IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 910 of 2007() --------------------- LAR.3/1997 of SUB COURT,NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.R.BINDU. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. V.VELAPPAN NAIR, GRAMATHIL VEEDU, NEYYAR DAM P.O. KALLIKKADU (DIED). 2. LALITHAKUMARI,GRAMATHIL VEEDU, NEYYAR DAM P.O. KALLIKKADU 3. LALITHAKUMARI,GRAMATHIL VEEDU, NEYYAR DAM P.O. KALLIKKADU 4. GOPAKUMAR,GRAMATHIL VEEDU, NEYYAR DAM P.O. KALLIKKADU 5. ADDL.R.5. G.SANTHAKUMARI,AGED 35, D/O.RUGMINI AMMA, KEEZHAMMATHU VEEDU, MUKUNTHARA DESOM,KALLIKKADU VILLAGE. 6. V.S.ARYA, AGED 13 (MINOR), D/O.SANTHAKUMARI, KEEZHAMMATHU VEEDU, MUKUNTHARA DESOM,KALLIKKADU VILLAGE. 7. V.S.AKHIL, AGED 9 (MINOR), S/O.SANTHAKUMARI, KEEZHAMMATHU VEEDU, MUKUNTHARA DESOM,KALLIKKADU VILLAGE. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER IN I.A.NO.2566 OF 2007 IN CRP.NO.910/2007 DISMISSED 25.6.2008 SD/= (M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.) //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.910 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 25th June, 2008. O R D E R The State is challenging the order of the Executing Court (Sub Court, Neyyattinkara) in E.P.No.106/2000 in L.A.R.No.3 of 1997, directing the State to deposit Rs.19,453.72, holding that the State is liable to pay interest on solatium also. Though notice was served on the respondents, they did not appear. 2. The learned Government Pleader was heard. 3. The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457), held that claimants are entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation including solatium, but as interest on solatium is payable based on Sundar v. Union of India (2001 (7) SCC 211), interest is payable only from that the date of that judgment. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that the order of the Executing Court does not show as to from which date interest on solatium was calculated and also the mode by which the credit of the deposit made by the State was CRP.No.910/2007 2 accounted. In such circumstances, the order dated, 25.2.2006, is quashed. The learned Sub Judge is directed to consider the question afresh and decide the actual amount, if any, payable by the State, taking into consideration the Law as laid down by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh's case. The writ petition is disposed as above. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.