JUDGMENT AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is for setting aside the order dated 21.9.2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby objections filed by the petitioner in execution proceedings were dismissed. Similar orders have also been challenged in other connected revision petitions i.e. Civil Revision Nos. 5091 to 5116 of 2004. Therefore, all these revision petitions are being disposed of by a single order as the question of law and the facts involved are common in all these petitions. The facts have, however, been taken from Civil Revision No. 5090 of 2004. 2. The facts as emerge from the record and stated by the counsel for the parties are that land of the private respondents No. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to “landowners”) was acquired and an award in respect of compensation for their land was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 11.9.1990. Possession of the land was taken on 16.11.1990. Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) was decided on 30.3.1993. The landowners have filed execution application wherein they have Iaid a claim that they were also entitled to interest on the amount of solatium as well as the additional amount paid to them. The execution application was contested by the present petitioner by filing objections. 3. The executing court on consideration of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, dismissed the objections filed by the petitioner vide order dated 21.9.2004. It is this order which has been impugned in this revision petition. 4. Mr. S.C. Sibal, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner-Board submitted that the award never provided for interest on solatium and additional amount and, therefore, the executing court could not go behind the award and grant the same to the landowners. He placed reliance on the judgments reported in Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises, (1999) 1 SCC 558, Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 410, Food Corporation of India v. S.N. Nagarkar, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 808 in support of this contention. 5. He placed reliance on the judgments reported in Bhawarlal Bhandari v. Universal Heavy Mechanical Lifting Enterprises, (1999) 1 SCC 558, Rameshwar Dass Gupta v. State of U.P. and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 410, Food Corporation of India v. S.N. Nagarkar, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 808 in support of this contention. 5. He next submitted that the landowners had earlier filed execution applications which were dismissed as fully satisfied and therefore, they are estopped by their act and conduct from claiming interest on solatium and additional amount by filing the present execution application. He also submitted that no amount having been specified by the decree-holders/landowners in the present execution application, the same was liable to be rejected on the ground of being vague and further that no such claim was ever put forth by the land owners before the reference court or in the earlier execution application and the executing court has thus erred in granting the same to the land owners. 6. Vehemently contesting the petition, Mr. Pritam Saini, learned counsel for the landowners put forth his arguments and submitted that the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India and others, 2001 (3) PLR 860 had in clear terms held that the solatium and additional amount form part of the compensation and, therefore, in the execution application filed by the landowners claiming the same was justified and the petitioner cannot deny the payment of the same to them. He further submitted that the award has been passed wherein interest has been awarded on compensation and in view of Apex Court decision in Sunder Singh’s case (supra), the claimants are entitled to the same and the question of the executing court going behind the decree/award does not arise. He also emphasized that earlier the execution application was never dismissed as fully satisfied and otherwise also the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount which form part of the compensation. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and do not find any merit in this revision petition. The Apex Court in Sunder’s case (supra) has laid down as under:- “23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and do not find any merit in this revision petition. The Apex Court in Sunder’s case (supra) has laid down as under:- “23. In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under Section 34 of the Act a peep into Section 31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That sub-section says: “On making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the persons interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in the next sub-section.” The remaining sub-sections in that provision only deal with the contingencies in which the Collector has to deposit the amount instead of paying it to the party concerned. It is the legal obligation of the Collector to pay the compensation awarded by him to the party entitled thereto. We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per Sub- section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression “awarded amount” would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof. 24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that “if such compensation” is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year “on the amount, of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.” It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the Legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. What the Legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payments. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the Legislature when that section as framed or enacted.” 8. Thus, solatium and additional amount as awarded by the reference Court shall form part of the compensation. A perusal of the award passed by the reference court shows that it has clearly granted 9% interest per annum on the compensation for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land and 15% per annum thereafter till payment to the claimants. Therefore, the executing court has rightly ordered payment of interest on the solatium and additional amount and it cannot be said that it is beyond the award in any manner. The claimants have laid the claim for interest on solatium and additional amount which, form part of the compensation and, therefore, it cannot be said that their claim is vague, in any manner or they have not claimed the same before the reference court. The case law relied upon, by the counsel for the petitioner is, of no assistance to it in the facts of the present case as the claim of the land owners is within the award passed by the reference court. 9. Equally devoid of merit is the contention of the petitioner that the earlier petition having been fully satisfied, the present petition is not maintainable. The executing court while deciding issue No. 2 has clearly held that the earlier petition was partly satisfied. No material has been produced by the petitioner to show that the said finding of the executing court is erroneous in any manner. 10. In view of the above, finding no merit in this revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs.