C.R No.370 of 1993 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : February 20, 2008 1. C.R No.369 of 1993 Improvement Trust, Jind & another vs Sat Narain (dead) through his L.Rs 2. C.R No.370 of 1993 Improvement Trust, Jind & another vs Jagat Singh(dead) through his L.Rs CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Present : Mr.Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioners. None for the respondents in CR No.369 of 1993. Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents in CR No.370 of 1993. RAJIVE BHALLA,J (Oral) This order shall dispose of C.R Nos.369 and 370 of 1993. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from CR No.370 of 1993. The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 16.11.1992, passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Jind directing that the decree holder/respondent is entitled to recover Rs.48748.23. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It appears that the trial Court has failed to take into C.R No.370 of 1993 ::2:: consideration the law with respect to adjustments pertaining to awards passed under the Improvement Trust Act/Land Acquisition Act, as also the question of grant of interest upon solatium. As the aforementioned controversy has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur and another vs National Fertilizers Corporation of India, (1996) 2 SCC 71, and Sunder vs Union of India, (2001)7 SCC 211, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter to the executing Court for adjudication afresh, in accordance with law. Consequently, the revisions are allowed and the impugned order, dated 16.11.1992 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the executing Court for adjudication afresh, in accordance with law. Parties are at liberty to submit fresh calculations, as also place reliance upon any other judgment that they may deem appropriate and relevant to the controversy in hand. ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) February 20, 2008. JUDGE `kk'