The revision is by the State, against an order of the Execution Court, accepting the statement of the decree holder and posting the case for deposit . Earlier the above revision was referred to a Division Bench since, the question of interest on solatium and 12% additional market value which was directly in issue in the above Civil Revision Petition was pending consideration before the Division Bench in C.R.P No. 199/2009 and connected C.R.Ps. A Division Bench of this Court had by order dated 20/09/2010 held that, the issue is no more res integra, in view of the decisions reported in Sunder v. Union of India, [2001 (7) SCC 211], [2001 (3) KLT 489] and Gurupreet Singh v. Union of India, [2006(8) SCC 457],[2008(1) KLJ (SC) 463]. The Division Bench specifically referred to the finding of the Larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurupreet Singh (supra), which was as follows: C.R.P.NO. 1163 of 2001 2 "That 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 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 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 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 C.R.P.NO. 1163 of 2001 3 (19.9.2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder."
Hence, the reference was answered in accordance with the said observations and the matter has been listed for further orders before this Court.
2. Noticing the facts of the instant case, this is an Execution Petition No. 86/1996 filed in the year 1996. But, for the averment in the revision that, the Court below has granted interest on solatium and 12% additional market value, nothing is evidenced from the impugned order. It merely states that, the decree holders statement is accepted as being calculated in accordance with the decree and posts the case for deposit on 19/02/2001. Since there is nothing on record to controvert the allegations of the Government, made, in the memorandum of revision, this Court is of the opinion that the matter has to be considered afresh by the Execution Court after notice to the parties. C.R.P.NO. 1163 of 2001 4
3. In all probability, the amounts would have been deposited and the same withdrawn by the claimants before the Execution Court. In view of the clear directions in Gurupreet Singh (supra), as to, in what circumstance, interest on solatium and 12% additional market value is to be calculated and for what period, the Execution Court would necessarily have to consider it after verifying the records of the case more specifically the judgment and decree as also the statement filed by the claimant before the Court below. This Court is informed that, when such remands are made invariably after three or four postings, the decree holders submit that they are no more pressing the Execution Petition and the Courts mechanically record the submission and close the Execution Petition. That would be against the spirit of the remand, ordered by this Court, on the revision of the State. The Execution Court is calledupon to consider whether, the amounts claimed by the C.R.P.NO. 1163 of 2001 5 decree holder are amounts actually due and if withdrawn, whether the payment made is in excess of what is actually due. This would enable the State to claim restitution if so entitled and in accordance with law. At the risk of repetition, it is retreated that the order of remand would have to be complied in its letter and spirit and the Courts cannot merely allow the execution petitions to be closed as 'not pressed' by the decree holders, who would have already withdrawn the money deposited by the State or still worse; that deposited by the Garnishee. The execution Courts have to pass a speaking order to the effect as to which category, as laid down in Gurupreet Singh (supra), would the individual execution petition come within and determine the actual amounts due as also ascertain and record excess payment if any made. If not, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice and none can take a complacent attitude, for reason only that the money is of the State. Misplaced sympathies for Decree Holders on account of their C.R.P.NO. 1163 of 2001 6 having lost their lands, are out of place since the injury caused, is sought to be remedied by paying compensation, the award of which is scrutinised by a hierarchy of Courts; conferred with powers to enhance the compensation awarded The injury also is on account of greater public good and the compensation for such injury flows out from the public exchequer.
3. The impugned order hence, is set aside and the matter remanded to the Court below to be considered in accordance with law and keeping in mind the dictum laid down in Gurupreet Singh(supra) as also the observations made by this Court.
K.VINOD CHANDRAN (JUDGE) lsn