IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5661 of 2006 Between: District Social Welfare Officer, Somajiguda … Petitioner And: Valluri Sathi Raju & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5661 of 2006 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 28.11.2002 in EP No.23 of 1988 in OP No.58 of 1976 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the objections raised by the petitioner herein/JDr was rejected and directed the petitioner to deposit E.P. amount of Rs.37,49,583/-. 2. Heard the learned Additional Government Pleader for petitioner/JDr and the learned counsel for the respondent-DHr. Perused the record. 3. The respondent is the claimant and his lands were acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act by the State. Not satisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition officer, the respondent-claimant sought reference to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. The reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per square yard for the acquired land of Ac.7.25 guntas 67 square yards. The claimant preferred an appeal before this Court in CCCA No.49 of 1980. This court by judgment dated 04.08.1986 dismissed the appeal insofar as it relates to enhancement of the market value. It was however held that the claimants are entitled to the benefits of the Land acquisition Amendment Act i.e., solatium at the rate of 30% per annum instead of 15% per annum and also interest at 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession i.e., 06.02.1975 and interest at 15% per annum thereafter till the date of payment. Subsequently, the claimants were also granted 12% additional market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The Claimants filed E.P. for realization of the amount due under the decree in a total sum of Rs.4,71,399.79 by attachment and sale of the property of the JDr. The petitioner/JDr raised objection in E.P. contending that the judgment and decree in CCCA No.49 of 1980 is not valid and the benefit of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be extended to the claim as the award in this case was passed long prior to 30.04.1982. The execution Court rejected the said contention on the ground that the decree as modified by this Court in CCCA No.49 of 1980 has become final and the execution court cannot go beyond the decree. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed. 5. Admittedly, the award was passed prior to 30.04.1982, the date on which amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act came in to force and the reference Court enhanced the compensation by order dated 27.04.1978 and the same was confirmed by this Court in CCCA No.49 of 1980 by judgment dated 04.08.1986, where under the benefits arising out of the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act were also extended to the claimants. The said judgment and decree passed by this Court in CCCA No.49 of 1980 have admittedly become final. According to the petitioner/JDr, there has been a subsequent change of law in 1995 in view of the pronouncement of the apex Court in ‘K.S.Paripoornan vs. State of Kerla[1]’, wherein, it was held that the benefits of the amended Act would not be applicable to the case of awards passed prior to 30.04.1982. 6. The point for consideration is whether the decree, which has attained finality, becomes unenforceable as being null and void in view of the subsequent change of law? 7. The sole ground on which the petitioner based his contention is that in Paripoornan’s case the apex Court held that the benefits under the amended provisions are applicable only to those cases where the award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer subsequent to 30.04.1982, whereas in the present case, the award was passed in the year 1979, long prior to 30.04.1982. Admittedly the decree passed by the reference Court granting the benefits under the Amended Act has attained finality. 8. In ‘Jaya Chandra Mohapatra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Rayagada[2]’ the apex Court held as follows: “Indisputably, the correctness or otherwise of the said order was not questioned by the respondent. It, therefore, attained finality. The said amended decree was put in execution by the appellant which was registered as EP No. 7 of 1996. An objection in the said proceeding was filed by the respondent herein purported to be under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By an order dated 28-8-1999, the said objection was allowed by the executing court holding that as the decree had once been amended the same became final and as such the Reference Court had no jurisdiction to amend the decree further. ………… ……….. ……. Furthermore, in this case the aforementioned order dated 8-10- 1996 has attained finality by reason whereof the original decree stood amended. The executing court in view of the decision in Bai Shakriben’s case itself could not have gone behind the decree. The executing court, thus, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment on a wrong premise. The executing court keeping in view its limited jurisdiction could not have gone into the question as to whether the Reference Court was correct in passing the order dated 8-10-1996 amending the decree or not. The executing court did not have any jurisdiction to go into the said question. A decree passed by a competent court of law can be suitably amended. A decree, so amended on an application filed by the claimant for review thereof, becomes final. If the State was aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, it could have taken the matter by filing an appropriate application before the High Court. But keeping in view the fact that the said order was allowed to attain finality, the court could not have permitted the State to reagitate the said question before the executing court by filing an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise. In a case of this nature, the principle of estoppel by records shall come into play.” 9. In ‘State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh Randhawan[3]’, it was held that ‘when the appellate decree directing payment of enhanced solatium was not challenged, the same cannot be questioned in execution on the ground that payment under Section 23(1-A) of the Act was not admissible’. 