UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.versusKARAM SINGH AND ORS.

A                        UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
                                    v.
                          KARAM SINGH AND ORS.

                                  APRIL 7, 1997

B               [K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.)

           Requisitio11i11g and Acquisition of Immovable Prope1ty Act, 1952: Sec-
    tion 7.

C         Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Sections 151 and 152.

         Acquisition of Propelty for public purpose-Award of compe11satio11
  f or-Responde11ts' application for grant of enhanced solatiwn and interest
  allowed i11 view of Amendment Act 68 of 198~evisio11 prefmed by State
                                                                                     ~
                                                                                     I


  dismissed by High Court-Appeal before Supreme Cowt-Held --Under the
D Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Propelty Act, there is 110
  provisio11 to pay enhanced solatium a11d interest-Amendment Act 68 of 1984
  has no application-The District Cowt has 110 jurisdiction to ame11d the
  award Ulld to gram solatiwn and interest exercising the power under Sections
   151 and 152 of tlte Code of Civil Procedure-The High Cowt, therefore, has
E committed manifest e"or of jurisdiction in not removing the en-or committed       . 1
  by the Tribunal.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2942-49
    of 1997.

F        From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.83 of the Punjab &
    Haryana High Court in C.R. Nos. 1220-27 of 1987.

         Mrs. K. Amreshwari, Wasim A. Qadri and Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the
    Appellants.

G         Mrs. S. Bagga and Tanuj Bagga for the Respondents.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Delay condoned. Substitution ordered.

H         Leave granted.
                                         686
                               U.O.I. v. KARAM SINGH                            687

            We have heard learned counsel on both sides.                                A
             Under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable
       Property Act, 1952, the property in question was acquired for public
       purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation
       which the respondents had received under protest; and on being dissatis-
       fied the respondents filed objections and arbitrator was appointed who, by       B
·" ·   his Award dated july 6, 1982, enhanced the compensation at different rates.
       On appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the arbitrator
       and awarded the enhanced compensation uniformly at the rate of Rs. 3,000
       per kanal. Letter Patent Appeal against the same was dismissed on 10th
       January, 1985. It appears that the amount awarded was deposited in court         C
       on March 14, 1986.

             However, on January 2, 1987 the respondents filed an application
       under Sections 151 & 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the
       District Judge for direction to grant enhanced solatium and interest in view
       of the Amendment Act, i.e., Act 68 of 1984 which was allowed. On revision        D
       the High Court by the impugned order dated 13th May, 1987, dismissed
       the same. Thus, this· appeal by special leave.

              It is now well settled legal position in law that under the Requisi-
       tioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, there is no provision         E
       to pay enhanced solatium and interest; and Amendment Act, i.e. Act 68 of
       1984 has no application. It is also well settled legal position that the grant
       of solatium and interest is an integral part of the process of determination
       of compensation. The district Court has no jurisdiction to amend the award
       and to grant solatium and interest exercising the power under Sections 151
       and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a case of inherent lack of         F
       jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of
       jurisdiction in not removing the error committed by the Tribunal.

              Under the circumstances the appeals are allowed to the extent of
       grant of enhanced solatium and interest, but in the circumstances, without       G
       costs.

       T.N.A.                                                      Appeals allowed.



                                                                                        H