IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2007 / 27TH SRAVANA 1929 CRP.No. 1027 of 2003(A) ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/08/2002 IN EP. 71 /2002 IN LAR.1157/1988 of I ADDL.SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONERS:PETITIONERS: JUDGMENT DEBTORS IN THE E.P: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. COCHIN EXPORT PROCESSING ZONE, KAKKANAD, REP. BY ITS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU RESPONDENT:RESPONDENT: DECREE HOLDER IN THE E.P: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THANKAMMA KURUVILLA, S/O. P.A.KURUVILLA, CHOOLAKKAL, PUTHENVEETTIL, MARKET ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. SRI.RAHUL VARMA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2007 ALONG WITH C.R.P.NO.1653 OF 2003, CR.P.NO. 1904 OF 2003 AND C.R.P.NO.303 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== C.R.P. Nos.1027,1653, 1904/2003 & C.R.P.303 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of August 2007 O R D E R All these revision petitions are preferred by the State Government against the awarding of interest on solatium. It is contended that the claimants are only entitled to get interest on the enhanced compensation if at all and they will not be entitled to get any interest on solaltium. All these cases were posted for different steps in execution of the decree. The contention of the Government is to the effect that if it is not granted, the amount deposited will be sufficient and no further execution is to be done for the balance amount. All these cases were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 28th August, 1997 in LAA 674/1994 and connected cases. This court extracted the order of the Land Acquisition Court in paragraph 11 which reads as follows: “The claimants also will be given the benefits under the amended act as regards solatium and additional benefit of 12% and interest at 15% and 9% as awarded on the enhanced compensation from the relevant dates”. Again towards the end of paragraph 13, this court held that they are entitled to the benefits under the amended CRPS 1027/2003 & con.cases -:2:- Act on the enhanced compensation from the relevant dates. 2. The question posed by the learned Government Pleader is whether the compensation takes in solatium as well. A Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India(2001(3) KLT 489(SC) has dealt with this. The court held that “once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium”. Again this has been considered by another Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India(2006) 8SCC 457). In paragraph 54 it held as follows: “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 case where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate court, CRPS 1027/2003 & con.cases -:3:- and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder case and say that the compensation awarded included solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. Such interest on solatium can be claimed 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(19-9-2001) and not for any prior period. This will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder”. 3. So a reference to the above two decisions would make it abundantly clear that solatium is a part and parcel of compensation and the benefits, i.e. conferred under the Amendment Act would extend to the same also for the reason that it is a part of the compensation that is awarded under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. But the later decision only curtailed when there is no direction and by implication this has to be taken note of . In such cases the court shall fix the date for calculation from 19-9- 2001 and not earlier. In the cases before me the lower courts as well as this Court in the year 1999 itself has made it abundantly clear that the parties are entitled to the benefit of the amended Act on the enhanced compensation which takes in the solatium as well. The execution courts have only taken into consideration the above said principle calculated the amount arrived at CRPS 1027/2003 & con.cases -:4:- a figure and thereafter decided to proceed with the execution proceedings in accordance with law. 4. The contention of the Government that the parties are not entitled to interest on solatium amount is against the well settled positions of law and therefore it cannot be entertained. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the courts below in passing the respective impugned orders. Therefore C.R.Ps. lack merit and they are dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-