JUDGMENT Swatanter Kumar, J. (Oral) - This revision along with other connected revisions being on the regular list of this Court have been called out number of times today but nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue these revisions. These revisions were filed in the year 1982 and I see no reason to adjourn these cases. Left with no alternative the matters are being disposed of in accordance with law. 2. The learned executing Court vide order dated 20.2.1982 passed in Execution No. 131 of 1980 directing that the four other execution petitions filed by the decree holder be consolidated with that execution petition titled as Labhu Ram v. J.I.T. and evidence was, thus, recorded in that case. Vide order dated 19.4.1982 the learned executing Court dismissed the execution applications resulting in filing of the five revision petitions before this Court being Civil Revisions No. 1884, 1864, 1865, 1885 and 2137, all of 1982. 3. The decree holders filed five execution applications praying that the amounts indicated by each of the decree holders should be recovered from the judgment debtors in accordance with law. The amounts were claimed by the decree holders on account of solatium, interest and expenses. The applications for execution upon notice were contested by the judgment debtors who filed objections and stated that decree holders cannot claim money of exempted area and the amount legally and lawfully due to the decree holders had been paid and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the execution applications. The learned executing Court framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the D.H. is not entitled to the balance amount in view of the objections of the J.D. ? (OP JD) 2. Relief. 4. As already noticed above, all these petitions were consolidated with execution petition No. 131 of 1980 and evidence of the parties was recorded in that case. The decree-holders examined themselves while the judgment debtors examined one Shri Sanjeeva Rai OW1 in support of their respective cases. The executing Court dismissed these objections resulting in filing of these revisions. 5. It must be noticed at the very out-set that the decree holders examined themselves alone and placed copy of the judgment of the High Court on record. No exact details of the amount received and balance thereof have been given. It was vaguely stated by the decree-holders that possession of their land had been taken. 5. It must be noticed at the very out-set that the decree holders examined themselves alone and placed copy of the judgment of the High Court on record. No exact details of the amount received and balance thereof have been given. It was vaguely stated by the decree-holders that possession of their land had been taken. In contrast to this OW1 Sanjeeva Rai had appeared on behalf of the judgment debtors with records. The statement of OW1 is very comprehensive and deals with the case of each of the decree-holder. It has been specifically stated by him that in the case of Labhu Ram, land measuring 32 kanals 7 marlas was acquired, out of which land measuring about 5 kanals 13 marlas 16 biswas was exempted. As a consequence, Rs. 11751.77 (i.e. Rs. 2389.53 by way of solatium and Rs. 9362.24 as interest) were deducted from the amount payable to Labhu Ram and the balance amount was paid. It was specifically stated by this witness that they had not taken possession of the exempted land. In the similar manner he had given details in relation to each of the decree holders. The learned executing Court has rightly noticed that as per ExDH/19, judgment of the High Court, the petitioners would be entitled to 15% solatium and 6% interest from the date of taking possession till payment on the total value at the rate of Rs. 140/- per marla awarded by the Tribunal. The learned executing Court, on appreciation of evidence and the documents produced before it, had come to the conclusion that in fact the possession was never taken by the Board. On the contrary, it was admitted case that possession of the plots remained with the decree holders and was never taken from them. In other words, possession of the land was never parted to the extent noticed above, by the decree holders and as such they were not entitled to the amounts in that behalf. Exercising its jurisdiction in consonance with the settled principles of law, the Court came to the conclusion that decree holders were not entitled to any further amount and the execution application stood satisfied. 6. I see no error of jurisdiction or otherwise in the impugned judgment. Resultantly, all these revisions are dismissed without any order as to costs. Revisions dismissed.