The above revision is from the order of the execution Court dated 30.11.2000, whereby the statement filed by the decree holder setting forth the amounts due to her, was accepted. The revision is filed on the ground that the execution Court has improperly exercised the jurisdiction and the computation of amounts is also challenged.
2. The contention raised by the State before this Court is that the claim of interest on solatium and 12% additional market value is not permissible. The learned Government Pleader relies on Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (3) K.L.T 489) and Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2008 (1) K.L.J.(S.C) 463). It is true that in Sunder's case (supra) the interest was held to be payable on solatium and additional market value. However, in Gurpreet Singh (supra), a larger bench of the Supreme Court held that the said principle had only a prospective application and interest, if at CRP.No.1214 of 2001 - 2 - all payable, would only be from the date of judgment in Sunder, i.e., on 9.9.2000. The larger Bench also laid down specifically as to in what situation the principle in Sunder would have to be applied and held that if execution applications are closed, there can be no re-opening on the basis of the law laid down in Sunder. It is also to be noticed that the larger Bench had also found that if the interest on solatium and additional market value has been specifically considered by the court and refused, then, there cannot be any re-opening since the execution court cannot go behind the decree. A corollary would apply in so far as if the grant of interest has been made in the decree, again the execution court cannot say otherwise.
3. The decree in L.A.R.No.274 of 1988 dated 14.06.1994 allowed realization of an amount of Rs.30,416.43 as additional market value and Rs.9,124.92 as solatium and Rs.1419.96 as increase under Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. The above sums were also granted interest at the rate of 9% for the 1st one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum.
CRP.No.1214 of 2001 - 3 -
4. The execution proceedings were perfectly with jurisdiction and the balance statement filed before the said Court is in conformity with the decree passed. The fact remains that the decree remained unchallenged and it is trite that the execution Court cannot go behind the decree. In the circumstances, the prospective application of the principle in Sunder cannot be applied in the above case since the decree itself granted interest on solatium and additional market value.
The Civil Revision Petition, hence, stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Sd/-