Judgment Ram Nandan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 30th September, 1983, passed by the Land Acquisition Judge, Biharshariff, in Execution Case No. 1S4 of 1979 whereby he dismissed the execution petition filed by the appellant as not maintainable in the eye of law. It appears that 58.76 acres of land appertaining to Khata No. 332 of Mouza Rajgir was acquired under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the" Act) by the State of Bihar for which an award was prepared under Section 11 of the Act in the name of State of Bihar. The compensation money awarded by the Collector was Rs. 46187/ only. The claimant, however, filed an objection before the Collector for making a reference under Section 30 of the Act to the Civil Court, as the land acquired belonged to him and he alone was entitled to the compensation money. 2. Accordingly, a reference was made by the Collector under Section 30 of the Act to the civil court which was disposed of by the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Biharshariff, in Land Acquisition Case No. 2022/56 of 1960/78. By his judgment and decree the learned Judge declared that the appellant alone was entitled to get the award-money and he directed that the award-money along with solatium and interest be paid to him within 90 days from the date of his order. The court also awarded costs to the appellant. From the decree it appears that the appellant was awarded solatium at 15% amounting to Rs. 6928.05 paise and the interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of the decree amounting to Rs. 64,446.26 paise, besides the compensation amount of Rs. 46,187/- awarded by the Collector and the cost of that proceeding amounting to Rs. 70.55 paise. When the decretal dues, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge, were not paid, the appellant filed an execution petition before that court which was numbered as Execution Case No. 184 of 1979. 64,446.26 paise, besides the compensation amount of Rs. 46,187/- awarded by the Collector and the cost of that proceeding amounting to Rs. 70.55 paise. When the decretal dues, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge, were not paid, the appellant filed an execution petition before that court which was numbered as Execution Case No. 184 of 1979. The State of Bihar objected to the execution of this decree on the ground that the learned Land Acquisition Judge had no jurisdiction to award solatium and interest while considering a reference under Section 30 of the Act and as such the award or decree made by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in respect of solatium and interest could not be executed. This submission found favour with the executing court. He, further found that the execution could not proceed as the compensation money had already been deposited by the Collector on 14-9-60. He, therefore, dismissed the execution petition as not maintainable in the eye of law. The appellant has come up to this Court and has challenged the decision given by the learned executing court. 3. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is that since the State of Bihar did not prefer any appeal against the order and award given by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, they became final and could not be challenged at the execution stage, as the executing court could not go behind the decree and as such it could not go into the question as to whether the learned Land Acquisition Judge had the authority to award solatium and interest or not and whether his order in that regard was invalid and unenforceable. 4. It is the undisputed position that the State did not prefer any appeal against the order and the award given by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and as such they became final. But simply because the award has become final, it cannot be said that the same cannot be challenged at the stage of execution under any circumstance. 5. It is true that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and it must take the decree as it stands. But, this is not an absolute proposition of law and there is an exception to that. 5. It is true that the executing court cannot go behind the decree and it must take the decree as it stands. But, this is not an absolute proposition of law and there is an exception to that. It is an established principle of law that an executing court can refuse to execute the decree passed by the court if it is without jurisdiction and, therefore, a nullity. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan that a decree passed by a Court without jurisdiction is a nullity and that its invalidity could be set up wherever and whenever it is sought to be enforced, whether in execution or in collateral proceedings, but where the defect in jurisdiction was of a kind which fell within the saving of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act, it could not be raised except in the manner, and subject to the conditions mentioned therein. So, the legal position which emerges is that the executing court can go into the question as to whether the decree is without jurisdiction and is nullity and, if it finds so, it can refuse to execute the decree. 6. This brings us to the question as to whether the order and award of the learned Land Acquisition Judge in respect of solatium and interest are nullity. It is the admitted position that the reference which was made to the civil court in the present case was a reference under Section 30 of the Act. As stated above, the award was prepared by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act in the name of State of Bihar alone. The appellant filed an objection claiming to be entitled to the whole compensation money on the plea that he was in possession of the land by virtue of settlement by the ex-landlord. As said above, this plea of the appellant has been accepted by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and it has become final, as the respondent did not prefer any appeal against that order. As said above, this plea of the appellant has been accepted by the learned Land Acquisition Judge and it has become final, as the respondent did not prefer any appeal against that order. The submission of the respondent, however, is that in a reference under Section 30 of the Act, the civil court had no jurisdiction to award solatium and interest and as such the order and award in respect thereof are without jurisdiction and this infirmity rendered the award incapable of execution in respect thereof. 