Civil Revision No.2310 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 16.9.2009 Civil Revision No.2310 of 2009 (O&M) The Chairman, Improvement Trust, Khanna ......petitioner Versus Suraj Parakash and others .......Respondents Civil Revision No.2923 of 2009 (O&M) The Chairman, Improvement Trust, Khanna ......petitioner Versus Suraj Parakash and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. R.S.Cheema, Advocate. for the petitioner. **** SABINA, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 2310 of 2009 and 2923 of 2009 as these have arisen out of the same proceedings. Civil Revision No.2310 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Civil Revision No.2310 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner-Improvement Trust, Khanna challenging order dated 17.12.2008 on the ground that, while dismissing the objections filed by the judgment debtor/ petitioner, the Executing Court had travelled beyond the scope of the award. Civil Revision No. 2923 of 2009 has been filed against the order dated 23.12.2008, whereby the execution petition was dismissed by the Executing Court, Ludhiana being partly satisfied, in view of the statement made by the decree holder. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petitions are devoid of any merit and deserve dismissal. As per the award dated 22.10.1986, Land Acquisition Tribunal, Khanna Improvement Trust, Ludhiana determined the compensation of the acquired land as under:- “ For the forgoing reasons, the compensation of the acquired land of the petitioners touching the GT Road upto the depth of 26 feet from the GT Road is assessed at the rate of Rs.39/- per sq.yard and of the remaining land at the rate of Rs.26/- per sq. yard. The petitioners are also entitled to an amount equal to twelve percent per annum over the said compensation from 14.9.1973 till the date of the pronouncement of the award or their dispossession, whichever is earlier. They shall also be Civil Revision No.2310 of 2009 (O&M) 3 entitled to thirty percent solatium over and above the compensation besides interest at the rate of nine percent per annum for the first year from the date of their dispossession and fifteen percent onwards till the date of payment. They shall also be entitled to costs of these references. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs. 200/- in each reference.” The claimants filed execution petitions. In review petition filed before the Apex Court, it was held that the direction given by the High Court regarding payment of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% and 15% as per the provisions of Section 23 (2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by the 1984 Act is restored. Learned Executing Court has observed in the impugned order that the judgement debtor had not submitted the calculations in compliance with the orders of the Apex Court. In fact, the calculations had been submitted in terms of the order dated 5.1.1995 passed by the Apex Court instead of order passed by the Apex Court in review on 10.3.1997. The judgement debtor had failed to calculate interest on the solatium. It has been held by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 207, in para 54, as under:- “One other question also was sought to be raised and Civil Revision No.2310 of 2009 (O&M) 4 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 Civil Revision No.2310 of 2009 (O&M) 5 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 (Septem 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.” However, in the present case there is nothing on record to suggest that the interest on the solatium was not liable to be granted to the claimants. Hence, the decree holder is entitled to claim interest on solatium. The Executing Court dismissed the execution petition being partly satisfied vide order dated 23.12.2008 in view of the statement made by the decree holder. No interference by this Court is called for. Accordingly, both these petitions are dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 16, 2009 anita Civil Revision No.2310 of 2009 (O&M) 6