JUDGMENT Bakhshish Kaur, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order whereby interest on solatium and additional amount was allowed to be adjusted from the amount already deposited by the judgment debtors. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that interest on solatium cannot be awarded. 3. The land belonging to the respondent was acquired by the State Government. The award given by the Land Acquisition Collector was not acceptable to the respondent, therefore, reference made on the award was in favour of the respondent-land owner, who was allowed compensation besides statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A)(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 4. The only point under consideration is whether interest can be awarded on solatium. According to Mr. Sultan Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General, no interest is payable on solatium under Section 23(2) and on the additional amount under Section 28 of the Act. This objection was taken in the grounds of revision by relying on Prem Nath Kapur and another v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & others, 1996(2) SCC 71 and Yadavrao P. Pathade v. State of Maharashtra, 1996(2) SCC 570 . 5. Mr. Sultan Singh, learned Assistant Advocate General candidly agreed that the grounds on the basis of the which the impugned order has been challenged have become redundant, in view of the latest authority of the Apex Court reported as Sunder v. Union of India, JT 2001(8) SCC 130, whereby it has been held that the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the agreed amount, including solatium. The Honble Judges of the Apex Court have also made reference to the observations made by Honble the Chief Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (as he then was) in State of Haryana v. Smt. Kailashwati and others, AIR 1980 P&H 117, under para 26 and it reads as under :- "Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of Section 28 of the Act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28, therefore, would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well." 6. In view of the aforesaid, the Executing Court has rightly observed that the respondent is entitled to interest on solatium. There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Petition dismissed.