Holding

A civil court cannot amend a final land acquisition award under Sections 151 and 152 CPC to grant benefits introduced by a later amendment; such amendment is beyond its jurisdiction.

Summary

The Union of India acquired land for defence purposes under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and a compensation award was made and became final. After the 1984 Amendment Act (Act 68) introduced additional solatium and interest benefits, the landowners filed an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to amend the decree to include those benefits. The Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the application, prompting the Union to appeal. The Supreme Court held that once a land acquisition award attains finality, subsequent statutory amendments cannot be applied retrospectively through Sections 151 and 152 CPC, as the civil court lacks jurisdiction to alter the decree. Consequently, the High Court's amendment was declared a nullity and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether Sections 151 and 152 of the CPC can be invoked to amend a final land acquisition award to incorporate benefits introduced by a later amendment to the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the 1984 Amendment Act applies retrospectively to awards that became final before its commencement.
Whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to grant additional solatium and interest after the award became final.

Legislation cited

Amendment Act 68 of 1984s. 23(2), s. 28
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 151, s. 152
Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 13(A), s. 23(2), s. 28

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensation awardSolatiumInterestAmendment Act 68 of 1984Civil Procedure CodeSection 151Section 152JurisdictionFinal decree

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA
v.
RANGJLA RAM (DEAD) BY LRS.

AUGUST 28, 1995

B [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.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 151and152.
D 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
E 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)
F 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
G 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.
B
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.
c
Sanjay Sarin and Ashok Mathur for the Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Leave grant~J.
D
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, E
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. F

An application under Sections 151 and 152, Civil Procedure Code
(for short, 'CPC') was filed in 1986 before High Court for amendment of
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
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A 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.,
B [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 benefits under the Amend-
ment Act 68 of 1984. The facts therein were that the award had become
final and the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 had come into force on Septem-
c ber 24, 1984. The respondents made an application under Sections 151 and
152, CPC to award enhanced solatium and additional benefits etc. and the
civil court allowed and granted the same. In that context, considering the
civil court's power under Sections 151 and 152, CPC. this Court laid the
above law.
D In Pratap Kaur's case, after the award became final, the respondents
filed miscellaneous application to demarcate and award compensation on
the rates were ordered by the High Court which were accordingly granted
and the jurisdiction of the District Court was challenged. Though the High
Court had affirmed the order, this Court held that after the award became
E final, the civil court was devoid of power or jurisdiction and there was no
arithmetical or clerical error in the award. The exercise of the power was
independent of reference. Therefore, there civil court ceased to have any
power after the award became .final, to alter or correct clerical or arith-
metical errors. The civil court was, therefore, devoid of jurisdiction and
power to award or order additional benefits.
F
It would, therefore be clear that 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
G enhanced statutory benefits. The decree passed by the High Court is clearly
without jurisdiction and a nullity.
r

The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.