<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (4) TMI 521 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282277</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:39:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=581840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 521 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282277</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>