Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from acquisition of lands under the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The arbitrator and the High Court had awarded enhanced solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the High Court and the arbitrator, holding that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 have no application to an award passed under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, and consequently the direction for payment of solatium and interest was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The petitioners then filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging that Supreme Court order as a nullity or otherwise incorrect. The core legal issue was whether a writ petition under Article 32 lies against a judgment and order of the Supreme Court passed under Article 136. The Court referred to Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCR 482, which held that a writ petition challenging the validity of an order and judgment passed by the Supreme Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained, and that dismissal would not prejudice the right to file a review petition or other legally available application. Following that ratio and the decision in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, W.P (C) No.803 of 1995, which relied on M/s. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 1 SCC 574, the Court held that a judgment and order passed under Article 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Scope of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 32, 136 - A writ petition under Article 32 challenged an order of the Supreme Court passed under Article 136 allowing an appeal and setting aside awards of enhanced solatium and interest under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 in respect of lands acquired under Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Relying on Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India and Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Registrar General, the Court held that a judgment or order of the Supreme Court under Article 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32; the remedy lies in review petition or other legally available application. Held, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution lies to challenge the validity of a judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court under Article 136, specifically one setting aside enhanced solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The judgment and order of the Supreme Court passed under Article 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Law Points
- Judgment/order of Supreme Court under Article 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of Constitution
- Writ petition under Article 32 cannot challenge correctness of a Supreme Court order
- Remedy against such order is review petition or other legally available application
- Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984 and Land Acquisition Act
- 1894 do not apply to awards under Section 8 of Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act
- 1952
