IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
CRP No. 738 of 2005()
1. C.R. GOKULAM, AGED 56,
... Petitioner
2. C.R. SALIKUMAR, AGED 54,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA.
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAVIKUMAR
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID
Dated :19/10/2007
O R D E R
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.
------------------------------------------------------
C.R.P.No.738 of 2005
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated: October 19, 2007
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order in E.A.No.419/2004 and
E.A.No.420/2004 in E.P.No.725/2001 in LAR No.365/1988 on the file of the First
Additional Sub Court, Ernakulam. The decree-holders in E.P.No.725/2001 are
the petitioners. The petitioners contended before the court below that as per the
decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in 2000 (1) KLT 489 the claimants in
land acquisition cases are found entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount
of compensation inclusive of solatium and additional market value and
accordingly they are entitled to realise Rs.11,31,565/- as on 3.1.2003. The court
below examined the question raised by the revision petitioners. The claim of the
petitioner is that he is entitled to interest for the amount awarded under sec.23(1-
A). Though interest is not granted by the decree passed in his favour, the claim
was set up on the basis of the Supreme Court decision stated above. As per the
decree passed in this case, the petitioners are only entitled to interest at 9% and
15% on the amount awarded as additional land value. The Executing Court
further held that the decree-holders are not entitled to re-open the decree before
the Execution Court claiming interest on the amount awarded under sec.23(1-A)
and that the Executing Court has no power or jurisdiction to pass any award or to
add anything to the award or decree and that its duty is only to execute the
decree passed in terms of the decree only. In the light of the observations made
CRP 738/2005 Page numbers
by the Executing Court, the two Interlocutory Applications are dismissed finding
that they are not maintainable. The additional claim of interest on the basis of
the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court will not stand so far as the decree
does not provide for the same. The Execution Court has no power or
jurisdiction to grant anything more other than what is granted under the decree.
Therefore, the order under revision was passed correctly. There is no ground
for interference under revision. The decree-holder is entitled to pursue his
remedies open to him, if any, before the appropriate forum.
The C.R.P. is disposed of as above.
HARUN-UL-RASHID
JUDGE
mt/-