IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.NO. 889 OF 2007() --------------------- {IN EP.NO.393/98 IN LAR.14/1989 OF THE ADDL.SUB COURT, KOTTAYAM} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): JUDGMENT DEBTOR ------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDERS ----------------------------- JOSE,S/O.JOSEPH,PEEDIAKAL, ATHIRAMPUZHA, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER TOMY SEBASTIAN,PEEDIAKAL, ATHIRAMPUZHA. ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE & SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRP.NO. 889 OF 2007 :: :: ORDER ON I.A.No.2490/07 IN CRP.NO. 889 OF 2007 DISMISSED. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) 31.3.2010. JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To Judge. “C.R.” S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P.No.889 of 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 O R D E R The order under challenge relates to the quantification of the amount made to satisfy the decree passed in a Land Acquisition reference by the Sub Court, Kottayam in the execution proceedings. State has filed this revision challenging the Propriety and correctness of the quantification made by the executing court, directing deposit of a sum of Rs.11,78.741.41 as the balance amount due under the decree. 2. I heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder. 3. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and also perusing the order impugned in the revision, I find the court below has not followed the correct principles applicable with respect to the apportionment of the amount deposited, to C.R.P.No.889 of 2007 :: 2 :: satisfy the decree. In the order, the learned Sub Judge has expressed the view that partial deposit of the amount made by the State to satisfy the decree has to be adjusted on the principal amount due to the decree holder. That view is not correct. The correct mode of apportionment to be made in such cases is clarified in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India {2008(1) KLJ SC 463}. The decree holder is entitled to claim apportionment of the amount deposited first towards the interest and cost and then only for adjustment in the principal amount due. Evidently, such a method of apportionment has not been followed by the execution court for adjusting the amount from the deposit made. For that solitary reason, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Another controversy canvassed in the present case by the learned Government Pleader relates to the claim of interest on C.R.P.No.889 of 2007 :: 3 :: the solatium which, it is stated, was claimed by the decree holder from the date of passing of the award i.e. 13.2.1987. It is submitted that as there was no claim for interest on the solatium before the reference court and no decision was rendered thereon, the decree holder is entitled to claim interest on solatium only from the date of pronouncement of the decision in Sunder v. Union of India {[2001] 7 SCC 211}, I find the submission made by the Learned Government Pleader is well founded. In Gurpreet Singh's case (cited supra) the Apex Court has considered the question whether in execution the decree holder is entitled to claim interest on solatium, if it has not been negatived expressly or by implication by the reference court or the appellate court. Considering that question, it has been held thus: “........... the question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder, the awardee/decree holder would be entitled to C.R.P.No.889 of 2007 :: 4 :: claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well settled that an execution court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has not been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the appellate court, the execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. 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 cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that 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 C.R.P.No.889 of 2007 :: 5 :: Sunder (19.9.2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder.” (underlining supplied) 5. So, in the present case, where the reference court has admittedly not considered the claim for interest on solatium and it has not been rejected either expressly or impliedly in execution, the decree holder will be entitled to claim interest on solatium, but, only from 19.09.2001, the date of pronouncement of judgment in Sunder's case (cited supra). 6. The court below is directed to quantify the amount due to the decree holder, taking note of the observations made above and in accordance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh's case. There will be a further direction to the court below to complete the execution proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of C.R.P.No.889 of 2007 :: 6 :: receipt/production of a copy of this order. State shall deposit the amount quantified by the court below, as directed above, within one month, after deducting the sum, if any, due towards income tax. 7. Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. Hand over a copy of the order to the counsel on both sides on usual terms. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy//