Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus KARAM SINGH AND ORS.

Decided
7 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Leave Granted & Allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 686 · 1997 INSC 382

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned. Substitution ordered. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.

pp. 686–687, margin G

Under Section 7 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, the property in question was acquired for public purpose. The Land Acquisition 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. On appeal, the learned Single Judge set aside the award of the arbitrator and awarded the enhanced compensation uniformly at the rate 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.

p. 687, margin A

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 allowed. On revision the High Court by the impugned order dated 13th May, 1987, dismissed the same. Thus, this· appeal by special leave.

p. 687, margin C

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 solatium and interest exercising the power under 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.

p. 687, margin D

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

p. 687, margin F