Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA & ANR versus KARAN SINGH & ORS

Supreme Court Cases

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UNION OF INDIA & ANR V. KARAN SINGH & ORS [1997] RD-SC 399 (7 April 1997)

K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

O R D E R Delay condoned. Substitution ordered.

Leave granted.

We have learned counsel on both sides.

Under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, the property in question Collector determined the compensation which the respondents had received under protest; and on being dissatisfied the respondents filed objections and arbitrator was appointed who, by his Award dated July 6, 1982 enhanced the compensation at different rates. rates. On appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the arbitrator and awarded the enhanced compensation uniformly at the fate of Rs.3,000/- per kanal. Letter Patent Appeal against the same was dismissed on 10th January, 1985 It appears that the amount awarded was deposited in court on March 14, 1986.

However, on January 2, 1987 the respondents filed an application under Sections 151 & 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the District Judge for direction to grant enhanced solatium and interest in view of the Amendment Act, i.e., Act 68 of 1984 which was of allowed, On revision the High Court by the impugned order dated 13th May, 1987, dismissed the same. Thus, appeal by special leave.

It is now well settled legal position in law that under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, there is no provision to pay enhanced solatium and interest; and Amendment Act, I.e. Act 68 of 1984 has no application. It is also well settled legal position that the grant of solatium and interest is an integral part of the process of determination of compensation. The District Court has no jurisdiction to amend the award and to grant Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The High Court, therefore, has committed manifest error of jurisdiction in not removing the error committed by the Tribunal.

Under the circumstances the appeals are allowed to the extent of grant of grant of enhanced solatium and interest, but in the circumstances, without costs.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.