Jurisdictional nullity in acquisition awards allows execution objections and blocks solatium and amended Land Acquisition Act benefits.

Benefits of solatium, additional amount and enhanced interest under the amended Land Acquisition Act were not payable where acquisition proceeded under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959, because that statute did not authorise those benefits and the Rajasthan Amendment Act, 1987 applied only prospectively to matters pending from 1 August 1987. The award extending Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 reliefs beyond the governing scheme was therefore without jurisdiction. A decree or award made without inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity may be raised in execution under Section 47 CPC. The executing court was required to entertain the objection and recompute liability under the correct acquisition law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the additional benefits of solatium, interest and additional amount under the amended Land Acquisition Act could be applied to acquisition under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959; (ii) Whether the objection that the decree was a nullity could be raised in execution under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the additional benefits of solatium, interest and additional amount under the amended Land Acquisition Act could be applied to acquisition under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act did not provide for solatium or additional amount and allowed interest only at 6% from the date of possession. The Rajasthan Amendment Act of 1987 introduced the applicability of the Central amendment prospectively from 1 August 1987 and made it applicable only to matters pending on that date. The award granting benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was therefore made without jurisdiction insofar as it extended those benefits to this acquisition.

Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on this issue and the additional benefits were held not to be payable.

Issue (ii): Whether the objection that the decree was a nullity could be raised in execution under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: A decree passed without inherent jurisdiction is a nullity and may be challenged whenever its enforcement is sought, including in execution proceedings. Since the award of additional benefits was beyond jurisdiction, the defect went to the root of the court's authority and was not merely an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction. The executing court was therefore required to examine the objection under Section 47 and recompute liability in accordance with the correct legal position.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to raise the objection in execution and the contrary view was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order granting statutory benefits under the amended Land Acquisition Act was set aside, the execution objections were maintainable, and the matter was directed to be recomputed limited to compensation and interest under the governing acquisition law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a decree grants benefits beyond the substantive jurisdiction conferred by the governing acquisition statute, the decree is a nullity and its invalidity may be raised in execution under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---