Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Abdul Salam Sarkar (Dead) and Others
Background
Land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and in 1990 a reference court granted the landowners interest on solatium at 12% per annum. On appeal, the Madras High Court in 2001 clarified that interest on solatium would depend on the outcome of a related question then pending before a larger Supreme Court bench, and allowed the claimants to approach the Sub Court once that was resolved. After the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench settled the issue in Gurpreet Singh vs Union of India (2006), the landowners applied for interest on solatium, which the Tamil Nadu Housing Board resisted.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that under the Gurpreet Singh test, interest on solatium is payable unless the reference court or appellate court has expressly or impliedly rejected the claim, and the claim can be pursued in pending execution proceedings. Here, the claim had never been rejected: it was expressly kept open by the High Court pending the outcome of the larger bench's decision. The Board's argument that the application came too late (after an earlier execution petition was closed and the award appropriated) did not defeat the claim, since the liberty to apply had been preserved. The Court confirmed the High Court's direction granting interest on solatium (payable from the date of the Sunder vs Union of India judgment, 19 September 2001), while leaving exact computation to the reference court, and directed that funds already deposited be released to the claimants with credit given in the final accounting.
Lesson Learnt
Where a court has expressly kept a legal claim "open" pending the outcome of a related case before a higher bench, a party does not lose that claim merely because they apply for relief after other related proceedings have formally closed: the right survives as long as it was never actually rejected.