-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 135 OF 2004 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 135 OF 2004 LAO (NORTH) Irrigation Depsartment Duler, Mapusa, Goa, at present Having office at GTIDC Complex, Thivim Industrial Estate, Post-Caraswada, Bardez-Goa. …... Petitioner V e r s u s 1. Smt. Sunita @ Sunitabai Ramrao Rane, 2. Shri Nanbarao Narendra Ramrao Rane, 3. Kum. Savita Ramrao Rane, 4. Kum. Anandrao Ramrao Rane, Through his Natural Guardian the Applicant All residing at Saleli, Taluka Sattari, Goa. (All above are registered addresses of the parties …... Respondents A N D WRIT PETITION NO. 136 OF 2004 LAO (NORTH) Irrigation Depsartment Duler, Mapusa, Goa, at present Having office at GTIDC Complex, Thivim Industrial Estate, Post-Caraswada, Bardez-Goa. …... Petitioner V e r s u s Shri Krishnarao A. Rane Sardessai, R/o. Saleli Village, Sattari-Goa. Above are registered addresses of the parties) …... Respondent -2- Mr. A. Kamat, Addl. Government Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. J. P. Godinho, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- F. M. REIS, J Date : 14 th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri Kamat, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the Petitioners and Shri J. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Petition challenges the Orders dated 02.12.2003 passed by the executing Court whereby the Petitioners have been directed to pay interest on solatium in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 7 S.C.C. 211 in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India. 3. Shri Kamat, the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, has pointed out that whilst passing the impugned Order, the executing Court had directed that the interest on solatium has to be paid from the date of Section 4 Notification in respect of the acquired land, but, however, according to the learned Addl. Government Advocate, in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2006) 8 S.C.C. 457 in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, the Respondents would be entitled for interest only from 19.09.2001 as held by the Apex Court in the said Judgment. The learned Addl. Government Advocate further points out that considering the said Judgment of the Apex Court, the impugned order deserves to be modified accordingly. -3- 4. On the other hand, Shri Godinho, the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, did not dispute the fact that the Respondents would be entitled for interest on solatium only from 19.09.2001 in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India (supra). 5. In view of the above, I find that the impugned Order passed by the executing Court dated 02.12.2003 deserves to be modified to the effect that the Respondents would be entitled for interest only from 19.09.2001 in accordance with law. To that extent, the impugned Order stands modified. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Orders dated 02.12.2003, stands modified and the Petitioners are held to be liable to pay interest on solatium to the Respondents only from 19.09.2001 in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. (iv)Both the Petitions stand disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. F .M. REIS, J. arp/*