IMPORTANT POINT
Award and decree under Act 1894 becoming final cannot be amended or altered under the amended sections 23 and 28 by filing petitions under Section 151 and Section 152 CPC.

JUDGMENT : -

R.M. LODHA, J.—

1. This appeal, by special leave, has been filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by the State of Haryana and the Land Acquisition Collector, Urban Estate, Panchkula against the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 1-4-2003.

2. The controversy arises in this way. On 2-5-1973 the Government of Haryana issued Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the LA Act”) proposing to acquire land for residential and commercial area as Sector 13 and Sector 13 Extension at Karnal, Haryana. Subsequent thereto, declaration was made under Section 6 of the LA Act and then the award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 23-11-1973 fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs 270 per biswa. The respondents' land is part of the above acquisition in the award.

3. The respondents were not satisfied with the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and sought reference under Section 18 of the LA Act. The matter was referred to the civil court for determination of compensation for compulsory acquisition of the respondents' land. The Reference Court on 17-5-1980 decided the reference(s) and enhanced compensation @ Rs 22 per square yard. The Reference Court also awarded solatium @ 15% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest @ 6% from the date of dispossession till the payment was made as awarded.

4. The respondents did not carry the matter further. However, the State of Haryana was dissatisfied with the determination of compensation by the Reference Court and, accordingly, preferred first appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. On 16-1-1981, the first appeal preferred by the State of Haryana was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court and the judgment and award by the Reference Court was upheld. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the first appeal, Respondent 1 had laid execution of the award passed by the Reference Court by making an execution application in 1980.

5. The State of Haryana preferred a special leave petition against the award and decree of the High Court but was unsuccessful. The special leave petition was dismissed by this Court on 12-12-1983.

6. Vide the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (for short “the Amendment Act”), the LA Act came to be amended with effect from 24-9-1984. By the Amendment Act, Section 23 of the LA Act was amended. There was amendment in Section 28 of the LA Act as well. Section 30 of the Amendment Act provided for transitional provisions.

7. On 28-4-1989 the respondents made an application under Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) before the High Court in the disposed of first appeal against which the special leave petition preferred by the State of Haryana had already been dismissed. By this application the respondents prayed for the benefits of the amended provisions in the LA Act particularly Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) thereof.

8. The High Court allowed the application made by the respondents for grant of benefits of the amended provisions on 28-4-1989 and granted benefits of the amended provisions of Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the LA Act to them.

9. The respondents then filed another execution petition for execution of the award and decree dated 28-4-1989. On behalf of the appellants, an objection was raised that the award and decree passed by the High Court on 28-4-1989 was without jurisdiction and, therefore, not executable and enforceable. The executing court, vide its order dated 6-4-1999, overruled the objection taken by the appellants and held that it was not open to the executing court to go behind the decree. The present appellants challenged the order of the executing court by filing a revision petition before the High Court. The revision petition has been dismissed by the impugned order.

10. Mr Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, appeared for the appellants a