IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 RP.No. 1030 of 2008() --------------------- (LA.A. NO.151/1998 IN LAR NO.6/1984 OF THE SUB COURT, MANJERI. ) REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT: ---------------------- BOBBAN VALLIKKAPPAN, S/O. DEVASSIA, KARUVARAKUNDU, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ----------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLCTOR, MALAPPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHANAN THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ------------------------ R.P.No.1030 OF 2008 in L.A.A. NO.151 OF 1998 ------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 ORDER Pius C.Kuriakose, J. The appellant/claimant seeks review of the judgment of this court mainly on the ground that this court went wrong in deleting the amounts otherwise due to the appellant towards interest on solatium. 2. We have heard the submissions of Sri.Babu S.Nair, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri.V.T.K.Mohanan, learned senior Government Pleader for the respondent. Drawing our attention to the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489 (SC), Sri. Babu S.Nair submitted that in the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench it has to be held that claimant is entitled for interest on the solatium component of the enhanced compensation. 3. The above submission of Sri.Babu S.Nair was opposed strongly by the learned Government Pleader on the authority of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurpreeth Singh v. Union RP.No.1030/2008 2 of India (2006(8) Supreme Court Cases 457). The learned Government Pleader submitted that the Supreme Court has, in the above decision, held that 19/9/2001 is the cut off date and also that closed matters cannot be reopened. Sri.Babu S.Nair submitted that the present case cannot be said to be a closed matter since the execution petition filed by the Government for recovery of what was originally paid to the review petitioner is pending. The Government Pleader sought for time to verify the correctness of the submission that the execution petition is pending. 4. We are not inclined to accept the submission of Sri.Babu S.Nair that execution petition filed by the Government seeking recovery of the amount from the review petition is pending. Under the above circumstances, we are inclined to allow the review petition and review the judgment to the extent of clarifying that the claimant/ appellant will be entitled for interest on the solatium component of the total enhanced compensation. In all other respects, the judgment will stand confirmed. It is made clear that this order will not enable the review petitioner to claim any further amounts from the Government. This order will RP.No.1030/2008 3 enable him only to defend the execution petition filed by the Government to the extent the amount sought to be recovered are amounts already paid towards interest on solatium. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE dpk