1996 (4) TMI 521 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Land Acquisition Act Amendment Applies Prospectively

The Supreme Court held that the Central Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, applied prospectively from August 1, 1987, and only to lands ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984) to the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959.2. Jurisdiction of the District Judge to award solatium, interest, and additional amounts under the amended Central LA Act.3. Nullity of the decree and the right to raise objections in execution proceedings.4. Abatement of the appeal due to the death of the respondent and the substitution of legal representatives.Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as amended by Act 68 of 1984) to the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959:The Act was amended by Rajasthan Amendment Act 29 of 1987, effective from August 1, 1987, making the Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984 applicable to acquisitions under the Act from that date. Section 60A, inserted by the Amendment Act, made transitory provisions applicable to pending matters as of August 1, 1987. The District Judge applied the provisions of the Central LA Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 in awarding solatium, interest, and additional amounts. However, the Supreme Court held that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 would be applicable prospectively from August 1, 1987, and only to lands acquired thereafter. The District Judge's application of the Amendment Act on December 18, 1989, was deemed incorrect.2. Jurisdiction of the District Judge to award solatium, interest, and additional amounts under the amended Central LA Act:The District Judge awarded solatium, interest, and additional amounts under Sections 23 [2], 28, and 23 [1-A] of the Central LA Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The Supreme Court noted that the Act does not provide for payment of solatium and additional benefits, except for interest at 6% per annum from the date of taking possession. The District Judge inherently lacked jurisdiction to apply the provisions of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, making the order dated December 18, 1989, a nullity.3. Nullity of the decree and the right to raise objections in execution proceedings:The Supreme Court held that a decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, including during execution or collateral proceedings. The nullity of the decree can be raised in execution under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court emphasized that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was not applicable to lands acquired under the Act before August 1, 1987, and any award of additional benefits under the Amendment Act was without jurisdiction and thus a nullity.4. Abatement of the appeal due to the death of the respondent and the substitution of legal representatives:The respondent died on February 17, 1995, during the pendency of the special leave petition. The appellant filed an application for substitution under Order 22 Rule 4, CPC, within 30 days of gaining knowledge of the death, thus preventing abatement of the appeal. The Supreme Court found no force in the contention that the appeal had abated and ordered the substitution of the legal representatives.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the District Judge and the High Court. The executing court was directed to recompute the liability of the appellant to pay compensation and interest at 6% from the date of taking possession (June 22, 1965) and to order execution accordingly. If restitution was found necessary, it was to be ordered under Section 144, CPC. The District Judge was instructed to correct the decree and recompute the liability to pay compensation in light of the law declared by the Supreme Court. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.