IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP.No. 942 of 2007()
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THRESAMMA, W/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI
... Respondent
2. JOSEPH, S/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI
3. VARKEY, S/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL
4. SEBASTIAN, S/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI
5. MARY, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL,
6. ELEY, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL,
7. ANNA, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL,
8. BRIJITHA, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI
9. ROSAMMA, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI PARAMBIL
10. LISYMOLE, D/O.VARKEY, NATTUVAZHI
11. REGISTRAR, M.G.UNIVERSITY,
For Petitioner :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For Respondent :SRI. T.A. SHAJI, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :11/08/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
-------------------------------
C.R.P.No.942 of 2007
-------------------------------
Dated this the 11th August, 2008.
O R D E R
State has filed the revision petition challenging the
order of Principal Sub Court, Kottayam, in E.P.No.327 of 1997 in
L.A.R.No.46 of 1990 dated 6.11.2006, whereunder Executing Court
fixed the amount due to claimants at Rs.36,560/=.
2. Learned Government Pleader argued that as interest
on solatium and the benefit under Section 23(1A) of Land Acquisition
Act was not specifically awarded, finding of the executing court that
interest is payable on solatium and benefit under Section 23(1A) is
not correct. Learned Government Pleader fairly submitted that the
judgment in L.A.A.No.1399 of 1997 wherein a cross objection was
also filed by the claimants show that claimants are entitled to all
statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, on the
enhanced compensation awarded. This decision was rendered
subsequent to the Constitution Bench decision in Sundar v. Union of
India (2001 (3) KLT 489). Therefore, this is not a case where
entitlement of interest on solatium and benefit under Section 23 (1A)
CRP. No.942 of 2007
2
of Land Acquisition Act was not considered or granted as envisaged in
the decision of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India
(2006 (8) SCC 457). Therefore, the interest on solatium and benefit
under Section 23(1A) cannot be restricted from the date of
pronouncement of the decision in Sundar’s case (supra). As rightly
found by the execution court, claimants are entitled to interest on
solatium, as well as the benefit under Section 23(1A) of the Land
Acquisition Act. Therefore, revision fails and is dismissed. If there is
any calculation mistake committed by the court, petitioner is entitled
to move the executing court to correct the same.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE
nj.