IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2011 / 28TH ASHADHA 1933 RP.No. 363 of 2011(O) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OPC.1141/2011 Dated 22/03/2011 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SMT.MARIYAMMA, D/O.KURIAN PANJIKKARAN R/A.KOCHUPARAMBIL VEEDU,VADAKKUMBHAGAM KARA, ANIKKATTU,CHENGALAM EAST VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM REP.BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VARKEY PANJIKKARAN AGED 65 YEARS, PANJIKKARAN HOUSE, KAZHAKKOOTTAM(PO MEENAMKULAM, TRIVANDRUM BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SRI.JIMMY GEORGE (THADATHIL) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM GP SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------------------------------- RP No.363 of 2011 in OP(C) No.1141/11 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of July 2011 Order This Review Petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.03.2011 in OP(C) No.1141/11 passed by this Court. By the said judgment, this Court confirmed the order passed by the execution Court - Ext.P11 produced in the original petition. 2. According to the review petitioner, several vital aspects have been omitted to be noticed by this Court while disposing of the original petition. The learned counsel for the review petitioner relied on the decision in Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211) and contended that the execution Court was not justified in confining the benefit provided under the interest on solatium amount from 19.09.2001 since the decision did not lay down any fixed date from which the benefit is to flow. It is further pointed out that the re-appreciation/fresh appreciation directed by the execution Court is also incorrect. These aspects were highlighted at the time of hearing of the RP 363/11 in OPC 1141/11 2 OP, but they were omitted to be noticed and that is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, a review of the judgment is called for. 3. The review petition is without any merits whatsoever. In the decision reported in Sunder's case, all that was stated was that the amount awarded in S.34 means the aggregate amount of compensation calculated in accordance with the provisions of all the subsections of S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The question as to how it should be applied in pending cases and also in cases pending in execution, was considered in the decision reported in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457). 4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner pointed out that the land was acquired in 1987 and till date, he is not paid the entire amount. Going by the decision in Sunder's case (supra), he is entitled to the benefit of that decision. Paragraph 54 of the decision in Gurpreet Singh's case reads as follows : “54. 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 RP 363/11 in OPC 1141/11 3 pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder, 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 of interest on solatium based on Sunder 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 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 (19.9.2001) 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 Article 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question.” 5. The learned counsel pointed out that there was no justification for limiting the claim from 19.09.2001 since in Sunder's case, no such date has been prescribed. It must be noticed that in Gurpreet Singh's case, in the light of the various issues raised before Court, the Apex Court considered the right of the claimant to claim interest at the time of execution also. In RP 363/11 in OPC 1141/11 4 that context, it was held that the execution Court, to a certain extent, can go behind the decree subject to the conditions laid down in the decision. All that the lower appellate Court has done is to apply the ratio of the said decision. There is no error apparent on the face of the record as contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner. The review petition is without any merits and it is accordingly dismissed. P.Bhavadasan, Judge sta RP 363/11 in OPC 1141/11 5