Supreme Court of India

KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUSTversusRAM PARKASH AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 422
Decided: 21 March 1996
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

The Tribunal's award is non est and cannot be executed; the execution application is dismissed and a fresh award must be made.

Summary

The case arose from a land acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 where the compensation award made by the Tribunal was challenged. The award had been passed by the President of the Tribunal without the participation of the other members, rendering it illegal and non est. While the award was under challenge, the respondents filed an execution application to recover the amount they claimed was due, and the appellants objected on the ground that they had already deposited more than the amount owed. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier decision in Kamal Improvement Trust v. Parkash Wanti, held that because the award was set aside, there is no enforceable decree and the execution application must be dismissed; any amount already paid remains subject to the fresh award. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of without costs.

Issues considered

Whether an award of the Tribunal made by the President without participation of other members is valid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether an execution application can be entertained when the underlying award is declared non est.
Whether the appellant's objection that more amount has been deposited than is due can defeat the execution application.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Subjects

Land acquisitionCompensation awardNon est awardExecution of decreeTribunal procedureSpecial leaveSupreme Court

Judgment

\
                       KARNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST                                     A
                                           v.
                             RAM PARKASH AND ORS.

                                 MARCH 21, 1996

                 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]                              B

            Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

           Detem1i11ation of compensation-Pending detennination execution ap-
    plication filed by respondent for realisation of amount due--Objection raised   C
    by appellant Tntst that in view of the fact that amount deposited was more
    than what was due to respondent execmion application should be dis-
    missec}-Rejection of objection raised-;-Confinnation by Hilff1 Cou!f-Ap-
    peal-He/d on an earlier occasion-Supreme Court has set aside the award
    made by the Tribunal on the ground that it was made by President wiOwut
    participation by other members-In this case award being non est responde/11     D
    cannot execute the decree until fresh award is mad~Amount already paid
    to respondelll would be subject to the result of the fresh award.

          Kamal Improvement Trust, Kamal v. Smt. Parkash Wanti (dead) &
    Anr., JT (1995) 5 SC 151, referred to.
                                                                                    E
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5259 of
    1996.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.93 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.R. No. 1307 of 1993.
                                                                                    F
         M.L. Verma, S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga, Ms. S. Bagga and Ms.
    Monika Banot for the Appellants.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         Though the respondents have been served, no one is appearing on            G
    behalf of the respondents.

            Leave granted.

         This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the High Court
    of Punjab & Haryana made in C.R. No. 1307 of 1993 on December 14,               H
                                       767
    768                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996) 3 S.C.R.

A   1993. It is not necessary to dilate upon all the material facts. Suffice it to
    state that this Court on an earlier occasion had remanded the self-same
    matter for determination of the compensation of the Phar land. Pending
    the determination, the respondents filed Execution Application for realisa-
    tion of certain amount said to be due. The appellant-Trust filed objection       <
B   stating that the appellant had deposited more than what was due to the
    respondents. Therefore, the execution application deserves to be dis-
    missed. The objection was over-ruled and on revision, the High Court
    confirmed the same. Thus appeal by special leave.

           In an analogous situation when the very award of the Tribunal was
C   questioned by the appellant, this Court in Kamal Improvement Trust,
    Kamal v. Parkash Wanti (Dead) & Anr., JT (1995) 5 SC 151 bad held that
    the judgment of the Tribunal without there being participation by the other
    members, is illegal and non est. Accordingly, it was set aside. Consequently,
    in law as on date, there is no award in existence. Resultantly, the respon-
    dents cannot execute the decree until an award is made afresh in accord-
D   ance with law. The appellant admittedly had deposited the amount pending
    revision in the High Court. In view of the fact that the award was set aside,
    any amount paid would be subject to the result in the award that could be
    made by the Tribunal under the Act.

          The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
E
    T.N.A.                                                   Appeal disposed of.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search