STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DINESH JAGA RABADIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. to 2. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx

(2.) Mr. U. R. Bhatt, learned AGP, has while arguing the matter taken me through the orders under challenge and the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. It is his submission that the learned Trial Judge has not properly considered the contention raised on behalf of the Government that the claimants are not entitled for interest on the solatium amount as well as interest on the additional amount granted by the Reference Court.

(3.) Mr. Mehul Shah, appearing for the respondents -claimants, has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Sunder v. Union of India, reported in 2001 (3) GLH 446. The Apex Court has while considering the provisions of Sections 23(2), 28, 38 and 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and considering the decisions in the matter of Union of India v. Shri Ram Mehar, reported in 1973 (2) SCR 684 and in the matter of Yadavrao P. Pathade's case reported in JT 1996 (2) SC 240, in term held that the claimants are entitled even for interest on the amount of solatium. In the present case, the petitioner - State has already deposited the additional amount of compensation granted by the Reference Court with solatium and interest. However the Government has not deposited the interest on the solatium as well as interest on the additional amount granted by the Reference Court. In light of the decision of the Apex Court in the above matter, the contentions raised in these Revision Applications by the State are not available. The execution applications are filed only in respect of the recovery of the amount of interest on solatium as well as interest on additional amount and the learned Trial Judge has passed orders on applications for execution under Order 21 Rule 30. Accordingly, this is not a matter where this Court is required to interfere with while exercising my revisional jurisdiction and accordingly all the Revision Applications filed by the petitioner -State deserves to be rejected and the same are rejected. Rule is accordingly discharged in each matter. Interim relief granted earlier in each matter stands vacated. However, there will be no order as to costs. (BAV) Rule discharged.