JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 15.1.2000, passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, who gave a declaration in favour of the decree-holder-respondent that it is entitled to Rs. 4,96,001.02 as calculated up to 26.5.1999 with future interest as mentioned in the order itself. 2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, an award was passed in favour of the respondent on 19.1.1987 in case No. 115/LA/79/85 wherein it was held that the claimant was the owner to the extent of 138 kanals 2 marls. Since, there was some construction over the land which was acquired, compensation was also awarded on that account. The decree-holder was found entitled to solatium @ 30% and 12% on such amount as additional amount besides interest at the rate of 9% per annum before taking possession in the first year and enhanced rate of interest at the rate of 15% after one year. The decree-holder filed an execution on 22.5.1987 and claimed enhanced amount of Rs. 3,72,448.56 with future interest on the principal amount till the date of payment @ 15%. The petitioner-State of Haryana filed the objections alleging that the amount of Rs. 1,45,396.37 was due which has already been tendered by the Land Acquisition Officer and, thus, nothing is due to the decree-holder. 3. The decree-holder filed rejoinder to the objections and denied the allegations. 4. From the above pleadings of the parties, the executing Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether amount of compensation awarded, other incidental charges due to the D.H. was validly distributed by the State of Haryana, if so on which date and to what effect ? OPD. 2. Relief." 5. 4. From the above pleadings of the parties, the executing Court framed the following issues :- "1. Whether amount of compensation awarded, other incidental charges due to the D.H. was validly distributed by the State of Haryana, if so on which date and to what effect ? OPD. 2. Relief." 5. The parties led evidence in support of their case and finally, the trial Court vide the impugned order, held as follows :- "The only question for determination in this case is whether the deposit in R.D. account on 30.3.1977 is compliance of section 31(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, which is according to section 31(2), the money was to be deposited in the reference court so that the reference court could deal with it to save the interest of the claimant and had to deposit the sum in lucrative investment so that there is no loss of interest to the claimant found entitled. The word "Court" has been interpreted in 1981 PLJ 231 and 1936 Calcutta 525 ILR and 1967(2) P-649 PB which clearly lays down that the deposition in the treasury is not a sufficient compliance of under Section 30(1) of Land Acquisition Act so the decree-holder is entitled to interest from the date of taking the possession of the land i.e. 10.2.1975. The amount deposited on 10.5.1988 and 11.8.1988 amounting to Rs. 95,313.74 and Rs. 50,082.63 total Rs. 1,45,396.37 was less than the interest due on those dates which is clear from the following table :- Interest 18.7.1973 to 9.2.1975 @ 12% compensation and solatium 27178.49 10.2.1975 to 9.2.1976 @ 9% 11246.27 10.2.1976 to 10.5.1988 229611.42 11.5.1988 to 11.8.1988 @ 15% 4685.94 11.8.1988 to 26.8.1988 for 15 days 781.81 Total 273503.23 The payment of Rs. 1,28,106.75 on 10.5.1988 and 11.8.1988 having less than interest due has been appropriated towards interest due upto 25.8.1988. So balance on 26.8.1988 273503.12 On this interest from 26.8.1988 to 26.5.1988 for 10 years comes to 222498.00 Net amount recoverable on 26.5.1999 496001.02 It is, therefore, held that the decree-holder is found entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,96,001.02 as calculated up to 26.5.1999 together with future interest at the rate indicated above." 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision by the State of Haryana. 7. The only point for determination by me is whether the decree-holder can claim solatium 30% or not ? 4,96,001.02 as calculated up to 26.5.1999 together with future interest at the rate indicated above." 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision by the State of Haryana. 7. The only point for determination by me is whether the decree-holder can claim solatium 30% or not ? With regard to the rest of the amount, there is no dispute. If the answer of this court goes in the negative, the execution is liable to be dismissed and if the answer goes in the affirmative, then of course, the decree-holder is entitled to the amount as awarded by the court. 8. Section 23(1-A) of the Act lays down that "in addition to the market- value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market- value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier." 9. Explanation to Section 23(1-A) lays down that "In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any staty or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded." 10. Section 23(2) further lays down that "In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition." 11. The Act was further changed in the year 1984 vide Act No. 68 and Section 30 of the Act deals with transitional provisions. The Act was further changed in the year 1984 vide Act No. 68 and Section 30 of the Act deals with transitional provisions. Sections 30(1) lays down that "the provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982, the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of People, in which no award has been mae by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act. 12. Section 30(2) further lays down that "the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court on appeal against any such award under the provisions of the Principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People and before the commencement of this Act." 13. Thus, a reading of the above would show that the decree-holder can take the advantage of the solatium if the award of the Collector is made between 30.4.1982 to 24.9.1984. Admittedly, in the present case, the award of the Collector was passed on 19.1.1987 by the court. In these circumstances, the decree-holder was not entitled to solatium @ 30% nor it was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act. 14. Faced with this difficulty, counsel for the respondent submitted that in the award dated 19.1.1987, the rate of solatium has been increased from 15% to 30% and this part of the award has not been challenged by the State nd, therefore, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. 14. Faced with this difficulty, counsel for the respondent submitted that in the award dated 19.1.1987, the rate of solatium has been increased from 15% to 30% and this part of the award has not been challenged by the State nd, therefore, the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. As per the counsel, it is a case of wrong exercise of jurisdiction at the most and not a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction. As challenge has not been given by the State to the decision dated 19.1.1987, therefore, there is no force in this revision petition. 15. The submission of the counsel for the respondent looks alluring at the first instance because it is a settled principle of law that the executing Court has to execute the decree as a whole and it cannot sit as a court of appeal, but there is one exception to this general rule. If the award of the court is against the basic principle of law, such an award will be considered as nullity to that extent and is not executable in this regard. Therefore, I reject the contention of the counsel for the respondent. 16. Resultantly, I allow this revision, set aside the impugned order and declare that the decree-holder is not entitled to solatium @ 30%. As I have stated above that the dispute in this case was with regard to solatium, therefore, the decree-holder is not entitled to any amount in the present execution. No costs. Revision allowed.