Delhi High Court
Shri Rampat vs Union Of India on 23 November, 2011
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 23.11.2011
+ CM(M) No.1411/2010
SHRI RAMPAT ...........Appellants
Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya and Mr. Sunil
Dahiya, Advocates.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..........Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Sanjay
Kumar Pathak, Mr. Mohitrao
Jadhav and Ms. Navlin Swain,
Advocates for respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1. The issue to be decided is as to whether the interest on
solatium under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as the „LAC Act‟) is payable in the instant case.
2. Arguments addressed by both the parties have been
appreciated.
3. The order impugned is the order dated 20.4.2010 wherein
certain facts are undisputed. The land was acquired vide a
notification pursuant to which an Award was passed by the Land
Acquisition Collector (LAC). Dissatisfied with the assessment
made by the LAC; reference petition under Section 18 of the LAC
Act was filed by the decree holder which was disposed of on
8.04.1994. Execution was filed which was disposed of on
24.10.1998. Thereafter the petitioner claimed interest on the
market value w.e.f. 24.10.1998 till payment of 20.12.2000.
Impunged order had rejected this calim.
4. The decree in this case admittedly had not made any
reference to interest on solatium or any additional amount;
interest on compensation alone had been awarded. In this context
the judgment of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC
457 is holding the fort as on date on the question of interest on
solatium. Its relevant extract reads as follows:
"One other question also was sought to be raised and answered
by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question
arises in various cases pending in Courts all over the country, we
permitted counsel to address us on that question. That question is
whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), the
awardee/decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in
execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well
settled that an execution court cannot go behind the decree. If,
therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the
same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by
the judgment or decree of the reference court or of the appellate court,
the execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest
on solatium based on Sunder (supra) on the ground that the execution
court cannot go behind the decree. But if the award of the reference
court or that of the appellate court does not specifically refer to the
question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been
made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the reference court
or the appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded,
then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder
(supra) and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in
such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited
in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on
solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed
executions and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery
from the date of the judgment in Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not
for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-
appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder.
This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of
our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a
view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question."
5. This judgment was delivered on 19.10.2006 when
admittedly no execution was pending. Contention of the decree
holder is that his application dated 07.12.2004 was yet pending;
even presuming that this be treated as a pending application, in
view of the judgment of the ratio of Gurmeet Singh (supra) where
the reference court or the appellant court has not specifically
referred to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where
the claim has not been made or rejected either expressly or
impliedly by the reference court or the appellate court and
merely interest on compensation is awarded then it will be open to
the executing court to apply the ratio of Sunder (supra) as the
compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event
interest on the amount can be directed to be paid which would be
only from the date of the judgment of Sunder (supra) i.e. from
19.9.2001 and not from any period prior thereto. Court had in
fact noted that in this case the entire amount of solatium had
already been paid to the decree holder prior to the judgment of
Sunder (supra) which fact is undisputed. Impugned order
dismissing the application of the decree holder thus suffers from
no infirmity.
6. Petition is dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2011
nandan
