Present vs For The
2021 Latest Caselaw 829 Tri

                                 Page 1 of 2


                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                            AGARTALA

                             CRP 59 OF 2021

                             Union of India
                                   Vrs.
                      Smt. Ranjita Bala Banik & Ors.

Present:
    For the petitioner (s)     : Mr. B. Majumder, Asstt. S.G.

    For the respondent (s)     : None.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH 02.09.2021 Order Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned Asstt. S.G. appearing for the Union of India, the petitioner herein.

The only question raised in this revision petition is in regard to the direction of the Executive Court to pay interest on the amount of solatium part of the award. It is revealed from the calculation sheet which formed a part of the decree drawn by the Executing Court wherein the court had calculated taking into account 9% interest per annum on `2,71,153/- w.e.f. 05.03.1983 to 04.03.1984 (one year) and 15% interest per annum on `2,71,153/- w.e.f. 05.03.1984 to 06.03.1991( 2557 days). Again the decree says that 15% interest per annum on `2,17,860/- w.e.f. 07.03.1991 to 19.12.2008 (6493 days) are to be paid to the decree-holders.

The calculation sheet aptly reflects that the Executing Court while passing the decree calculated interest on solatium part also w.e.f. the date of acquisition of the land in question or the date of taking over of physical possession of the said land of the decree-holders. It is no more res integra, rather, by now it is settled that interest on solatium would be paid

on and from the date of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. The case of Sunder (supra) has further been considered recently by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Govt. of India vrs. Raj Devi alias Raj Kumari & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.4623 of 2021 (judgment dated August 05,2021) and reiterated and approved the principle laid down in the case of Sunder (supra) as stated hereinabove.

In view of this settled proposition of law, I do not find any necessity to issue notice upon the respondents because it would be an empty formality.

Having viewed thus, I direct the Executing Court to re- calculate the amount of compensation considering the payment of interest on solatium w.e.f. 19.09.2001 i.e. the date of passing the judgment of Sunder's case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

With the aforesaid direction, the instant revision petition stands allowed and disposed of.

Connected application(s) if any, shall also stand disposed.

JUDGE