UNION OF INDIAversusSWARAN SINGH AND ORS.

                        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.                       E
      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       F
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
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. SWARAN 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
                                                                                   B
compensation as on December 24, 1981, the decree as on that date was
correctly drawn and became final.                •

       The question then is: whether the High Court has power to entertain
independent applications under Sections 151 and 152 and enhance
solatium and interest as amended under Act 68 of 1984. This controversy            C
is no longer res-integra. In State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh & Ors., [1995] Supp.
(4) SCC 626 and also in catena of decisions following thereafter in 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;             D
Union of India & Anr. Etc. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc., [1989] 2
SCC 754; and KS. Paripooman v. State of Kera/a & Ors., [1994] 5 SCC 593
this Court has held that reference Court or High Court has no power or
jurisdiction to entertain any applications under Sections 151 and 152 to
correct any decree which has become final or to independently pass an
award enhancing the solatium and interest as amended by Act 68 of 1984.            E
Consequently, the award by the High Court granting enhanced solatium at
30% under Section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% for one year from
the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% till date of
deposit under Section 28 as amended under Act 68 of 1984 are clearly
without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity. The order being a nullity, it      F
can be challenged at any stage. Rightly the question was raised in execu-
tion. The executing Court allowed the petition and dismissed the execution
petition. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the
revisions and setting aside the order of the executing Court.

     The Appeals are accordingly allo~ed and all orders passed by the              G
High Court after' the awards had become final are a nullity and do not bind
the Union of India. No costs.

R.P.                                                         Appeals allowed.