Laxminarayan Ramkrishna Hegde vs LAO and Assistant Commissioner Karwar

Aravind Kumar, J.—Heard Sri S.N. Banakar, learned counsel appearing for the claimant/revision petitioners, Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri Ramesh N. Misale, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

It is the contention of Mr. Banakar, learned counsel that executing court ought to have awarded interest on compensation awarded from the date of award and not from 19.09.2001 and in support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Chhanga Singh and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, .

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the order passed by trial Court.

Perusal of the order under challenge would indicate that the executing court vide order dated 31.08.2010 had held that the decree holder is entitled to interest on solatium only from 19.09.2001 and not any period anterior to the said date. Said issue is no more res-integra in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI), whereunder the Hon''ble Apex Court has clarified that interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending execution petitions and executing court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment rendered in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India (UOI)--> which came to be rendered on 19.09.2001. It has been held in Gurpreet Singh''s case to the following effect:

"One other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in Courts all over the country, we permitted the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), the awardee/decree holder would be entitled to 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 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 (supra) 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 (supra) 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 Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question."

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the order passed by the executing court on 31.08.2010 and the subsequent order passed on 30.06.2012 holding that claimant would be entitled to interest on solatium from 19.09.2001 i.e., from date of judgment rendered by Hon''ble Apex Court in Sunder''s case referred to supra and not from the date of award requires to be upheld and as such, no infirmity can be found in the order passed by the executing court.

For the aforestated reasons, revision petitions lack merit. It is hereby dismissed.