IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.        OF 2008         (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.760-761/2006)  

The Collector, Land Acquisition and Anr. ...Appellants

Versus

Jaswant Singh and Ors. ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in these appeals is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the

Punjab and Haryana High Court.  A Revision Petition, in terms of Article 227 of the

Constitution of  India,  1950 (in short `the Constitution) was filed before the High

Court questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court, i.e

learned  Additional  District  Judge,  Ludhiana  holding  that  the  respondents  were

entitled to claim interest on the amount of solatium.  The petition was dismissed in the

light of a judgment of this Court in Sunder Vs.  Union of India (2001

-2-

(7) SCC 211). It was held in the said case that the interest is payable on the

amount of solatium as well.  

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present case, the

Reference Court had categorically observed as follows while disposing of several land

reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,  1894 (in short `the

Act'):

“However,  they  shall  not  be  entitled  to  any

interest on the amount of solatium.”

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the

aforesaid categorical finding of the Reference Court, the Executing Court could not

have gone beyond the decree.   Learned counsel for the respondents,  on the other

hand, submitted that the matter was squarely covered  by the decision in Sunder's

case (supra) and, therefore, the High Court was justified.

-3-

In a subsequent Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Gurpreet

Singh Vs. Union of India (2006 (8) SCC 457), the position relating to the power of the

Executing Court was examined.  In paragraph-54, it was noted as follows.

“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

counsel to address us on that question.  That question is

whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), 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

-4-

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 (supra) 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  (supra)  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

-5-

permit  its  recovery from the  date  of  the  judgment  in

Sunder  (September  19,  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.  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.”  

The High Court was required to examine the position in the light of the

decision in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra) as the factual position has not been noted by

the High Court.

We, therefore, remit the matter to the High Court to consider the matter

in the light of what has been stated in paragraph-54 of Gurpreet's case (supra).

The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

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

            .....................J.              (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)