Leave granted.
Challenge in these appeals is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Revision Petition, in terms of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (in short `the Constitution) was filed before the High
Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court, i.e
learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana holding that the respondents were
entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium. The petition was dismissed in the
light of a judgment of this Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001
(7) SCC 211). It was held in the said case that the interest is payable on the amount of solatium as well.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the
Reference Court had categorically observed as follows while disposing of several land
reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short `the
Act'):
“However, they shall not be entitled to any
interest on the amount of solatium.”
It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the
aforesaid categorical finding of the Reference Court, the Executing Court could not
have gone beyond the decree. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other
hand, submitted that the matter was squarely covered by the decision in Sunder's
case (supra) and, therefore, the High Court was justified.
In a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Gurpreet
Singh Vs. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457), the position relating to the power of the
Executing Court was examined. In paragraph-54, it was noted as follows.
“54 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
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.”
The High Court was required to examine the position in the light of the
decision in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) as the factual position has not been noted by
the High Court.
We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to consider the matter
in the light of what has been stated in paragraph-54 of Gurpreet's case (supra).
The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.