Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from execution proceedings concerning compensation for land acquired under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 for construction of an over-bridge. The land of the first respondent was acquired under Section 52 of the Act and possession was taken on June 22, 1965. The Additional Collector made an award on June 30, 1976, which was enhanced by the District Judge on January 27, 1978 to Rs.2 per square foot. After remand by the High Court, the District Judge further enhanced compensation to Rs.11.50 per square foot on November 19, 1985. Later, the High Court by order dated December 18, 1989 applied the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 and awarded solatium, interest and additional amount under Sections 23(2), 28 and 23(1-A). The appellant had paid certain amounts in 1977 and 1982, and execution proceedings were initiated by the respondent. The appellant filed objections under Section 47 CPC claiming that the additional benefits were not payable under the Rajasthan Act and that excess amounts had been paid. The District Judge dismissed the objections and the High Court dismissed the revision. The first respondent died during pendency of the special leave petition. On the question of abatement, the Supreme Court held that under Order 22 Rule 10A CPC the counsel had a duty to inform about death, but since the appellant's counsel had no knowledge until dasti service was attempted, the application for substitution filed within 30 days of knowledge was not barred by limitation and there was no abatement. On merits, the Court held that the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act did not provide for solatium and additional amount but only interest at 6% per annum. The District Judge inherently lacked jurisdiction to apply the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, and the resulting decree was a nullity which could be challenged in execution under Section 47 CPC. Relying on Prem Nath Kapur and Raghubir Singh, the Court reiterated that claimants were not entitled to solatium or additional amount and that payments could not be appropriated towards interest. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Judge and High Court, and held that the respondent was entitled only to principal compensation and interest at 6% per annum from the date of possession, with the appellant entitled to refund of excess amounts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Abatement and Substitution - Order 22 Rules 4 and 10A CPC - Death of respondent pending appeal and limitation for substitution - Supreme Court held that the appellant's counsel had no knowledge of death until dasti service was attempted and application under Order 22 Rule 4 was filed within 30 days of knowledge; the State is not expected to keep vigil over survival of respondent and lapse of counsel to intimate cannot be imputed as knowledge; no abatement occurred (Paras Not mentioned). B) Land Acquisition - Compensation and Additional Benefits - Sections 23(1), 23(1-A), 23(2), 28 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984; Section 52 of Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 - Applicability of central amendment to state acquisition - Court held that the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act did not provide for solatium and additional amount and empowered only interest at 6%; the District Judge's award of additional benefits under Central Amendment Act 68 of 1984 was without jurisdiction and a nullity; such nullity could be raised in execution under Section 47 CPC (Paras Not mentioned). C) Execution - Objections under Section 47 CPC - Challenge to decree as nullity - Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - An executing court can entertain objections that a decree is a nullity for want of inherent jurisdiction even if the decree has become final; the objections did not amount to review and were maintainable (Paras Not mentioned). D) Interest and Appropriation - Adjustment of Payments - Section 60 of Contract Act; Order 21 Rule 1 CPC - Principles of appropriation - Court relied on Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation to hold that claimant cannot appropriate amounts paid towards principal as against interest; each component of compensation is independent and interest is not payable on solatium or additional amount; appellant's computation of excess amount and refund entitlement accepted (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the executing court could entertain objections under Section 47 CPC challenging a decree awarding solatium, interest and additional amount under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 when the Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act, 1959 did not provide for such benefits; whether the appeal abated due to death of respondent and delay in substitution; whether payments made should be adjusted towards principal or interest.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Judge and High Court, and held that the executing court could entertain objections to a decree that was a nullity for inherent lack of jurisdiction. The respondent was entitled only to principal compensation and interest at 6% per annum from the date of possession, and was not entitled to solatium, additional amount or interest thereon under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. The appellant was entitled to refund of excess amounts paid.
Law Points
- Executing court can examine nullity of decree for inherent lack of jurisdiction
- Rajasthan Urban Improvement Act 1959 does not provide solatium or additional amount
- only interest at 6% per annum
- Amendment Act 68 of 1984 not applicable to acquisitions under state Act before effective date
- claimant cannot appropriate principal amount towards interest
- substitution application within 30 days of knowledge of death prevents abatement
