IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2598 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION: JULY 27, 2011 Shri Shangara Singh .....PETITIONER Versus Special Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar and another ....RESPONDENTS C.R. No.2599 of 1994 Kartar Singh .....PETITIONER Versus Special Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. B.S. Saini, Advocate, for Mr. Premjit Kalia, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Brijeshwar Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.2. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions bearing C.R.Nos.2598 and 2599 of 1994, which are arising from the common order dated 16.10.1993 passed by the Executing Court, whereby 39 execution applications filed by various land owners, were dismissed while coming to the conclusion that the award/decree passed in their favour has been satisfied and no amount is due against the said award. Briefly, in this case a big chunk of land was acquired vide notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') published on June 10, 1977 for extension of Amritsar Cantonment at village Kala Ghanpur. In the said acquisition, the Collector made the award under Section 11 of the Act on August 28, 1978. On reference under Section 18 of the Act made by the landowners, including the petitioners, Additional District Judge, Amritsar by his award/decree dated December 24, 1981 enhanced the compensation. The said award was confirmed by the Single Bench of the High Court. The LPAs as well as the SLPs filed by the landowners were also dismissed confirming the enhanced compensation. After dismissal of the appeals of the landowners by the Division Judge of the High Court, the landowners moved applications under Sections 151 and 152 CPC for modification of the award and to grant enhanced solatium and interest under Section 23(2) and proviso to Section 28 of the Act as amended by Act No.68 of 1984. Those applications were allowed and it was ordered that the claimants would be entitled to solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% for one year and @ 15% thereafter till realization. When the landowners filed execution applications before the Executing Court, the Executing Court dismissed all those applications vide impugned order dated October 16, 1993. It is pertinent to mention here that those orders were challenged by different landowners by filing separate revision petitions in this Court. Some of those revision petitions bearing Civil Revision Nos.1637 to 1651, 2144 and 2145 of 1994 were allowed by this Court vide order dated August 30, 1994, while passing the following order:- “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the contention has merit. Once this Court ordered that the claimants were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30%, it could not be read to mean that solatium at this rate had been granted only on the market value as enhanced by the learned Additional District Judge in reference under Section 18 of the Act. To me it is clear that solatium at the rate of 30% was payable on the entire market value of the land. It will be illogical to conclude that the claimants were entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value as determined by the Collector and at the rate of 30% on the market value as enhanced by the learned Additional District Judge. Solatium is a statutory benefit payable to the landowners in terms of sub-section (2) of the Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act which inter alia provides that the court shall in every case award a sum of 30 per centum of such market value in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. Thus as already observed, grant of solatium on the market value could not be bifurcated in two parts i.e. 15% on the market value as determined by the Collector and at the rate of 30% on the amount of market value as enhanced by learned Additional District Judge. For the reasons recorded above, all these revision petitions are allowed to the extent that the petitioners herein would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the entire amount of market value of the land. Order of the executing court stands modified accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.” The instant two revision petitions, though filed in April, 1994, but were admitted on December 20, 1994, i.e., much after the decision dated August 30, 1994 rendered by this Court in the aforesaid revision petitions, and as such could not be listed for hearing at that time. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in terms of the aforesaid order passed by this Court the revision petitions filed by the petitioners should also be allowed in the same terms. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India pointed out that the aforesaid order dated August 30, 1994 passed by this Court was challenged by the Union of India in the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9497-98 of 1996 and vide order dated July 8, 1996 the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the entire matter has set aside the said order while making the following observations:- “It is settled law that after the reference Court has granted an award and decree under Section 25(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 that the compensation was not correct. It is a part of the judgment or award. Admittedly, as on that date the claimants were entitled to solatium 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 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 is no longer res integra. In State of Punjab vs. Jagir Singh & Ors. [1995 Supp.(4) SCC 626] and also in catena of decisions following thereafter in Union of India & Ors. vs. Pratap Kaur (dead) through LRs. & Anr. [(1995) 3 SCC 263]; State of Maharashtra vs. Maharau Srawan Hatkar [JT 1995(2) SC 583]; State of Punjab & Anr. vs. Babu Singh & Ors. [1995 Supp. (2) SCC 406]; Union of India & Anr. etc. vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by LRs. etc. [(1989) 2 SCC 754]; and K.S. Paripoornan vs. State of Kerala & 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. 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 can be challenged at any stage. Rightly the question was raised in execution. The executing Court allowed the petition and dismissed the execution petition. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the revision and setting aside the order of the executing Court.” Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly stated that in view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court, both the revision petitions filed by the petitioners have no merit as in that decision the impugned order of the Executing Court has been upheld and the decision dated August 30, 1994, passed by this Court, allowing the revision petitions, has been set aside. In view of the above, there is no merit in these revision petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. July 27, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE