entertain an application to award additional ben
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.