Puli Raji Reddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), Peddapalli

Order

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C.’, for brevity), is directed against the order dated

16.02.2005 in E.P.No.16 of 2002 in O.P.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, whereunder and whereby, petition claiming interest on solatium was dismissed.

2. The Execution Petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 11 of C.P.C. for recovery of interest and compensation (solatium + 12% additional market value) with future interest accrued thereon. Second respondent filed counter stating that the entire compensation amount awarded in O.P.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, has been paid to the decree holders and that no executable decree is pending against them and as such, the Execution Petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The Executing Court, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the decree holders are not entitled to claim interest on solatium through Execution Petition, as their claim is not in consonance with the judgment and decree dated

10.10.1996 in A.S.No.2670 of 1989 preferred against the judgment and decree in O.P.NO.12 of 1989, and accordingly dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, present revision is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the judgment reported in Sunder Vs. Union of India[1], in which the Apex Court held that solatium forms part of compensation and as such, interest is to be awarded on solatium even in the absence of claim, prays this Court to set aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in pursuance of the award in O.P., decreetal amount has been paid and as such, no Execution Petitions are pending as on the date of decision rendered by Apex Court in Sundar’s case; that payment of interest on solatium is not part of the award; that even assuming that it is part of award, it may not be granted because of the clarification given in the judgment reported in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India[2]; and prays this Court to dismiss the revision.

6. Initially, an award was passed in O.P.NO.12 of 1989 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli on

16.04.1990 awarding certain amount as compensation. That award has become final in view of the fact that the appeal filed before this Court in A.S.No.2670 of 1990 was dismissed. Admittedly, none of the claimants has claimed interest on solatium in the Original Petition and therefore, no specific decree with regard to grant of interest in solatium was given by

the trial Court. Similarly, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court, the appellate Court also did not grant any interest on solatium. But the petitioners filed Execution Petition basing on the judgment of Sunder case (1 supra), wherein, it was interest on solatium is a part of compensation and as such, the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium, though it is not claimed.

7. There cannot be any dispute about the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sunder case (1 supra). But the question is that in pursuance of the judgment in Sunder case (1 supra), whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium as part of compensation or not.

8. I n Gurpreet Singh case (2 supra), another Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held as follows:- “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 perm itted the counsel to address us on that question. T hat question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder, 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 interest on solatium had been m ade and the sam e has been negatived either expressly or by necessary im plication by the judgm ent 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 m ade and rejected either expressly or im pliedly by the Reference Court or the appellate Court, and m erely interest on com pensation is awarded, then it would be open to the execution Court to apply the of Sunder and say com pensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the am ount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claim ed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the execution Court will be entitled to perm it recovery from the date of judgm ent in Sunder (19-09-2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or appropriation by the decree-holder. T his 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 m ultiplicity of litigation on this question.” From the above decision, it is clear that though the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, at the same time, the question of payment of interest on solatium which has not been rejected, expressly or impliedly, by the Reference Court or the appellate Court, still the claimants are entitled for interest on solatium provided an execution petition is pending. It would be open to the Executing Court to apply ratio laid down in Sunder case (1 supra). The Apex Court also clarified that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not closed executions and the Executing Court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment in Sunder case (1 supra) viz. 19.09.2001 and not for any prior period.

10. In the instant case, the award passed by the Reference Court has become final prior to rendering the judgment in Sunder case (1 supra). The appeal has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter, the entire amount has been paid in pursuance of the decree and judgment and the claimants received the entire amounts in pursuance of decree and they have not disputed that payment was not made in accordance with the decree. Thereafter, for the first time after rendering the judgment of Sunder case (1 supra), an application was filed in the year 2002 in E.P.No.16 of 2002 claiming interest on solatium. It is made clear in the judgment of Gurpreet Singh case (2 supra) that the claimants are entitled interest on solatium when the Execution Proceedings are pending. Admittedly, no such Execution Petition is pending. In view of the fact that the award has already been fully satisfied by payment of amount, the question of filing of Execution Petition does not arise in such circumstances.

11. Therefore, filing of Execution Petition by the petitioners, in my considered view, is misconceived and the petitioners are not entitled for any interest on solatium in view of the fact that no Execution Petitions were pending on the date of passing of judgment by the Apex Court in Sunder case (1 supra).

12. Hence, the trial Court, considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the appeal. This Court does not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.02.2005 in E.P.No.16 of 2002 in O.P.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. ________________________ JUST ICE K.C.BHANU April 15, 2010 Bvv