10. In ‘G. Gouri Naidu v. T.Bodemma[4]’, the apex Court held that ‘the law is well settled that even if erroneous, an inter- party judgment binds the party if the Court of competent jurisdiction has decided the lis’. 11. In ‘Ishwar Dutt v. Land Acquisition Collector[5]’ the apex Court held that when the High Court issues directions by way of mandamus and the Land Acquisition Officer while passing award took into consideration said directions and awarded 12% additional compensation at market value and the said order having attained finality, the reference Court or for that matter High Court exercising its appellate jurisdiction could not have dealt with said question and the principle of res judicata shall fully apply’. 12. In the above decision, reference was made to a decision in ‘Madan Mohan Pathak v. Union of India[6]’, wherein the apex Court held as follows: “…Here, the judgment given by the Calcutta High Court, which is relied upon by the petitioners, is not a mere declaratory judgment holding an impost or tax to be invalid, so that a validation statute can remove the defect pointed out by the judgment amending the law with retrospective effect and validate such impost or tax. But it is a judgment giving effect to the right of the petitioners to annual cash bonus under the Settlement by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Life Insurance Corporation to pay the amount of such bonus. If by reason of retrospective alteration of the factual or legal situation, the judgment is rendered erroneous, the remedy may be by way of appeal or review, but so long as the judgment stands, it cannot be disregarded or ignored and it must be obeyed by the Life Insurance Corporation. We are, therefore, of the view that, in any event, irrespective of whether the impugned Act is constitutionally valid or not, the Life Insurance Corporation is bound to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Calcutta High Court and to pay annual cash bonus for the year 1-4-1975 to 31- 3-1976 to Class III and Class IV employees.” 13. In ‘K.P.Antony vs. Thandiyode Plantations[7]’, the Full Bench of Kerala High Court held as follows: “It will not be open to a party to challenge a judgment when it is sought to be enforced on the ground that the judgment is based on wrong conclusions or on erroneous findings or on wring application of law. As the remedy of the aggrieved party in such cases is to challenge the same in appeal or revision as the case may be and not to challenge it when it is sought to be enforced, the respondents challenge in this case against the judgment cannot be sustained.” 14. Learned counsel for the first respondent relied upon the decision in ‘Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur v. Gokul Narain[8]’ wherein the apex Court held as follows: “A decree can be said to be nullity if it is passed by a Court having no inherent jurisdiction, but erroneous decree cannot be said to be a nullity nor can a decree based on an error be a nullity. Nullity has to be understood in the sense that it is ultra vires the power of the Court passing the decree and not merely avoidable decree. As stated earlier, if the decree strikes at the jurisdiction of the Court or the Court lacks jurisdiction it strikes at the very root of the authority to pass the order or the decree. As seen, the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 has no application to the lands acquired under the Act. It was amended only w.e.f. August 1, 1987 and it was made applicable only to the pending proceedings. It would, therefore, be clear 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.” 15. It is to be noted that the reference Court was not lacking any authority or jurisdiction when the order was passed awarding compensation and granting other benefits under the Amended Act. It was only subsequently in 1995 in Paripoornan’s case (supra), it was held by the apex Court that the benefits under section 23(1-A) of the Act can be extended only in those cases where award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer subsequent to 30.04.1982. It is therefore not a case where the Court lacked inherent jurisdiction or there was any defect in exercise of the jurisdiction striking at the authority of the Court to pass a decree, but it is a case where there has been subsequent change in law by way of a pronouncement by the apex Court in Paripoornan’s case. Even in the above decision, it was held that when the Court has jurisdiction to assess any defect in exercise of jurisdiction, it does not go to the root of its authority. It was further observed that erroneous decree cannot be said to be a nullity nor can a decree based on an error be a nullity and ‘nullity’ has to be understood in the sense that it is ultra vires the power of the Court passing the decree and not merely avoidable decree. 16. In view of the principles laid down in the above decisions, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for the petitioner that the reference court had no jurisdiction to grant the said benefits and therefore, the decree passed by the said reference court to that extent is a nullity, cannot be accepted. The impugned order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in EP No.23 of 1988 directing the petitioner/JDr to deposit the amounts mentioned therein, does not call for any interference by this court. 17. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.08.2011 bss [1] (1994)5 SCC 593 [2] (2005) 9 SCC 123 [3] AIR 1992 SC 473 [4] AIR 1997 SC 808 [5] AIR 2005 SC 3165 [6] AIR 1977 803 [7] AIR 1996 Kerala 37 [8] AIR 1996 SC 1819