CM (M) No.856/2010 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment: 23.11.2011 + CM (M) No. 856/2010 & CM Nos.17066-67/2010 ZILE SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS & OTHERS ……….. Petitioner s Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya and Mr. Sunil Dahiya, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA ……….Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Mohitrao Jadhav and Ms. Navlin Swain, Advocates for respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral) 1. Orders impugned are the orders dated 25.04.2009 and 22.12.2009. Vide order dated 25.04.2009 the application filed by the decree holder/applicant under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) objecting to the calculation made by the Nazir as also the payment of the balance amount had been disposed of. Vide order dated 22.12.2009, the CM (M) No.856/2010 Page 2 of 4 review application filed by the decree holder seeking amendment and modification of the order dated 25.04.2009 had been dismissed. 2. Certain dates are undisputed. The Award was announced by the Land Acquisition Collector pursuant to which a Reference Petition had been filed under Section 18 of the LAC which was disposed of by the Reference Court on 07.03.1974 enhancing the compensation in favour of the decree holder. The decree holder not being satisfied with the enhancement had filed an appeal where the compensation was fixed at Rs. 4,900/- per bigha vide its order dated 07.10.1999. On 22.09.2000 another modification was made by the High Court in respect of solatium and interest. Compensation awarded to the decree holder/applicant was Rs.4,900/- per bigha along with interest @ 30% on the enhanced amount and interest @ 9% for the first year and 15% for subsequent year to be calculated from the date of taking of possession till the date of making of payment. 3. Contention of the decree holder before the Executing Court was that his interest on solatium had not been paid by the LAC. Reliance had been placed upon the judgment reported in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 which had been delivered on CM (M) No.856/2010 Page 3 of 4 19.09.2001 and was holding the fort as the law of land till the judgment of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 was delivered by the Apex Court on 19.10.2006. 4. At the time when the judgment of Sunder (Supra) was delivered which was on 19.09.2001 execution was pending in the High Court. The judgment in Gurpreet Singh (Supra) was delivered on 19.10.2006. Para 54 of the said judgment is relevant and reads herein as under:- “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 counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), 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 (supra) 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 (supra) 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 CM (M) No.856/2010 Page 4 of 4 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 (September 19, 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 Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question. 5. The order dated 25.04.2009 had directed the Nazir to make a calculation by adding interest on the solatium which should be calculated from 19.09.2001. Review Petition was dismissed by the second order dated 22.12.2009. This was in terms of the clarification of the Apex Court that interest on solatium has to be calculated w.e.f the date of judgment of Sunder (Supra) which is from 19.09.2001; this is because solatium is treated as part of compensation amount. Contention of the decree holder that he should be awarded interest on the solatium from the date of his dispossession and not from 19.9.2001 is thus negatived. 6. Impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity. Dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J. NOVEMBER 23, 2011 A