K. R. PRASADA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THESE civil revision petitions are filed by the decree-holders in Execution petition No. 222 of 1997 and other connected petitions being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Koppal, dated 4-4-1998. ( 2 ) THE short question which arises for consideration in these revision petitions is whether the decree-holder is entitled for interest on solatium and additional amount awarded in the awards passed by the learned civil Judge which are under execution before the Executing Court. In the awards passed which are under execution before the Executing court in all these matters, compensation was awarded to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre with solatium on the market value awarded at 30% and additional market value at 12% on the market value from 1-6-1972 to 24-12-1986 and in addition to the above amounts interest was awarded at 9% per annum on compensation amount for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land from the claimants i. e. , 1-6-1972 till 31-5-1973 and for the subsequent period at 15% per annum from 1-6-1973 till the date of payment. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the decree-holders that the said interest awarded shall be calculated not merely on the compensation awarded but also on the solatium and additional amount awarded. In other words, it is his contention that the interest awarded on the compensation amount under the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') includes interest payable on the solatium awarded under Section 23 (2) and the additional amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. But, it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the interest awarded by the learned Civil Judge is to be calculated only on the compensation amount but not on the solatium and additional amount awarded under the provisions of Section 23 (2) and 23 (1-A) respectively of the Act. But, it is contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the interest awarded by the learned Civil Judge is to be calculated only on the compensation amount but not on the solatium and additional amount awarded under the provisions of Section 23 (2) and 23 (1-A) respectively of the Act. The executing Court entertained a doubt in this regard and observed in the impugned order that though in view of the principles laid down by the supreme Court in the decision reported in Prem Nath Kapur and Another v National Fertilisers Corporation of India Limited and Others, the interest cannot be allowed on solatium and additional amount, but in view of the observations made by this Court in L. Nagamallikamba v l. A. O. , it is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the decree-holder before him that the said principle laid down by the Supreme court in the above decision cannot be applied to these cases. The question whether the solatium awarded under Section 23 (2) of the Act and the additional amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act are included in the expression 'compensation' used under Section 28 of the act for the purpose of calculating interest came up for consideration in two decisions of the Supreme Court presided over by three Judges which are: Prem Nath Kapur's case, supra and another Yadavrao P. Pathade (deceased) by L. Rs and Others v State of Maharashtra. In the decision reported in Prem Nath Kapur's case, supra, it was held that: "equally, the contention that the claimant is entitled to interest on solatium is also not warranted by express provision under Section 23 (2) i. e. , "in addition to" market value, solatium was required to be paid. Section 34 or Section 28 as the case may be, fastens liability to pay interest only on amount of compensation or such excess amount of compensation or part thereof determined under Section 23 (1 ). In other words, by virtue of the language of section 23 (2) viz. , "in addition to the market value", as provided in section 23 (1) solatium becomes payable. Compensation under Section 23 (1), by necessary implication, excludes the liability to pay interest on solatium. In other words, by virtue of the language of section 23 (2) viz. , "in addition to the market value", as provided in section 23 (1) solatium becomes payable. Compensation under Section 23 (1), by necessary implication, excludes the liability to pay interest on solatium. Equally, the question of payment of solatium on additional amount was also considered by this Court in P. Ram reddy v State of Andhra Pradesh, where it was held that no solatium is payable under Section 23 (1-A ). So too, no interest is payable on additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) on other components except on compensation or excess compensation or part thereof determined under Section 23 (1) over and above the award under Section 11 by Civil Court under Section 26 or on appeal under Section 54 respectively". In the other decision reported in Yadavrao P. Pathade's case, supra, it was observed in para 5 as follows: "section 23 (2) provides that "in addition" to the market value of the land as above provided the Court shall in every case award a sum at 15% preceding the Amendment Act and after the Amendment act, 30% on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The Legislature, therefore, made a distinction between compensation under Section 23 (1) and the additional amount on such market value as solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. In other words, section 28 does not comprehend payment of interest on solatium when it expressly mentions payment of interest on compensation under Section 28 referable to Section 23 (1) of the Act. Thus the high Court was right in not awarding interest on solatium. Similar view was taken by this Court after Periyar case by a three-Judge bench in Prem Nath Kapur's case, supra. Thus it is made clear in the above decisions of the Supreme Court that the interest is not payable either on the solatium amount awarded under section 23 (2) or on the additional amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) o fthe Act". ( 3 ) IT is next contended by the revision petitioner in each of the petitions that the Executing Court cannot go behind the awards passed and so irrespective of the above said legal position, the decree-holders are entitled for interest on solatium and additional amounts awarded. ( 3 ) IT is next contended by the revision petitioner in each of the petitions that the Executing Court cannot go behind the awards passed and so irrespective of the above said legal position, the decree-holders are entitled for interest on solatium and additional amounts awarded. There cannot be any dispute regarding the proposition that the Executing court cannot go behind the decree or award. But on perusal of the awards passed in all these revision petitions, it is found that there is no specific direction that the interest is to be calculated on solatium and additional amounts awarded by the Court. On the other hand, the direction given regarding the interest is to the effect that the said interest is to be calculated on the compensation amount. As it is now found from the above decisions of the Supreme Court that the amounts payable by way of solatium and additional amount are altogether different components and do not form part of expression 'compensation' used in Section 23 (1) and Section 28 of the Act, it cannot be contended that under the terms of the award passed in their favour, the decree-holders are entitled to the interest on solatium and additional amount also. