IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2010 / 28TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18655 of 2010(F) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN EP 13/2005 IN LAR.8/2000 of SUB COURT, TIRUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANJALAMKUZHI ALI, BYMUKTHIAR AGENT ACHAMBATTU ABDUL SALAM, S/O.HAMSAKOYA, NADUVATTOM AMSOM DESOM, TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR LA (KSEB) KOZHIKODE. BY SHRI P.P. THAJUDEEN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2010, ALONG WITH WPC 18729/2010 & 18745/2010, THE COURT ON 18/06/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) Nos. 18655/2010-F, 18729/2010-M & 18745/2010-P - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 18th day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT These matters arise in execution. The petitioners are claimants in various Land Acquisition References. The court below had granted enhanced compensation. In execution, the claimants claimed solatium for the amount of compensation awarded under 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The same stands rejected by the execution court as per the impugned orders. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. The court below rejected the claim in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and another (AIR 1992 SC 473) and P. Ramareddy and others v. Land Acquisition Officer {(1995) 2 SCC 305}. The view taken is that the amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) is not part of the market value and therefore solatium is not payable on the said amount. 3. In Mohinder Singh Randhawa's case (AIR 1992 SC 473), it was held in para 5 that the amount referred to in Section 23 (1-A) is not a wpc 18655, 18729& 18745 of 2010 2 part of market value and therefore calculation of solatium would not take into account that amount. The same is the view taken in the later decision in P. Ramareddy's case {(1995) 2 SCC 305} also. 4. In view of the above settled position, the court below was right in rejecting the claim for grant of solatium. In that view of the matter, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/