Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 159 (MP)

Navrang Metals v. State of M. P.

2001-02-16

S.B.SAKRIKAR

body2001
Petitioner decree-holder has directed this revision against order dt.20.11.98 passed by the 3rd additional District Judge. Dhar in Execution Case No. 3/86, thereby rejecting the interest claimed by the decree-holder on the amount of solatium, as awarded by this Court in FA 143/90 by judgment and decree dtd.10.9.97. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that - In a land acquisition reference ease MJC 3/86 the 3rd ADJ, Dhar by its order dt.23.7.90 awarded compensation of Rs.1,48,632/- in all together with 12% additional compensation and 30% solatium alongwith interest thereon. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid award of the Reference Court preferred F.A. 143/90 before this Court and claimed enhancement of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court. This Court by judgment and decree dtd.10.9.97 allowed the F.A. filed by the petitioner and enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,46,600/- together with 30% additional compensation by way of solatium alungwith interest. No appeal was filed by the State against the, judgment and decree dtd.10.9.97 by this Court passed in F.A. 143/90. The decree holder filed execution before the Reference Court for the recovery of the additional amount of compensation together with 30% of the solatium and Interest thereon. In this execution the non-applicant State raised certain objections, alongwith objection that the applicant is not entitled to recover any interest on the amount of solatium in view of the decision of Apex Court in case of Kapoorchand Jain & Ors. Vs. State Govt. of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (1999) 2 SCC 89 . Learned Executing Court alongwith other objections raised on behalf of the non-applicant-judgment debtor, also disallowed the amount of interest claimed by the petitioner on the amount of solatium as awarded by this Court in award dt.10.9.97 passed in F.A. 143/90. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submission of the counsel for the parties. The only question that arises for decision in this revision is that when this Court by judgment dt.10.9.97 passed in FA 143/90 has awarded interest on the amount of solatium calculated in terms of the enhanced compensation amount, the Executing Court is competent to disallow the interest on the amount of solatium as awarded by this Court applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Kapoorchand Jain's case (supra)? On perusal of the copy of the judgment dt.10.9.97 of this Court in FA 143/90 and the order impugned as also the decision of the Apex Court in Kapoorchand Jain's case (supra), in my considered opinion the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the terms of the decree dtd. 10.9.97 passed by this Court in F.A. 143/90. In the judgment dtd.10.9.97 this Court has awarded interest in favour of the applicant on the amount of solatium so calculated on the enhanced amount of compensation as such the Executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands. The decree of this Court does not become illegal or unexecutable on the ground of a subsequent judgment of the Apex Court taking a contrary view on grant of interest on the amount of solatium. The impugned order of the Executing Court so far as it relates to disallowing the interest on the amount of solatium in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Kapoorchand Jain's case, is illegal and without jurisdiction and deserves to be demolished. Consequently this revision is partly allowed only to the extent of disallowing the interest on the amount of solatium claimed by the petitioner in terms of the decree dtd.10.9.97 of this Court in FA 143/90. The impugned order of the Executing Court disallowing interest on the solatium amount claimed by the petitioner stands set aside. No order as to costs.