1996 Supreme(SC) 744

1996(4) Supreme 509
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur -Appellant
versus
Gokul Narain & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6963 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 21456 of 1994)
Decided on 10-4-1996

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Under the Central Land Acquisition Amendment Act payment of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and of solatium under Section 23(2) cannot be applied to the award made prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Amendment Act 29 of 1987 when land is acquired under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act.
2. In Land Acquisition cases when the order awarding additional benefits is without jurisdiction, its nullity can be assailed at any stage including at the execution or in a collateral proceedings since it strikes at the very jurisdiction and authority of the Court.

Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 22, Rule 10A-Application filed under Order 22, Rule 4 within 30 days from date of knowledge-No delay in making application to bring legal representatives an record-No abatement by reason of death of respondent.

       Held : Under Order 22, Rule 10A, href=act:10444>CPC, whenever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to the knowledge of the death of the party, he has to inform about it and the court thereupon gives notice of such death to the other party and for this purpose the contract between the pleader and the deceased party is deemed to subsist. It would, therefore, be clear that though the legal representatives have been brought on record in the executing Court on May 27, 1995 pending proceedings in this Court, since the counsel for the appellant did not have had the information, on coming to know of the death after dasti service was taken out, immediately application under Order 22, Rule 4, CPC came to be filed within 30 days of the date of the knowledge. Accordingly, there is no abatement of the appeal. The State is not expected to keep watch over the survival of the respondent and lapse of counsel to intimate to the counsel appearing in this Court cannot be construed to be knowledge of death. Even if it is assumed that abatement was caused, since application was filed under Order 22, Rule 4, CPC within 30 days from the date of the knowledge there is no delay in making the application to bring the legal representatives on record in this appeal. There is, hence, no abatement by reason of the death of the respondent. The application to bring the legal representatives is accordingly ordered. (Para 4)

       (ii) Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959-Section 52-Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984-Acquisition of land under Section 52 of Rajasthan Act in 1965-Award of compensation in 1976-Appeal-Compensation enhanced-Revision-High Court remanded matter-District Judge applied provisions of Land Acquisition Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 and awarded solatium, interest and additional amount under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1A)-Appellant had already paid compensation amount-Respondent claiming adjustment of said amounts towards interest-Claim dismissed-High Court holding that respondent is not entitled to benefit under Act 68 of 1984-Execution for recovery of balance amount-Appellant filed objections under Section 47 C.P.C.-Whether District Judge and High Court were right in concluding that appellant was not entitled to raise objections?-(No).

       Held that the Act does not provide for payment of solatium and additional amount. It empowers the Court to award interest @ 6 on the amount awarded from the date of taking possession. The appellant having allowed the enhanced compensation at Rs.11.50 per square foot, though on wrong principle, to become final, it is bound by it. The only objection raised by the appellant is as to the executability of the decree of additional benefits under Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984. The respondent is entitled only to the principal amount and interest @ 6 per annum from the date of taking possession, viz., June 22, 1965. The amounts claimed and paid have already been specified and hence need no reiteration. It is settled law by catena of decisions of this Court that determination of the compensation under Section 23(1) of the Central LA Act is towards market value of the land prevailing as on the date of the publication of the Section 4(1) notification in the Gazette. Equally, so under section 52 of the Act. (Para 6)

       Further held that payment of additional amount is independent of the compensation determined for the value of the land. They are not part of the component of the compensation for value of the acquired land. They are in addition to and independent of the component of the compensation under Section 23(1) of Central L.A. Act or Section 52 of the Act. The payment of solatium, interest and additional amount under Sections 23[2], 28 and 23 [1-A] is in addition to the payment of the compensation in terms of the provisions of the Act under which the property came to be acquired. Admittedly, the Act does not provide for payment of solatium and additional benefits except interest @ 6 per annum from the date of taking possession. The Amendment Act 68 of 1984 would be applicable prospectively from August 1, 1987 to the land acquired thereafter. Act 68 of 1984 would be applicable under Section 60A to the pending cases as on August 1, 1987 to determine compensation. (Para 8)

       It would be seen that under the Central Amendment Act payment of additional amount under Section 23(1-A) and of solatium under Section 23(2) cannot be applied to the award made prior to coming into force of the Rajasthan Amendment Act 29 of 1987. Section 60A provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) of Section 52 of the Act, where any matter relating to acquisition of land is pending on the date of the commencement of the Amendment Ordinance, viz., August 1, 1987 such matters being conducted or action taken, shall be subject to the provisions of the Central LA Act. The District Judge was, therefore, not right in applying the Amendment Act on December 18, 1989 awarding enhanced solatium and interest and additional amount. (Para 9)

       Consequently held that the order awarding additional benefits is clearly without jurisdiction and thereby it is a nullity. Its nullity can be assailed at any stage including at the execution or in a collateral proceedings since it strikes at the very jurisdiction and authority of the court. (Para 10)

       Under these circumstances, the District Judge and the High Court are not right and their finding that the appellant is not entitled to raise objection in the execution, is wrong in law. It should be considered in execution only under section 47 CPC and not by a separate suit. The orders of the District Judge and the High Court stand set aside. The executing Court is directed to recompute the liability of the appellant to pay the compensation and interest @ 6 from the date of taking possession i.e., June 22, 1965 and order execution accordingly. (Para 11)