IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 RP.No. 1225 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN LAA.1469/1997 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT -------------------------------- P.I.KANDAN, 1/338, PUZHKALA, ELATHUR, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.NO.1225 of 2008 IN L.A.A.No. 1469 OF 1997 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 ORDER Pius.C.Kuriakose, J. Having regard to the submissions addressed before us by Sri.P.V.Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri.P.K.Babu, learned senior Government Pleader and also the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India ( 2001(7) SCC 211), we are of the view that there is justification for allowing the review petition. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme court has declared the law in Sunder's case which means that law has always been that the solatium component of the compensation will also carry interest at the rates permitted under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, we allow the review petition and substitute the last sentence in the judgment by the following sentence. “The respondents will be entitled for interest on solatium also”. However in view of the order passed in C.M.Appln.2191/08, they will not be entitled for such interest during the period from 03/03/2000 to 25/09/2008. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE sv.