BASAPPA GADIGAPPA PUJAR Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned standing counsel for the first and second respondents.

(2.) The petitioners in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are the claimants in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the said Act"). The Reference was partly allowed by the judgment and award dated 07th January, 2002. The operative part of the judgment and award of the Reference Court reads thus:

(3.) An Execution Petition was filed by the petitioners for execution of said judgment and award. The Executing Court directed both the petitioners and the respondents to file a memorandum of calculations indicating the amount payable under the said judgment and award. Accordingly, memoranda of calculation were filed by both the parties. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 03rd October, 2016 passed by the Executing Court. The challenge is to the extent to which the Executing Court directed that interest on solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the said Act will be payable not from the date of taking over of the possession of the acquired land but from 19th September, 2001 which is the date on which the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court decided in the case of Sunder v. Union Of India, 2001 7 SCC 211 .