IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 CRP.No. 1102 of 2005 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/07/2004 IN EP 29/01 IN LAR.21/1993 of SUB COURT,THODUPUZHA ......................................... REVN. PETITIONER: JUDGMENT DEBTOR/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R.BINDHU RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDERS/CLAIMANTS 2 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANNAKKUTTY VARKEY, W/O.ULAHANNAN VARKEY, NEERANALTHEKKEDATH HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. (DIED)* 2. JOHN N.V., S/O.ULAHANNAN VARKEY, NEERANALTHEKKEDATHU HOUSE, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 3. CICILY JAMES, VETTIKKANAKUZHY HOUSE, LYMURI P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. *R2 AND R3 ARE RECORDED AS LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED FIRST RESPONDENT VIDER ORDER DATED 15/10/2007 ON C.R.P. ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW FOR R2 & R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA NO. 3139/2005 IN C.R.P NO. 1102/2005 DISMISSED 10/07/2008. SD/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. / TRUE COPY / tga M.Sasidharan Nambiar,J. ======================= C.R.P No. 1102 of 2005 ======================= Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The State is challenging the order of Sub Court, Thodupuzha in E.P.29/2001 whereunder immovable property was proclaimed for sale after fixing the amount due to the decreeholder as Rs.1,30,303.42. 2. Learned Government pleader appearing for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned Government pleader is that inspite of the objection executing court did not consider the actual entitlement of the petitioner. It was pointed out that as declared by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006(8) SCC 457 when there is no consideration of the entitlement of interest on solatium or the benefit provided under Section 23 (1A) of Land Acquisition Act, claimant can claim C.R.P.1102/2005 2 only interest from the date of the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India(2001(3) KLT 489 SC) and learned Sub Judge did not consider these aspects and therefore executing court is to be directed to reconsider the same. Learned counsel appearing for respondent argued that interest is payable on the entire compensation including the solatium and benefit under section 23(1A) and so the order is perfectly correct. 4. On going through the order, it is seen that learned Sub Judge did not consider any of these things. As settled by Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) claimant will be entitled to get interest on solatium and Section 23(1A) benefit if that was not specificially considered and rejected but entitlement is only from the date of the decision in Sunder's case. If the award has already been executed and execution petition is not pending, even that interest is not payable. As the executing court did not consider the same, order dated 29.7.2004 is quashed. The executing C.R.P.1102/2005 3 court is directed to reconsider and fix the amount, before proceeding with the execution petition by proclamation and sale, in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh's case. The executing court to pass order as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. M.Sasidharan Nambiar Judge tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- CRL.R.P.NO. /08 --------------------- ORDER MARCH,2008