REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL  APPEAL NOS. 5725-5726  OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C.) Nos.14224-14225 of 2005)

Food Corporation of India, Kakinada Rep. by District Manager ….Appellant

Versus

Yarlagadda Narayana Apparao & Others ….Respondents          

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge  in  these  appeals  is  to  the  judgment  of  the

learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court

allowing  the  Civil  Revision  Petition  Nos.5048  and  5088  of

2001, filed by the present respondent no.1 in each case.  In

the civil  revision petition it was indicated that the proforma

respondents in these appeals were not necessary parties.  The

basic  dispute  relates  to  liability  to  interest  on  the  amount

envisaged  under  Section  23(2)  of  the  Land  Acquisition  Act,

1894 (in short  the ‘Act’)  conveniently  called  “solatium”.  The

High Court allowed the civil revision petitions being of the view

that the decision of this Court in Prem Nath Kapur and Anr. v.

National Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. and Ors. (1996 (2) SCC

71) was overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in

Sunder v. Union of India (2001 (7) SCC 211).         

3. Mr.  Amrendra  Sharan,  Additional  Solicitor  General,

submitted that both  Prem Nath’s case (supra) and  Sunder’s

case (supra) were considered by a Constitution Bench of this

Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457).

It  was submitted that view in  Prem Nath’s case (supra) was

stated to be correct one in the said case. Therefore, the view of

the High Court cannot be maintained.   

2

4. In  response,  learned  counsel  for  the  respondent

submitted  that  the  High  Court’s  judgment  does  not  suffer

from any infirmity to warrant interference.   

5. In  Gurpreet  Singh’s case  (supra)  this  Court  observed,

inter alia, as follows:

“53. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential  ratio in  Prem Nath Kapur (1996 (2) SCC 71) on appropriation being at different stages  is  justified  though  if  at  a  particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee-decree- holder  would  be  entitled  to  appropriate  the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicated to be towards specified heads  by  the  judgment-debtor  while  making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur on the aspect of appropriation.

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 the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (2001 (7) SCC 211), 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

3

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 (19-9- 2001)  and not  for  any prior  period.  We  also clarify  that  this  will  not  entail  any reappropriation 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.”

6. In  view  of  what  has  been  stated  above,  it  would  be

appropriate for the High Court to consider the matter afresh in

view  of  the  aforesaid  quoted  observations  of  this  Court.

Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh

consideration.

7. The  appeals  are  disposed  of  without  any  order  as  to

costs.    

4

……..……………….…..……….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…….…………………….……….J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

New Delhi, September 17, 2008    

5