7. The question as to whether the compensation money awarded by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act could or could not be increased by the civil court in a reference under Section 30 of the Act came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kankarathnamma and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. and the learned court observed as follows: ...Thus the matter goes to the court only upon a reference made by the Collector. It is only after such a reference is made that the court is empowered to determine the objections made by a claimant to the award. Section 21 restricts the scope of the proceedings before the court to consideration of the contentions of the persons affected by the objection. These provisions thus leave no doubt that the jurisdiction of the court arises solely on the basis of a reference made to it. No doubt, the Land Acquisition Officer has made a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act but that reference was only in regard to the apportionment of the compensation amongst the various claimants. Such a reference would certainly not invest the court with the jurisdiction to consider a matter not directly connected with it. This is really not a mere technicality for as pointed out by the Privy Council in Nusserwanjee Pestonjee and Ors. v. Meer Mynoodeen Khan Wullud Meer Sudroodeen Khan Bahadoor 6 M.I.A. 134 at 155. where ever jurisdiction is given by a statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained therein it is a universal principle that those terms should be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, and if they are not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise. where ever jurisdiction is given by a statute and such jurisdiction is only given upon certain specified terms contained therein it is a universal principle that those terms should be complied with, in order to create and raise the jurisdiction, and if they are not complied with the jurisdiction does not arise. This was, therefore, a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction and the failure of the State to object to the proceedings before the court on the ground of an absence of reference in so far as the determination of compensation was concerned cannot amount to waiver or acquiescence. Indeed, when there is an absence of inherent jurisdiction the defect cannot be waived nor can be cured by acquiescance. 8. The court further held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to determine the amount of compensation and thus go behind the order of the Land Acquisition Officer. So, according to this decision of the final court of the land, the jurisdiction of the civil court is limited to the terms of the reference and, therefore, the court had no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect of anything which was beyond the terms of the reference and if it passes any order beyond the terms of the reference, the order would be without jurisdiction, and a nullity as there was absence of inherent jurisdiction in the court to pass an order like that. 9. Thus, it is clear that a civil court could not increase the compensation money awarded by the Collector while dealing with a reference made under Section 30 of the Act and that the civil court cannot pass any order in respect of any matter which was beyond the terms of reference under Section 30 of the Act. Section 30 of the Act is as follows: 30. Dispute as to apportionment.--When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. 10. Dispute as to apportionment.--When the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court. 10. From the words used in this section it is apparent that the only dispute which is referred under this Section 30 to the civil court is the dispute regarding apportionment of the compensation money or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof is payable. So, what the civil court has to decide in a reference under Section 30 of the Act is as to who is entitled to the compensation settled under Section 11 and in what proportion. The court is not authorised to reopen the quantum of compensation under the terms of this section, as the dispute regarding quantum of compensation can be referred to the civil court only under Section 18 of the Act. In the present case it is the undisputed position that no reference under Section 18 of the Act has been made and, so, apparently the Land Acquisition Judge could not in the present case reopen the quantum of compensation or add anything to the quantum of compensation awarded under Section 11. What, however, appears from the order and the award given by the learned Land Acquisition Judge is that he has awarded solatium at 15% and interest at 6% which obviously he could not do in a reference under Section 30 of the Act as these two subjects were beyond the scope of the term of reference under Section 30. The question as to whether the interest could be awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in a reference under Section 30 of the Act came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Mohammad Anwar Hasan v. Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, and Ors. The question as to whether the interest could be awarded by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in a reference under Section 30 of the Act came up for consideration before a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Mohammad Anwar Hasan v. Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, and Ors. It has been observed by the learned Judge that: It is true that the petitioner is entitled under Section 34 to the payment of interest in the circumstances and for the period mentioned in that Section; but it seems to me that the learned 2nd Additional District Judge was right in holding that he had no power to direct the Collector to deposit in Court the amount of interest payable under that section 11. The learned Judge has, further observed that the court cannot demand from the Collector deposit of any amount in excess of compensation fixed in the award under Section 11 of the Act. I respectfully agree with this view. 12. Thus, it is evident that the direction regarding payment of solatium and interest is beyond the scope of a reference under Section 30 of the Act and as such the civil court cannot pass any order for payment of solatium and interest while dealing with a reference under Section 30. Since the civil court has no jurisdiction to determine this question and to give any direction in respect thereof, the order of the learned Land Acquisition Judge in the present case directing payment to the appellant the award money along with solatium and interest is clearly without jurisdiction. When there was absence of inherent jurisdiction to give any direction in respect of these two items, the order of the learned Land Acquisition Judge in respect of these two items must be held to be a nullity. It is true that the respondent did not prefer any appeal against the order of the learned Land Acquisition Judge, but that would not render the order and the award in respect of these two items also executable. If there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court, it goes to the root of the competence of the court and renders all acts of the court null and void and the decree passed by it becomes a nullity. If there is inherent lack of jurisdiction in the court, it goes to the root of the competence of the court and renders all acts of the court null and void and the decree passed by it becomes a nullity. A decree which is a nullity is void ab initio and can be declared to be void by every court in which it is presented. It is not necessary for the party aggrieved to get the decree so declared, as it can be challenged even in a collateral proceeding and the executing court can entertain an objection that the decree is a nullity and can refuse to execute it on that ground. In such a case there is no question of going behind the decree, for there is really no decree at all in the eye of law. 13. Since the order and the award of the learned Land Acquisition Judge suffer from want of inherent jurisdiction so far as they relate to the grant of solatium and interest, they must be held to be nullity to that extent and, therefore, the executing court was justified in refusing to execute the award in respect of these two items i.e., solatium and interest. So, the learned executing court to that extent is correct and his order in respect of these two items of the award in question is hereby affirmed. 14. It, however, appears that the learned Land Acquisition Judge had also awarded-costs of the proceeding to the appellant. It seems that the learned executing court has refused to execute the decree in respect of costs also without considering the question as to whether the decree (award) in this regard was executable or not. It is well-known that costs are awarded at the discretion of the court. In the present case, the award was prepared in the name of State of Bihar and the latter had resisted the claim of the appellant in the reference proceeding. In such a situation, the learned Land Acquisition Judge was quite justified in awarding the costs against the respondent, as the claim of the State was found to be unjustified. In any view of the matter, the award of costs by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in such a reference cannot be said to be a nullity, as there is no want of jurisdiction in him to pass an order for costs. In any view of the matter, the award of costs by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in such a reference cannot be said to be a nullity, as there is no want of jurisdiction in him to pass an order for costs. That being so, the executing court should not have refused to execute the claim of the appellant in respect of all the items and should have proceeded with the execution so far as the costs are concerned. 15. It appears from the order under appeal that the learned executing court has observed that the learned Land Acquisition Officer has already deposited the amount of compensation-vide cheque No. 60 dated 14-9-60. This fact has been disputed on behalf of the appellant and according to him no such deposit has been made. The learned Government Pleader No. 5 could not produce any evidence to show that the deposit was actually made. In such circumstances, the executing court is directed to enquire into the matter and be satisfied regarding deposit of compensation money. If he finds that the deposit has already been made, he shall proceed with the execution only with regard to the costs, but if he finds that the compensation money has not been deposited, he shall proceed with the execution proceeding with regard to the compensation amount also, besides the costs. If the compensation money has not been deposited, as alleged, the appellant shall be entitled to interest also, at 6% per annum on the compensation from the date of the reference till the said amount is deposited by the respondent. 16. In the result, the appeal succeeds to the extent indicated above and is dismissed with regard to the execution of the amount awarded as solatium and interest except as indicated above if the compensation money has not been already deposited. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.