Summary
Applying Gurpreet Singh, the Court limited interest on solatium recoverable in execution to the period from 19 September 2001, the date of Sunder, rather than the 1990 taking of possession. Neither the acquisition award nor the appellate judgment had expressly granted interest on solatium; a general grant of statutory benefits did not establish such an award. The related Bakhta proceedings also allowed interest only from Sunder and did not support the earlier commencement claimed here. The Government’s appeal was allowed without costs.
Issues
- Whether interest on solatium could be recovered in execution from possession where the award and appellate judgment had not specifically granted it.
- Whether the related Bakhta proceedings supported an earlier commencement date.
Held
- An executing court cannot go behind the decree. Under the clarification in Gurpreet Singh, where interest on solatium was not specifically addressed or rejected and interest on compensation was awarded, Sunder could be applied in pending execution, with recovery from 19 September 2001 rather than a prior period. Closed executions could not be reopened on that basis. (¶ SCR 436)
- The award granted solatium but did not grant interest on it. The appellate judgment’s reference to statutory benefits, including Section 23(2), likewise did not specifically award interest on solatium. This case therefore fell within the Gurpreet Singh clarification. (¶¶ SCR 434, SCR 435, SCR 437)
- Bakhta did not support recovery from possession: the executing court there had allowed interest only from 19 September 2001, and that was the order ultimately left undisturbed. The impugned execution and High Court orders were set aside and the same commencement date applied here. (¶¶ SCR 437, SCR 438)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; impugned orders set aside and interest on solatium limited to the period commencing 19 September 2001.