1996 JTR(SC) 330
1996 2 CLT(SC) 171 ; 1996 2 CurLJ 155 ; 1996 2 EastCrC(SC) 238 ; 1996 2 ICC 138 ; 1996 2 JT 548 ; 1996 2 RRR 324 ; 1996 2 Scale 275 ; 1996 3 SCC 117 ; 1996 1 UJ 671 ; 1996 2 Supreme 256
1996(2) SUPREME 256
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Gurbachan Singh and Anr. -Petitioners
versus
Union of India & Anr. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 782 of 1994
Decided on 9-2-1996
W.P. (C) No. 803 of 1995 Decided on 5-12-1995.
IMPORTANT POINT
The Judgment and order of Supreme Court passed under Section 136 of Constitution is not amenable to Judicial reviewed under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.136, Art.130, Art.32
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.28, S.23
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) An order passed under Article 136 of the Constitution is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32. A writ petition challenging the correctness of a judgment or order as nullity is not maintainable.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed challenging an order passed under Article 136 allowing an appeal and setting aside an earlier order related to solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act as amended.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Amendment Act does not apply to awards under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act and that the direction for payment of interest and solatium was beyond jurisdiction. The writ petition challenging the nullity of the order cannot be entertained.
Issues:
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 lies against an order passed under Article 136 setting aside an earlier judgment and declaring it nullity.
Ratio Decidendi:
The judgment of this Court under Article 136 is a final judicial order and cannot be challenged or reviewed through a writ petition under Article 32, as it would undermine the hierarchy of remedies.
Result:
The writ petition is dismissed.
A) Relevant laws and sections are not explicitly cited in the judgment.
B) An order passed under Article 136 of the Constitution is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32. A writ petition challenging the correctness of a judgment or order as nullity is not maintainable.
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed challenging an order passed under Article 136 allowing an appeal and setting aside an earlier order related to solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act as amended.
Findings of Court:
The Court held that the Amendment Act does not apply to awards under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act and that the direction for payment of interest and solatium was beyond jurisdiction. The writ petition challenging the nullity of the order cannot be entertained.
Issues:
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 lies against an order passed under Article 136 setting aside an earlier judgment and declaring it nullity.
Ratio Decidendi:
The judgment of this Court under Article 136 is a final judicial order and cannot be challenged or reviewed through a writ petition under Article 32, as it would undermine the hierarchy of remedies.
Result:
The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER
This writ petition is filed against the order passed by this Court under Article 136 allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the High Court and the arbitrator awarding enhanced solatium and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by amendment Act 68 of 1984 in respect of lands acquired under Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act, 1952. A three-Judge Bench of this Court had held that the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has no application to the award passed under Section 8 of the Requisition and Acquisition of the Immovable Property Act. Consequently, the direction and order for the payment of interest and solatium was held to be without jurisdiction and, therefore, it would be nullity. The question then is : whether writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution would lie ?
2. Dealing with the same question of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. Union of India & Ors. etc.1, this Court had observed thus :
"In my view, the writ petition challenging the validity of the order and judgment passed by this Court as nullity or otherwise incorrect cannot be entertained. I wish to make it clear that the dismissal of this writ petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner, to approach the Court with an appropriate review petition or to file and other application which he may be entitled in law to file".
3. Following the above ratio, in Khoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. v. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India2, a three-Judge Bench (to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J. was a member) has held that after the decision of this Court in M/s. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.3 writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution canvassing the correctness of the decision of this Court, is not maintainable.
4. Thus the judgment and order of this Court passed under Article 136 is not amenable to judicial review under Article 32 of the Constitution.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed.
*******
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Gurbachan Singh and Anr. v. Union of India, 1996(2) Supreme 256 : JT 1996(2) SC 548