THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND ANR.versusJASWANT SINGH AND ORS.

                              [2008] 13 S.C.R. 525
     ~
             THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND ANR.                     A
"                                   v.
_,
                       JASWANT SINGH AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal Nos.5640-5641 of 2008)
                            SEPTEMBER 15, 2008
     -}                                                                   B
              [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                             SHARMA, JJ.]

               Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
                Interest on solatium - Executing Court granting interest  c
          on solatium though such interest not granted by Reference
          Court - Revision petition dismissed by High Court - Subse-
          quent judgment by Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in
          Gupreet Singh's case on power of Executing Court to grant
          interest on solatium - Held: The High Court has to examine D
     1    the position in light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh's case
          as the said decision is subsequent to the judgment of the High
          Court - Matter remitted to High Court.
                A Revision petition in terms of Article 227 of the Con-
                                                                          E
          stitution was filed before the High Court questioning the
          correctness of the order passed by the Executing Court,
          holding that the Respondents-land owners 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's case in which case it was held that interest is        F
          payable on the amount of solatium as well.
               It was submitted by Appellant before this Court that
          the Reference Court had categorically observed while
          disposing of the land reference case that the landowners G
          shall not be entitled to any interest on the amount of sofa-
          tium and in view of such categorical finding of the Refer-
     't   ence Court, the Executing Court could not have gone
          beyond the decree.
                                      525                                 H
    526      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A         Remitting the matter to the High Court, the Court
          HELD: In a subsequent Constitution Bench judg-
    ment of this Court in Gurpreet Singh's case, the position
    relating to the power of the Executing Court was exam-
    ined. The High Court has to examine the position in the
8   light of the decision in Gurpreet Singh's case as the said           ~ ~

    decision is subsequent to the judgment of the High Court.
    Since the factual position has not been noted by the High
    Court, the High Court is directed to consider the matter in
    the light of what has been stated in the Gurpreet Singh's
c   case. [Paras 5, 6] [527-E-F; 528-G]
         Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 and Gurpreet
    Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457 - referred to.
                           Case Law Reference
D
          (2001) 1 sec 211               referred to    Para 2
                                                                         T'
          (2006) a sec 457               referred to    Para 5
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    5640-5641 of 2008
E
         From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.1.2005 of
    the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Revi-
    sion Petition Nos. 260 & 261 of 2005
          K.K. Khurana, A.AG., A.K. Mehta and Ajay Pal for the Ap-
F   pellants.
          Anis Ahmed Khan for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
G
       2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order of a learned
  Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. A Revi-
  sion Petition, in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
  1950 (in short 'the Constitution) was filed before the High Court
H questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Execut-
            THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION & ANR. v.               527
            JASWANT SINGH & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
       ing Court, i.e learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana hold- A
       ing 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 (7)
       SCC 211). It was held in the said case that the interest is pay-
  >    able on the amount of solatium as well.                          B
              3. 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 un-
       der Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the
       Act'):                                                              c
            "However, they shall not be entitled to any interest on the
            amount of solatium."
              4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that
       in view of the aforesaid categorical finding of the Reference D
       Court, the Executing Court could not have gone beyond the
       decree. Learned counsel forthe 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.                                                          E
            5. 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.
                                                                           F
            "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 G
            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
                                                                           H
     528       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008) 13 S.C.R.


r\         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
B          based on Sunder (supra) on the ground that the execution        1. -
           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
c          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
D
           deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. We also clarify         Y''
           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 (September 19, 2001)
E          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
F          avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question."              ~     '

           6. 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, there-
G fore, 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).
           7. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
H B.B.B.                                             Appeals allowed.