UNION OF INDIA versus SWARAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 205 · Decided: 08-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
SWARAN SINGH AND ORS. 
JULY 8, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Ss.23(2), 28-Award of enhanced solatiwn and interest as amended by 
Act 68 of 1984-Award made by Collector on 28.8.1978-Award and decree C 
of reference cowt enhancing the compensation passed on 24.12.1981 which 
was confinned by High Cowt and Supreme Cowt-Applications under ss. 151 
and 152 C.P.C. filed before High Court on 28.7.1987 for award of enhanced 
solatium and interest as provided by Amendment act 68 of 1984--High Cowt 
allowing the applications-Executing cowt dismissing execution applica-
D 
tions-On revision High Court directing execution of enhanced solatium and 
interest-Held, reference court or High Cou1t has no power or julisdiction to 
entertain any applications under ss.151and152 to con·ect any decree vvhich 
has beconie final or to independently pass an aivard enhancing solatiunz and 
interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984-Executing Cowt rightly dismissed the 
applications-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, ss.151, 152. 
State of Punjab v.Jagir Singh & Ors., [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 626; Union 
of India & Ors. v. Pratap Kaur (dead} through LRs. & Anr., [1995] 3 SCC 
263; State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, JT (1995) 2 SC 583; 
State of Punjab &Anr. v. Babu Singh & Ors., (1995] Supp. 2 SCC 406; Union 
of India & Anr. Etc. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead} by Lrs. Etc., (1989] 2 SCC 
754 and K.S. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [1994] 5 SCC 593,relied 
on . 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9497-98 
E 
F 
m~ 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.94 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 2144-45 of 1994. 
A.S. Nambiar, Ms. A. Subhashini for Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the 
Appellant. 
H 
205 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Mansoor Ali for the Respondents Nos. 1-6. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. 
B 
Leave granted. 
Substitution allowed. 
We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 
C 
These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and order 
dated August 30, 1994 made in Civil Revision Nos. 2144-45 of 1994 by the 
Punjab and Haryana High Court. The admitted position is that notification 
under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (! of 1894) (for short, 
the 'Act') was published on June 10, 1977 acquiring a large track of land 
for extension of Amritsar Cantonment al village Kala Ghanpur. The Col-
D lector made his award under Section 11 on August 28, 1978. On reference 
under Section 18, the Additional District Judge, Amritsar by his award and 
decree dated December 24, 1981 whanced the compensation which was 
confirmed by the single Judge and on appeal by the Division Bench. The 
special leave petitions filed in this Court were dismissed confirming the 
E enhanced compensation. 
On July 28, 1987 applications under Sections 151and152, CFC were 
filed in the High Court for award of enhanced solatium and interest under 
Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act 68 
of 1984. The High Court allowed the applications. When execution applica-
F tions were laid, the executing Court dismissed the same on October 16, 
1993, but on revision, as stated earlier, the High Court allowed them and 
directed cxefYution of the enhanced solatium and interest. Thus, these 
appeals by special leave. 
It is settled law that after the reference Court has granted an award 
G and decree under Section 26(1) of the Act which is an award and judgment 
under Section 26(2) of the Act or on appeal under Section 54, the only 
remedy available to a party is to file an application for correction of clerical 
or arithmetical mistakes in the decree. The award of solatium and interest 
would be granted on enhancement of compensation when the court finds 
H that the compensation was not correct. It is a part of the judgment or 
U.0.l. v. SW ARAN SINGH 
207 
award. Admil tedly, as on that date the claimants were entitled to solatium A 
at 15% and interest at 6%. The Amendment Act 68 of 1984 came into force 
as on September 24, 1984. It is settled law that if the proceedings are 
pending before the reference Court as on that date, the claimants would 
be entitled to the enhanced solatium and interest. In view of the fact that 
the reference Court itself has answered the reference and enhanced the 
compensation as on December 24, 1981, the decree as on that date was 
correctly drawn and be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.