IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2010 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 839 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02/08/2006 IN EP. 310 /2002 IN LAR.48/1989 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVISANKAR RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDERS ----------------------------- 1. PAILO, S/O.VARKEY, NADKKAL VEEDU, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ATHIRAMPUZHA, ATHIRAMPUZHA KARA. 2. THE REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, ATHIRAMPUZHA KARA. ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R2 SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB FOR R1 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-3-2010 , THE COURT ON 23/03/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= C.R.P. No. 839 of 2007 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2010 O R D E R Order in E.P. No.310 of 2002 in L.A.R.No.48 of 1989 on the file of the Prl. Sub Court, Kottayam is assailed in this revision petition. 2. The decree holder filed an execution petition as E.P. No.310 of 2002 before the Prl. Sub Court, Kottayam for realization of the award. He claimed an amount of Rs.1,75,454/- as compensation. State, based on the claim, pointed out that the calculation made was not correct. Claimant filed revised statement dated 22-2-2006, as per which, the amount of Rs.1,95,173 was due to him. According to the State, no amount was due to the claimant. The Execution Court was, therefore, called upon to ascertain the actual amount due to the claimant. The court below came to the conclusion that the enhanced market CRP 839/07 2 value was Rs.50,791/-, 30% solatium was Rs.15,237 and 12% increase was R.10,586/- and thus a total amount to Rs.76,614/- was due to the claimant. The court below found that the claimant was entitled to interest on solatium. 3. State resisted the claim pointing out that the claimant is not entitled to interest on solatium and 12% increase. 4. The court below in its order observed that the decree provides for interest on solatium and 12% increase and so, the amount determined by the court below is due to the claimant. The balance amount found due was Rs.48,418/-. That was directed to be deposited by the judgment debtor/ State. 5. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the observation of the court below that decree provides for interest on solatium and 12% increase is not correct and it does not provide so. Relying on the decision of the apex court in Gurpreet Singh V. Union of India (2006)8 SCC 457), it is contended that unless decree provided for solatium and CRP 839/07 3 12% enhancement, Execution Court cannot go beyond the decree. It is, therefore, contended that the order is unsustainable in law. 6. On the contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder pointed out that the very same decision deals with the matter in extenso in paragraph 54 of the decision. It is contended that unless there is specific rejection or implication, the Execution Court can grant the claim for interest on solatium. 7. Decision relied on by both sides indicates that unless decree provides for interest on solatium, it may not be granted. At the same time it is also stated that the Execution Court can go into the question whether the award or appellate order from the award specifically or impliedly rejects the claim. The case on hand the court below has kept in mind the principles laid down in the decision already referred to. Hence, the matter requires reconsideration. 8. In the result, this petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Pr. Sub CRP 839/07 4 Court, Kottayam for fresh consideration, in the light of the observations made in this order. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mn.