IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2008 / 22ND SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 55 of 2002() -------------------- LAR.10/1988 of ADDL.SUB COURT, ALAPPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: /JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS: /DECREE HOLDER: ----------------- AYYAPPA KURUP CHANDRASEKHARA KURUP, KATTUNGAL VEEDU, KATTOOR, KALAVOOR. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.121 OF 2002 IN CRP.NO.55 OF 2002 DISMISSED 13.8.2008 SD/= (M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// PA. To Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.55 of 2002 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th August, 2008. O R D E R State has filed the revision petition challenging the order of Additional Sub Court, Alappuzha, in E.P.No.332 of 1997, fixing the balance amount due at Rs.57457.78. The amount was fixed by the executing court under an elaborate order dated, 13.9.1999. The executing court found that as per the decree, claimant is entitled to enhanced land value, solatium at 30% and benefit under Section 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, and also interest. Though the decree does not specifically provide for payment of interest on solatium as well as the benefit under sub- section (1A) of Section 23, it was provided in the decree that interest is payable on the excess sum. It was held that interest was for the entire excess sum and not excess market value, and so interest is payable on the entire compensation inclusive of the land value, solatium and benefit under Section 23(1A). It is on that basis, the balance amount was fixed. CRP. No.55 of 2002 2 2. Though notice was served on the respondent, he did not appear. Learned Government Pleader was heard. 3. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that as per the judgment in L.A.R.No.10/1988, dated, 30.9.1991, land value was enhanced to Rs.2000/=. The award reads “claimants are entitled to realise land value at the above rates. They are also entitled to get interest on the excess sum allowed by the court, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession to the date of payment or for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum”. It was pointed out that even enhanced solatium was not granted for the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by the judgment and subsequently the decree was amended as per order dated 12.11.1992 providing that claimants are entitled to 30% solatium for the enhanced market value and 12% increase on the enhanced market value from 10.9.1985 to 31.5.1987 and even at that stage, it does not provide that interest is payable on the solatium or the benefit CRP. No.55 of 2002 3 granted under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act, and, therefore, learned Sub Judge was not justified in holding that interest is payable on the entire compensation inclusive of solatium and also benefit under Section 23 (1A) of Land Acquisition Act. 4. The learned Government Pleader relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457), argued that when the judgment and decree do not provide for payment of interest on solatium and the benefit under Section 23 (1A), even though in view of the subsequent decision of the Apex court in Sundar v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489), is entitled to interest on solatium and benefit under Section 23 (1A), as explained in Gurupreet Singh's case (supra), interest is payable only from the date of the judgment in Sundar's case. 5. There is force in the submission. Though in Sundar's case, (supra), Apex Court held that interest is payable on the entire compensation inclusive of land value, solatium and CRP. No.55 of 2002 4 benefit under Section 23 (1A), in Gurpreet Singh's case, it was clarified that if the judgment and decree does not specifically provide for payment of interest on solatium and benefit under Section 23(1A), claimant is entitled to interest only from the date of the judgment in Sundar's case. As the award or decree does not specifically provide for payment of interest on solatium and benefit under Section 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act, as held in Gurpreet Singh's case, interest is payable only from the date of the judgment in Sundar's case. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the executing court is quashed. Learned Sub Judge is directed to pass fresh orders fixing the correct amount due, in accordance with the law explained by the Apex court in Sundar v. Union of India and Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India. Revision petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.55 of 2002 O R D E R Dated: 13th August, 2008. -------------------------------