Shri Ram Narain & Ors. vs Union Of India &Anr
2011 Latest Caselaw 5679 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 23.11.2011

+             CM(M) No.1347/2010 & CM(M) No.1348/2010

SHRI RAM NARAIN & ORS.                           ...........Appellants

                          Through:   Mr. I.S. Dahiya and Mr. Sunil
                                     Dahiya, Advocates.
              Versus
UNION OF INDIA &ANR                             ..........Respondens
                   Through:          Mr.   Sanjay     Poddar,   Sr.
                                     Advocate with Mr. Sanjay
                                     Kumar Pathak, Mr. Mohitrao
                                     Jadhav and Ms. Navlin Swain,
                                     Advocates for respondent R-1.
                                     Mr.Shobhana           Takiyar,
                                     Advocate for R-2.
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. Proceedings were under the Land Acquisition Act. Order

impugned is the order dated 23.10.2009. Certain dates are

undisputed. The Award was passed in this case on 17.3.1999.

Decree holder was dissatisfied by the Award made under the

provision of the Land Acquisition Act pursuant to which a

reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act

was filed which was disposed on 17.3.1999. Dissatisfied with the

compensation awarded by the reference court an appeal was filed

before the High Court which was disposed on 04.1.2001.

Execution petition was disposed of on 11.05.2001; amount in the

execution was also paid on 24.8.2005. A second execution

petition was filed on 01.12.2006 which was dismissed vide the

impugned order. The impugned order has correctly appreciated

that at the time when the judgment of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union

of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 was pronounced on 19.10.2006 nothing

was pending before the executing court. Para 54 of the judgment

of Gurmeet Singh (supra ) is relevant and reads herein as below:

"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."

4. In the instant case as decree holder was denied interest on

the solatium and the additional amount was also declined; remedy

thus was not to file a second execution. The executing court

cannot go behind the decree and as such where the claim for

interest on solatium has been made and has been negatived

expressly the execution court will have to necessarily reject the

claim for interest on solatium based on the judgment of Sunder

Vs. UOI reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211. The impugned order

suffers from no infirmity. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

NOVEMBER          23, 2011/nandan