UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAI MOHAN MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY three separate petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Union of India has challenged the (1) order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.Misc (Review) 167 of 2010 in Ex (M) 12 of 2001 arising out of Misc(L.A.) 18 of 1987 (in CRP No.62 of 2011), (2) order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in Execution (M) No.04 of 2006 arising out of Misc L.A. No.114 of 1987 (in CRP No.69 of 2011) and (3) order dated 11.3.2011 passed by the learned L.A. Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in Execution (M) No.25 of 2006 arising out of Misc (LA) 128 of 1992 (in CRP No.71 of 2011).

(2.) ALL these petitions are taken together as the identical questions of law are involved therein. The questions as common to all the cases are (a) whether the solatium as granted under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act shall carry interest and (b) whether the execution court can appropriate interest from the judgment debtors on the solatium, if not expressly directed by the Land Acquisition Judge in the reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Union of India to highlight his case has placed heavy reliance on a decision of the larger Bench of the Apex court in the matter of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India as reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5813 to drive home that Gurpreet (supra) has culled out that the solatium will not carry any interest and unless the reference court makes express accommodation for interest on the solatium, the execution court cannot appropriate the interest on account of solatium. He referred to the para 44 in particular which is extracted hereunder:-