Dismissed

Puli Rajireddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Lao)

Telangana HC15 Apr 2010CRP/4699/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium through an execution petition as the execution proceedings were closed and the decree was fully satisfied prior to the date of the relevant apex court judgments.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed without any order as to costs; execution petition was held to be misconceived.

Puli Rajireddy Vs The Revenue Divisional… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4699 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

Puli Raji Reddy and others

¶8

… Petitioners

¶9

AND

¶10

The Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), Peddapalli and another

¶11

…Respondents

¶12

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4699 of 2009

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘C.P.C.’, for brevity), is directed against the order dated 16.02.2005 in E.P.No.16 of 2002 in O.P.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, whereunder and whereby, petition claiming interest on solatium was dismissed.

¶15

2. The Execution Petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 11 of C.P.C. for recovery of interest and compensation (solatium + 12% additional market value) with future interest accrued thereon. Second respondent filed counter stating that the entire compensation amount awarded in O.P.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli, has been paid to the decree holders and that no executable decree is pending against them and as such, the Execution Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

3. The Executing Court, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the decree holders are not entitled to claim interest on solatium through Execution Petition, as their claim is not in consonance with the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1996 in A.S.No.2670 of 1989 preferred against the judgment and decree in O.P.NO.12 of 1989, and accordingly dismissed the petition. Challenging the

¶17

same, present revision is filed.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in view of the judgment reported in Sunder Vs. Union of Indi a^[1] , in which the Apex Court held that solatium forms part of compensation and as such, interest is to be awarded on solatium even in the absence of claim, prays this Court to set aside the impugned order.

¶19

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that in pursuance of the award in O.P., decreetal amount has been paid and as such, no Execution Petitions are pending as on the date of decision rendered by Apex Court in Sundar’s case; that payment of interest on solatium is not part of the award; that even assuming that it is part of award, it may not be granted because of the clarification given in the judgment reported in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of Indi a^[2] ; and prays this Court to dismiss the revision.

¶20

6. Initially, an award was passed in O.P.NO.12 of 1989 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli on 16.04.1990 awarding certain amount as compensation. That award has become final in view of the fact that the appeal filed before this Court in A.S.No.2670 of 1990 was dismissed. Admittedly, none of the claimants has claimed interest on solatium in the Original Petition and therefore, no specific decree with regard to grant of interest in solatium was given by the trial Court. Similarly, while confirming the judgment of the trial Court, the appellate Court also

¶21

did not grant any interest on solatium. But the petitioners filed Execution Petition basing on the judgment of Sunder case (1 supra), wherein, it was held that interest on solatium is a part of compensation and as such, the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium, though it is not claimed.

¶22

7. There cannot be any dispute about the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Sunder case (1 supra). But the question is that in pursuance of the judgment in Sunder case (1 supra), whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium as part of compensation or not.

¶23

8. I n Gurpreet Singh case (2 supra), another Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held as follows:-

¶24

“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 the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder , 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 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 based on Sunder on the ground that the execution Court

¶25

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 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 and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an 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 the date of judgment in Sunder (19-09-2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation 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 avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question.”

¶26

From the above decision, it is clear that though the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, at the same time, the question of payment of interest on solatium which has not been rejected, expressly or impliedly, by the Reference Court or the appellate Court, still the claimants are entitled for interest on solatium provided an execution petition is pending. It would be open to the Executing Court to apply ratio laid down in Sunder case (1 supra). The Apex Court also clarified that such interest on solatium can be

¶27

claimed only in pending executions and not closed executions and the Executing Court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment in Sunder case (1 supra) viz. 19.09.2001 and not for any prior period.

¶28

10. In the instant case, the award passed by the Reference Court has become final prior to rendering the judgment in Sunder case (1 supra). The appeal has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court and thereafter, the entire amount has been paid in pursuance of the decree and judgment and the claimants received the entire amounts in pursuance of decree and they have not disputed that payment was not made in accordance with the decree. Thereafter, for the first time after rendering the judgment of Sunder case (1 supra), an application was filed in the year 2002 in E.P.No.16 of 2002 claiming interest on solatium. It is made clear in the judgment of Gurpreet Singh case (2 supra) that the claimants are entitled for interest on solatium when the Execution Proceedings are pending. Admittedly, no such Execution Petition is pending. In view of the fact that the award has already been fully satisfied by payment of amount, the question of filing of Execution Petition does not arise in such circumstances.

¶29

11. Therefore, filing of Execution Petition by the petitioners, in my considered view, is misconceived and the petitioners are not entitled for any interest on solatium in view of the fact that no Execution Petitions were pending on the date of passing of judgment by

¶30

the Apex Court in Sunder case (1 supra).

¶31

12. Hence, the trial Court, considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the appeal. This Court does not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.02.2005 in E.P.No.16 of 2002 in O.P.No.12 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Peddapalli. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

¶32

________________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶33

April 15, 2010 Bvv

¶34

[1] (2001) 7 SCC 211 [2] (2006) 8 SCC 457

Puli Rajireddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Lao)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puli Rajireddy v. The Revenue Divisional Officer (Lao)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gannu Saraswathi , Deva Saraswathi, Vs Deva Kamalamma

Anjani Chander Vs The Divisional Railway Manager

Changanti Rama Rao Vs The Apsrtc

M. Satya Srivatsava Vs Anitha

Tusti Veera Swamy, Vs The Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Special Deputy Collector

The Orinental Insurance Company Limited, Vs M/s. Satyanarayana Cotton Industries