***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 17.03.2026 to the extent interest on solatium has been denied from 22.08.1984 to 19.09.2001. The dispute in the present petition is confined to interest on solatium.

2. Mr. Anshul Pareek, Advocate has filed Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

3. By order dated 04.01.1990, Land Acquisition Tribunal, (Improvement Trust) Bathinda (for short ‘Tribunal’) determined amount of compensation with respect to acquisition of petitioner’s land. The Tribunal held that claimants for the first year are entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of possession i.e. 22.08.1984 and @15% p.a. for the subsequent years till payment. The matter came up before this Court with respect to enhancement of compensation. This Court vide order dated 01.11.2011 enhanced market value of the acquired land from Rs.40/- per square yard to Rs.70/- per square yard. No observation with respect to other components was made. The petitioner filed multiple execution applications. The Executing Court disposed of execution applications on payment of compensation along with interest. The petitioner filed last execution application in 2023 claiming interest on solatium. Executing Court by impugned order has held that petitioner was entitled to interest on solatium for the period from 19.09.2001 to 30.04.2023 and was not entitled to interest for the period from 22.08.1984 to 18.09.2001.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was entitled to interest from 22.08.1984 to 30.04.2023 on solatium. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ‘Sunder Vs. Union of India’, 2001(7) SCC 211 has categorically held that compensation contemplated under Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Act (for short ‘1984 Act’) includes market value as well as addition under Section 23(1A) and solatium under Section 23(2). Interest is payable on total amount of compensation. As solatium formed part of compensation, the respondent was liable to pay interest on solatium from the date of taking possession. Executing Court has wrongly restricted interest from 19.09.2001. The Court has misread judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Sunder (supra). There is no dispute that solatium forms part of compensation and in the present case, Tribunal had awarded interest on compensation, thus, respondent was liable to pay interest on solatium from the date of possession.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that there was confusion whether solatium forms part of compensation or not. Supreme Court in Sunder (supra) clarified that solatium forms part of compensation. At that stage, dispute arose with respect to interest on solatium. Supreme Court in case of ‘Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India’, 2005(8) SCC 457 clarified the issue and held that interest on solatium would be payable from 19.09.2001 where Reference Court or Appellate Court had not specifically referred to question of interest on solatium. In the present case, the Reference Court discussed about interest, however, there was nothing in the order with respect to interest on solatium.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. There is no dispute that solatium forms part of compensation. Prior to judgment of Supreme Court in case of Sunder (supra), there was confusion which stood clarified by said judgment. In the said judgment, the question of interest on solatium was not clarified. The Apex Court in Gupreet Singh (supra), though question of interest was not one of the issues involved yet adverted to said question and clarified as below:-

“54. 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 counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), 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 (supra) on the ground that the execution court 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 (supra) 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 the judgment in Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation 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.”

[Emphasis supplied]

8. In the case in hand, the Tribunal vide order dated 04.01.1990 directed respondent to pay interest. The operative part of the order qua interest reads as:-

“The claimants shall also be entitled to receive interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of possession i.e. 22.8.1984 for the first year and at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for the subsequent period till payment”

9. From the perusal of above order, it is evident that Tribunal ordered to pay interest, however, did not clarify whether interest would be payable on solatium or not. The reason was very simple that at that point of time there was no clarity. Supreme Court in case of Gurpreet Singh (supra) has adverted to this situation and clarified that if award of the Reference Court or the Appellate court does not specifically refer to question of interest on solatium, then it would be open to the Executing Court to apply the ratio of Sunder (supra) and grant interest on solatium. As per said judgment, the petitioner is entitled to interest on solatium. Now the question remains of date from which he is entitled to interest. This aspect has also been dealt with in Gurpreet Singh (supra). The Court has clarified that interest on solatium can be claimed from the date of judgment in Sunder (supra) and not from any prior period. The award of Tribunal as well as order of this Court did not specifically provide for interest on solatium, though there was order for interest, thus, petitioner was entitled to interest on solatium, however, in the absence of specific direction by Tribunal or this Court to pay interest on solatium, it was payable from 19.09.2001 as ordered by Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra). The Executing Court has rightly awarded interest from 19.09.2001 to 30.04.2023.

10. In the wake of above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Petition dismissed.

********