JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - Service of the LRs of Murari, respondent No. 4, is dispensed with as the interest of the LRs can be well safeguarded by the presence of respondents 1 to 3. 2. Heard on merits. 3. This is a civil revision filed by the State of Haryana against respondents 1 and 4, and the sole point for determination in this case is whether interest on solatium can be granted to the land owners or not. 4. Counsel for the petitioners draws my attention to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and submits that a reading of section would show that the Legislature has not awarded interest on solatium and, therefore, the Court below was in error when interest was awarded on solatium to the land owners. 5. Section 28 of the Act lays down that if sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. 6. Section 28 cannot be read in isolation. It has to be read along with Section 23, which lays down the matters to be considered in determining "compensation". Section 23(2) lays down that in addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum thirty per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 7. This amount of 30% is a part of the compensation under Section 23. It is a tangible amount. Section 23(2) lays down that in addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum thirty per centum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 7. This amount of 30% is a part of the compensation under Section 23. It is a tangible amount. The solatium has not been separately identified from Section 23 itself. 8. In this view of the matter, when solatium is treated as part of compensation, the Government is bound to pay interest on this amount as the amount has not been paid within the prescribed time. 9. Hence, there is no merit in this revision and the same is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.