IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2008 / 20TH SRAVANA 1930 CRP.No. 942 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/11/2006 IN EP.327/1997 IN LAR.46/1990 of PRL.SUB COURT,KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: IST JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER RESPONDENTS: DECREE HOLDERS & 2ND JUDGEMENT DEBTOR ------------------ 1. THRESAMMA, W/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 2. JOSEPH, S/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 3. VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL ATHIRAMPUZHA. 4. SEBASTIAN, S/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 5. MARY, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 6. ELEY, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 7. ANNA, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 8. BRIJITHA, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 9. ROSAMMA, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL ATHIRAMPUZHA. CRP.No.942 of 2007 : 2 : 10. LISYMOLE, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. 11. REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY FOR R11 SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) FOR R3 SRI.AJEESH K.SASI FOR R3 THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------- C.R.P.No.942 of 2007 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th August, 2008. O R D E R State has filed the revision petition challenging the order of Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, in E.P.No.327 of 1997 in L.A.R.No.46 of 1990 dated 6.11.2006, whereunder Executing Court fixed the amount due to claimants at Rs.36,560/=. 2. Learned Government Pleader argued that as interest on solatium and the benefit under Section 23(1A) of Land Acquisition Act was not specifically awarded, finding of the executing court that interest is payable on solatium and benefit under Section 23(1A) is not correct. Learned Government Pleader fairly submitted that the judgment in L.A.A.No.1399 of 1997 wherein a cross objection was also filed by the claimants show that claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, on the enhanced compensation awarded. This decision was rendered subsequent to the Constitution Bench decision in Sundar v. Union of India (2001 (3) KLT 489). Therefore, this is not a case where entitlement of interest on solatium and benefit under Section 23 (1A) CRP. No.942 of 2007 2 of Land Acquisition Act was not considered or granted as envisaged in the decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457). Therefore, the interest on solatium and benefit under Section 23(1A) cannot be restricted from the date of pronouncement of the decision in Sundar's case (supra). As rightly found by the execution court, claimants are entitled to interest on solatium, as well as the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, revision fails and is dismissed. If there is any calculation mistake committed by the court, petitioner is entitled to move the executing court to correct the same. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE nj.