ORDER The question involved in these writ petitions are one and the same and that being purely a question of law, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The land belonging to first respondent was acquired for the benefit of petitioner. Awards were passed. Being aggrieved by the said award, the landlords preferred reference to the Civil Court. The Civil Court after enquiry enhanced the compensation payable to landowners. Thereafter, execution petitions were filed for recovery of the amount awarded by the Reference Court. The amount claimed in those execution petitions were fully paid. 3. It is not in dispute that no interest was paid on the solatium amount and additional market value in view of the law which governed the parties as on those days of the award. However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v Union of India 1, held 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. 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. 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 payment. 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 was framed or enacted. The said judgment was rendered on 19th September, 2001. 4. It is after the aforesaid judgment the landowners in these cases filed one more execution petition claiming interest in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunder's case. The petitioners filed their objections contending that as the claim of the landlords have been fully satisfied in the earlier execution proceedings, the question of paying interest in terms of Sunder's case would not arise and therefore they sought for dismissal of execution petition. The petitioners filed their objections contending that as the claim of the landlords have been fully satisfied in the earlier execution proceedings, the question of paying interest in terms of Sunder's case would not arise and therefore they sought for dismissal of execution petition. However, the Executing Court overruled their objections and passed an order directing the petitioners herein to pay interest as awarded by the Court on solatium and additional market value. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v Union of India 1, while reiterating the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sunder's case, has clarified the position regarding applicability of the said law. 7. Though in Gurpreet Singh's case the said question did not arise for consideration, still, the Constitution Bench felt that, as the said question is raised in various Courts and as the same is pending in Courts all over the country, they permitted the Counsel to address arguments on the said question and they formulated the following point.- "Whether in the light of the decision in Sunder's case the decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree?" The Supreme Court answered the point as under: "It is well-settled that an Execution Court cannot go behind the decree. If, therefore, the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negatived ether expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the Appellate Court, the Execution Court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder's case on the ground that the Execution Court cannot go behind the decree. But, if the award of the Reference Court or that of the Appellate Court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the Appellate Court, and merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the Execution Court to apply the ratio of Sunder's case and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise not. Otherwise not. We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the Execution Court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder's case (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question". 8. Therefore, the Supreme Court has declared the law and it shall be binding on all Courts. All the Courts, and in particular Executing Courts, which are executing the awards passed under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, have to bear in mind the law laid down, not only in the aforesaid judgment but also the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sunder's case, which has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench and give effect to the same. The law laid down by the Supreme Court could be stated thus: (a) If a claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the Reference Court or the Appellate Court, the Execution Court will have to necessarily reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sunder's case, if it is put forth for the first time in the execution petition, as the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree; (b) If the award of the Reference Court or the Appellate Court do not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the Appellate Court, but merely interest on compensation is awarded, then it would be open to the Execution Court to apply the ratio of Sunder's case and hold that the compensation awarded includes solatium and, therefore, interest is payable on the said amount on solatium also and direct the judgment-debtor to pay the said additional amount; (c) The interest would be payable only from the date of the judgment in Sunder's case, i.e., September 19, 2001 and not for any prior period to that; (d) If execution petitions had been filed and the award is fully satisfied and full satisfaction has been entered, then it is not open to the decree-holder to claim interest on the basis of the Sunder's case and the Executing Court also would have no jurisdiction to grant such interest; (e) Interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions. 9. In view of the aforesaid categorical declaration of law by the Supreme Court, the landlords are not entitled to file one more execution petition only for the purpose of recovering the interest payable on the solatium and the additional market value, when in pursuance of the execution petition filed earlier, the entire amount claimed by them has already been paid. When once the award passed is fully satisfied, the question of reviving the said award in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Sunder's case by filing fresh execution petition for claiming the said amount, would not arise. 10. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court is illegal and contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court. 10. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court is illegal and contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court. In that view of the matter, it cannot be sustained. Hence, I pass the following order.- Writ petitions are allowed. The impugned order passed by the Executing Court in all these petitions is hereby quashed. No costs.