URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JODHPUR versus GOKUL NARAIN AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 148 · Decided: 10-04-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JODHPUR 
v. 
GOKUL NARAIN AND ANR. 
APRIL 10, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959: Sections 52 and 60. 
Acquisition of land-Solatium and additional amount-Not provided 
C for-Land Acquisition Act, 1894-Provisions of-Made applicable to acquisi-
tions under State Act-Held: Solatium and additional amount could not be 
applied to award made prior to coming into force of State Act-Such an order 
was a nullity---Could be assailed at any stage including at the execution or in 
a collateral proceedin[jDistrict Judge directed to correct decree and recom-
pute liability to pay compensation-Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Sections 
D 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28. 
E 
F 
Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 : 
Order 22, Rule JOA-Death of party---Legal representatives-Substitu-
tion of-Application filed within 30 days from date of knowledge of 
death----Counsel appearing in executing court did not intimate death to counsel 
appearing in Supreme Court-Held : lapse of counsel could not be construed 
to be knowledge of death-Hence, Special Leave Petition did not abate. 
Order 47-Execution of decree which was a nullity and non-set-its 
nullity could be assailed even at the execution stage or in a collateral 
proceeding. 
The land of the first respondent was acquired under Section 52 of 
Rajasthan urban Improvement Act, 1959 and comnensation was answered. 
On appeal, the High Court while enhancing the compensation also 
G · awarded solatium, interest and adlditional amount under Sections 23(2), 
28 and 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In the meanwhile, the 
appellant had paid a part of the compensation amount. The respondent 
filed the execution petition before the District Judge for recovery of the 
balance amount. The appellant filed objections under Section 47 of the 
H Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and claimed refund of excess amount paid 
148 
URBANIMPROVEMENTTRUST v. GOKULNARAIN 
149 
to the respondent. The District Judge dismissed the objections. On A 
revision, the High Court dismissed the claim. Aggrieved by the High 
Court's judgment the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
The Act was amended by reason of which the Central Land Acquisi-
tion Act became applicable to acquisition under the Act. Section 60A of the 
Act made transitory provisions a1iplicable to the pending matters. Pending 
the special leave petition in this Court, the first respondent died. A notice 
was issued and when the notice was not served, the appellant was per-
mitted to take dasti service and when the notice was taken, the appellant 
was informed that the first respondent had died. Consequently, applica-
B 
tion for substitution under Order 22, Rule 4, CPC was filed within 30 days C 
of the date of knowledge of death. The legal representatives of the deceased 
first respondent were brought on record in the executing court. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that under the Act there 
was provision to grant interest only; that the High Court inherently lacked 
jurisdiction to apply the provisions of Central LA Act to acquisition under D 
the Act; that the order to award solatium, interest and additional amount 
under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1-A) of Central LA Act was a nullity; that 
nullity of the decree could be challenged even in execution; and that the 
respondent was not entitled to these additional benefits. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the application 
for substitution of legal representatives was barred by limitation; that the 
special leave petition had abated and, therefore, the appeal was not main-
tainable; that the order awarding additional benefits was allowed to be-
E 
. come final; that though the High Court wrongly applied the Central LA 
Act, it did not lack inherent jurisdiction; that having allowed the decree to F 
become final it would not be open to the appellant to contend that the 
decree was a nullity; that Section 47, .CPC contemplated correcting the 
errors in execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree; and that the 
appellant was not entitled to raise objection to the execution of the decree 
which amounted to its review and did not come within the ambit of Section G 
47, CPC. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under Order 22, Rule lOA of the Code of Civil Proce-
dure, 1908, whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to H 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
the knowledge o

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