# " v. _, JASWANT SINGH AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 525
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-09-15
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.5640-5641 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/v-jaswant-singh-and-ors-23555
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

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 - Subsequent 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 ConE
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
F
~
Sunder's case in which case it was held that interest is
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 sofatium 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 judgment of this Court in Gurpreet Singh's case, the position
relating to the power of the Executing Court was exam8
ined. The High Court has to examine the position in the
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
(2006) a sec 457
referred to
Para 5

## Text

[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 - Subsequent 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 ConE
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
F
~
Sunder's case in which case it was held that interest is
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 sofatium 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 judgment of this Court in Gurpreet Singh's case, the position
relating to the power of the Executing Court was exam8
ined. The High Court has to examine the position in the
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
(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 Revision Petition Nos. 260 & 261 of 2005
K.K. Khurana, A.AG., A.K. Mehta and Ajay Pal for the ApF pellants.
G
Anis Ahmed Khan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. 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
H questioning the correctness of the order passed by the Execut-
~ ~
T'
THE COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION & ANR. v.
527
JASWANT SINGH & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)
ing Court, i.e learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana holdA
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 under 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
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
D
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
E
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
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, thereG 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.
1. -
Y''
~ '