JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. - None appears for the respondent-Improvement Trust despite service. They are, therefore, proceeded ex parte. 2. In this case the award had attained finality on 8.3.95. In Yadavrao P. Pathade (dead) by LRs etc. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1996(2) SC 240, the judgment was delivered by the Honble Supreme Court on 1.1.96 holding 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% p.a. 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 Periars case (supra) by a three- Judge Bench in Prem Nath Kapur and another etc. v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and others, JT 1995(9) SC 23." 3. In Prem Nath Kapur and another etc. v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and others, JT 1995(9) SC 23 decided on 29.11.95 also the Honble Supreme Court had taken this view that no interest is payable on solatium. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that these judgments cannot stand in the way of the petitioner as the petitioner had been awarded interest on solatium earlier to these judgments. View taken by the Honble Supreme Court will not have any effect on the decrees which had already become final. He submits that executing Court could not be oblivious of what the Honble Supreme Court had already laid down in their judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the executing Court must execute the decree as it stands. He submits that the rights of the parties became crystallised according as the decree attained finality. In this case, he submits that decree had attained finality on 8.3.95. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the executing Court must execute the decree as it stands. He submits that the rights of the parties became crystallised according as the decree attained finality. In this case, he submits that decree had attained finality on 8.3.95. If for one reason or the other, the decree remained unexecuted and in the meanwhile, the aforesaid judgment came in, he cannot be made to suffer. He submits that these judgments are applicable only to the awards which attained finality after the date of the aforesaid judgments. I think, he is correct in his submission. Executing Court must execute the decree as it stands. It has no power to tinker with the decree. Executing Court can go behind the decree only if the decree is nullity. In this case, the award was passed according to the law then prevailing. It is well settled that the law laid down by the Courts is only prospective in operation and is not retrospective in operation. If law laid down by the Courts is given retrospective operation, that would render settled state of affairs topsy-turvy. 4. For the reasons given above, this revision is allowed. Executing Court will proceed with the execution proceedings. Revision allowed.