IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 CRP.No. 1820 of 2003 ---------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/04/2003 IN EP.78/2002 IN LAR.90/1992 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR ) REVN. PETITIONER & L.R.S OF REVISION PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. UNNI NAIR, S/O.ARANGATH LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA MANITHARA DESOM, THANGALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK, P.O.AVANUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.(EXPIRED) *ADDL. 2. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O LATE UNNI NAIR, ARANGATH HOUSE, MANALITHARA DESOM, THANGALUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. *ADDL. 3. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. LATE UNNI NAIR, -DO- -DO- *ADDL. 4. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O. LATE UNNI NAIR, -DO- -DO- *ADDL.5. SYLEJA, D/O. LATE UNNI NAIR, -DO- -DO- (*ADDL. PETITIONERS 2 TO 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE REVISION PETITIONER BY ORDER DATED 24.03.2008 ON I.A.NO. 455 OF 2008.) BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J. AKKARA RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR: ---------------------------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR (L.A.), THRISSUR-3. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SHRI S. DILEEP. THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2008 ALONG WITH CRP NO. 1821 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... C.R.P. Nos.1820 & 1821 OF 2003 ................................................................................... Dated this the 24th March, 2008 O R D E R These revisions arise out of the order in E.P.Nos. 78 and 79 of 2002 in LAR.Nos.90 and 89 of 1992 respectively on the file of the court of Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur. The court below passed cryptic orders dismissing the Execution Petitions on the ground that full satisfaction was recorded in the Land Acquisition Reference cases. The petitioners had filed Execution Petitions earlier. The court below directed the petitioners to file calculation statements excluding the interest on solatium as at that time the decision of the Supreme Court holding that interest on solatium is not payable, was in prevalence. The amount payable as per that statement was paid and the Execution Petitions were closed, after recording full satisfaction. Later in Sunder vs. Union of India [2001(3) KLT 489 (SC)], the Supreme Court took the view that claimant would be entitled to get interest on solatium as well. The petitioners, thereafter filed the present Execution Petitions from which these Revisions arise, claiming interest on solatium as well The court below dismissed the Execution Petitions on the ground that full satisfaction was recorded earlier. The petitioners have also filed Review Petitions to review the order recording full satisfaction. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Review Petitions were dismissed and that it is proposed to challenge the said order. It is true that there is delay in challenging the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the delay was occasioned due to pendency of these Revisions. 3. In Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India ( [2006] 8 S.C.C. 457 ), the Supreme Court has held as follows: C.R.P. Nos.1820 & 1821 OF 2003 2 “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 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 for 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 (19.09.2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question.” C.R.P. Nos.1820 & 1821 OF 2003 3 4. It is true that technically, the Execution Petitions were not pending. But at the same time, the Review Petitions filed by the petitioners challenging the order in the Execution Petitions recording full satisfaction were pending. By way of abundant caution, the petitioners filed the Execution Petitions from which these Revision Petitions arose. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that a too technical approach in such a situation would not advance the cause of justice and in fact it would defeat justice. It is also relevant to note that C.R.P.Nos. 1373, 1476, 1541, 1542 of 2003 and 1409 of 2004, which arose out of similar orders, were allowed by this court by order dated 28th March, 2006 and the cases were remanded to the executing court. After the remand, the cases were referred to the Adalat and the parties settled the cases before the Adalat. In C.R.P.No. 1369 of 2003, a similar order was set aside by this court as per order dated 14th December, 2004 directing the executing court to pass a speaking order. 6. In the circumstances mentioned above, I am of the view that the orders passed by the court below are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The executing court shall dispose of the matter afresh. The executing court shall at first refer the dispute to the Adalat for settlement and if the dispute is not settled, then only, the execution petitions need be disposed of on the merits. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk C.R.P. Nos.1820 & 1821 OF 2003 4 K.T. SANKARAN, JJ. ........................................................ C.R.P. Nos.1820 & 1821 OF 2003 ......................................................... Dated this the 24th March, 2008 O R D E R