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the decree-holders are not entitled to interest on solatium and additional amounts awarded in the awards passed which are under execution. ( 4 ) IT is also next contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that similar objections were raised previously by the learned government Pleader before the Executing Court and those objections were overruled and the same order has been confirmed in Nagamalli kamba's case and so it is not open to the respondent-State to raise the same objection once again and the Executing Court was also not justified in entertaining the doubt in this regard and postponing the payment of amounts deposited in Court calculating the interest on solatium and additional amount. But on a perusal of the order passed in Revision petition No. 3043 of 1997, it is found that the said revision petition has been disposed of on the ground that it is premature and that there are no grounds to admit the same. But on a perusal of the order passed in Revision petition No. 3043 of 1997, it is found that the said revision petition has been disposed of on the ground that it is premature and that there are no grounds to admit the same. What all that is observed while disposing of the said civil revision petition is that it is open to the decree-holder to bring to the notice of the Executing Court the order passed by the same court on 30-5-1997 overruling the objections of the judgment-debtors and the order issued on 2-6-1997 directing the judgment-debtors to deposit the entire decree amount in Court and to make a submission that there is nothing more to be heard and the judgment-debtors are to be called upon to pay the balance amount. But the fact remains that this court has not considered the correctness or otherwise of the objections raised in C. R. P. No. 3043 of 1997. So, it cannot be said that the said matter has been concluded by the orders passed in the said revision petition merely because of the above observations made by this Court. ( 5 ) IT is further contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that subsequently by an order dated 24-7-1998 passed by this Court in C. R. P. Nos. 1870 to 1874 of 1998 and 1976 to 1979 of 1998, this Court has dismissed the said petitions wherein the L. A. O. of Koppal has challenged the orders dated 4-4-1998 passed by the Civil Judge, koppal, in Ex. Case Nos. 228, 229, 231, 222, 226, 230, 223, 220 and 224 of 1997. It is seen from the above said orders passed by this Court on 24-7-1998 that the said revision petitions have been dismissed observing that the petitioners-Land Acquisition Officer and Executive Engineer have not challenged the order passed by the Executing Court, dated 30-5-1997 overruling the objections raised that the decree-holders are not entitled to claim interest on solatium and additional market value. But in the above said order, it is observed that it is open to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 30th May, 1997 passed by the Executing court overruling the objections raised by them. But in the above said order, it is observed that it is open to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 30th May, 1997 passed by the Executing court overruling the objections raised by them. So, it is clear that this court has dismissed the above revision petitions only on technical ground that the order dated 30-5-1997 passed by the Executing Court has not been challenged by the decree-holders, but at the same time this court has given liberty to the petitioners to challenge the earlier order dated 30-5-1997. Now, the validity of the order passed on 30-5-1997 passed by the Executing Court came up for consideration since the executing Court itself doubted the correctness of the said order in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur's case, supra. So, this Court is entitled to consider the merits of the order passed by the Executing Court on 30-5-1997 overruling the objections raised on the above said disputed question. As it is now found from the terms of the award passed in all these revision petitions that there is no specific order to the effect that the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount and as the Supreme Court has clarified in the above decision and also in another latest decision in Tehri Hydro development Corporation v S. P. Singh and Others, the claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium and on additional amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the order passed by the Executing Court on 30-5-1997 overruling the objections raised by the Land Acquisition Officer in this regard cannot be sustained and the decree-holders are not entitled to claim interest on solatium and additional amount awarded to them. The contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners that under the terms of the award passed which are under execution, they are entitled to interest on solatium and interest awarded is devoid of any merit since there is no such direction in the terms of the award. ( 6 ) FOR all the above reasons, all these revision petitions are dismissed clarifying that the decree-holders are not entitled to interest on solatium and additional amounts awarded to them. ( 6 ) FOR all the above reasons, all these revision petitions are dismissed clarifying that the decree-holders are not entitled to interest on solatium and additional amounts awarded to them. The Executing Court is directed to disallow the interest claimed on solatium and additional amount and permit the decree-holders to withdraw the amount due to them on recalculation of the amount by giving deductions to the payments made and the excess amount deposited by the respondents-judgment debtors shall be refunded to them. No costs. --- *** --- .