IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 CRP.No. 394 of 2009() ---------------------------------- LAR.113/1991 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR. 2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) GENERAL, THRISSUR, CHEMBUKKAVU. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): DECREE HOLDERS ----------------------------- 1. K.T.MUHAMMADUNNI, KARUPPAMVEETTIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, ORUMANAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.ORUMANAYOOR. 2. RAZIYA, W/O.K.T.MUHAMMADUNNI, KARUPPAMVEETTIL THEKKETHIL HOUSE, ORUMANAYOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O.ORUMANAYOOR. *R3 IS IMPLEADED. *3 ORUMANAYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ORUMANAYOOR P.O. THRISSUR, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY ORUMANAYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH ORUMANAYOOR P.O. THRISSUR. *IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 VIDE ORDER DTD. 3.11.2009 IN IA. 2707/2009. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF ADDL. R3 BY MR.R.S.KALKURA THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009, ALONG WITH CRP NO. 497 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.1872/2009 IN CRP. NO.394/2009 DISMISSED 03/11/2009 SD/- S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.R.P.Nos.394 & 497 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009 O R D E R These revisions arise from the execution proceedings in L.A.R.No.113 of 1991 on the file of the 2nd Additional Sub Court, Thrissur. C.R.P.No.394 of 2009 is filed by the State and other revision, C.R.P.No.497 of 2009, by the decree holder. An application for impleadment (I.A.No.2707 of 2009) has been made by the requisitioning authority, Orumanayoor Grama Panchayath, in C.R.P.No.394 of 2009 for the requirements of such authority the acquisition was made. That application has been allowed. 2. The amount to be deposited to satisfy the award is under challenge in these revisions, both at the instance of the State and also the claimants. Order passed previously by the execution court calculating the amount to satisfy the decree debt under the award had been previously challenged before this Court in C.R.P.No.669 of 2008 and it was disposed by order dated 4.12.2008 with specific directions, how the statements, if any, C.R.P.Nos.394 & 497 of 2009 - O 2 filed by the parties are to be examined and the execution proceedings are to be completed. Pursuant to the directions given in the above C.R.P., both sides filed statements before the court below and after scrutinizing them the execution court has passed the impugned order dated 25.6.2009. 3. Ascertainment of the amount due calculated by the court below is challenged by the State mainly on three grounds. Learned Government Pleader submitted before me that the court below has calculated the amount on a wrong premise that the enhanced land value awarded was Rs.3,21,875/- in the place of actual amount of Rs.3,10,544/- and that in effect has resulted in series of mistakes in calculation over the assessment of the interest, deducting interest and also in deducting the sums after deposits made from time to time by the State. It was further contended that deposit made by the State for a sum of Rs.86,285/- on 25.7.2008 has not been taken into account in the calculation made by the court to ascertain the balance amount if any required to be deposited to satisfy the decree. Last of all it was also contended in the calculation by the execution court, interest on interest has been given and that has resulted in C.R.P.Nos.394 & 497 of 2009 - O 3 arriving at a sum for in excess due under the decree. Learned counsel for the requisitioning authority, namely, Orumanayoor Grama Panchayath supporting the arguments canvassed by the learned Government Pleader contended that in the present case, in view of the decision rendered in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457) the claimants can claim interest on solatium only from the date of 19.9.2001 when the Apex Court rendered the decision in Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (7) SCC 211). On the other hand the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, the revision petitioner in C.R.P.394 of 2009 contended that the decision Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) has only clarified the earlier decision of the Apex Court in Sunder's case (supra) to the extent that where the decree or award passed by the court earlier is silent then interest of solatium can be granted only from the date of judgment of the Sunder's case. This was a case where in the appeal preferred against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Court sustaining the cross appeal filed by the claimants, this Court had granted interest of solatium to the claimants and so much so, the applicability of Gurpreet Singh's C.R.P.Nos.394 & 497 of 2009 - O 4 case is not called for. So far as the challenge raised by the learned Government Pleader that the execution court has not taken note of the deposit of Rs.86,285/- made by the State on 25.7.2008, learned counsel submitted that though the amount was deposited it had not been released to the claimants and release of that amount was also opposed on the ground excess amount had already been paid to the claimants. When that be so, according to the counsel, the claimants are entitled to treat it as a nondeposit and claim interest till the amount is released to them. With respect to the challenge canvassed by the learned Government Pleader that the court below committed a mistake in fixing the land value of Rs.3,21,875/- instead of Rs.3,10,544/-, learned counsel fairly conceded that such a mistake had crept in the order passed by the court below and it requires correction and rectification. On the challenge raised that interest on interest had been calculated, the counsel submitted that there is no merit in that ground so canvassed to impeach the propriety of the order of the court below. 4. On the submissions made by the counsel on both sides C.R.P.Nos.394 & 497 of 2009 - O 5 in the backdrop of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the issue involved is whether the execution court has correctly ascertained the amount in the impugned order which is required to satisfy the decree. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the claimants, it is seen, that while calculating the amount the court below has awarded interest on solatium only from 19.9.2001, the date of pronouncement of Sunder's case, as if it was a case where that issue was not considered and no finding made in the decree passed earlier. In fact in the appeal preferred against the judgment of the Land Acquisition Court before this Court as rightly contended by the counsel for the claimants the cross appeal filed challenging the non-payment of interest on solatium was allowed declaring the entitlement of the claimants on interest of solatium as well as part of the compensation due. When that be the case where the decree provides for interest of solatium the right of the claimant to have the amount due thereof cannot be restricted from the date of pronouncement of Sunder's case. So much so, interest of solatium amount due thereof has to be refixed and whatever amount due as per law to the claimants have to be arrived and C.R.P.Nos.394 & 497 of 2009 - O 6 provided in the finalization amount due. There is also much force in the submission made by the counsel for the claimants that the deposit of Rs.86,285/- made by the State on 27.5.2008 cannot be given credit to in calculating the amount paid since claimants had been restrained from getting release of that amount. Similarly, both sides have pointed out there is a mistake on the part of the court in proceeding with the calculation as if the enhanced land value awarded was Rs.3,21,875/- instead of Rs.3,10,544/-. That mistake, it is seen, led to wrong calculation of every amount fixed thereafter. Learned Government Pleader submits that after passing of the impugned order an amount of Rs.86,285/- had been released to the claimant. In ascertaining the amount due, the court below shall also take note of and give credit to the above amount with reference to the date of release of that amount. The directions given by this Court with respect to the filing of statements by the parties, in C.R.P.No.669 of 2008, shall continue to remain in force and the court below shall conduct the enquiry strictly in tune with the directions thereunder. Both parties can file statements before the court below showing the actual amount due and if any party find any C.R.P.Nos.394 & 497 of 2009 - O 7 mistake in the statement of the other, counter statement raising such objections has to be presented before the court. The court below is directed to complete the whole proceedings and close the execution proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, before closing of the courts for the mid summer vacation of 2010. Revision petitions are disposed of as above. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-