Judgment :- The petitioners lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894(Central Act I of 1894). The award was passed in 5/88. Thereafter, a reference under Section 18 was made to the Sub-Court, Ranipet which was taken on file as L.A.O.P.No.853 of 1991. The learned Sub-Judge fixed the compensation at Rs.650/-per cent. The Land Acquisition Officer, namely, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition) Housing, Ranipet filed an appeal against the said order before this Court which was taken on file as A.S.Nos.12 to 28 of 1995. The appeals were disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 08.02.2001, since at that time, the question of compensation viz-a-viz liability to pay the interest and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act was pending before the Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516 . The Division Bench in Paragraph No.12 has held as follows: "12. We further make it clear that the issue regarding grant of interest on solatium is pending before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, and depending on the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court, the claimants are entitled to file an appropriate petition before the competent Sub-Court." 2. Since the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 19.09.2001 had held that a person who is entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium, pursuant to the Judgment of the Supreme Court, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.70 (Revenue) dated 30.01.2003 for giving effect to the decision of the Supreme Court. In that Government Order, in Paragraph No.3, it was stated that the person entitled to the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium and additional market value awarded and that this will apply to all pending cases as on the date of the Judgment of the Supreme Court and not earlier. In effect, the Government had held that the said order will be prospectively brought into effect. 3. In effect, the Government had held that the said order will be prospectively brought into effect. 3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for setting aside the order passed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 30.01.2003 and for a direction to pay the interest over 30% solatium as per Section 28 and 12% interest as per Section 23(1-A) of Land Acquisition Act to the petitioner for the land acquired under Award No.5/88. The writ petition was admitted on 20.12.2004 and a counter affidavit dated 21.03.2005 has been filed. The stand taken by the respondent is that the writ petitioner is not entitled for interest on 30% solatium and 12% market value as the Government Order had made it only prospective and not to the earlier cases which are rendered before the Supreme Court decision. 4. It is to be noted that subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment in Sunders case (cited supra), in W.P.No.2648 of 2005 dated 06.09.2008, this Court in paragraph Nos.4 and 5, has held as follows: "4. Subsequent to the reference, when similar questions came various states, the matter came to be posted before another constitution Bench in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, reported in 2007 (3) CTC 170. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme court in Paragraph No.44 had observed as follows: "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 (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation 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." 5. The clarification was given by the Supreme court was rendered under Article 141 and 142 and with a view to avoid any further multiplicity of litigation. The petitioner has not made out a case and cannot find fault with the order of the Government in this regard. The clarification was given by the Supreme court was rendered under Article 141 and 142 and with a view to avoid any further multiplicity of litigation. The petitioner has not made out a case and cannot find fault with the order of the Government in this regard. Paragraph No.3 of the order of the Government which is impugned in the writ petition is in consonance with the clarification issued by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singhs case (cited supra)." 5. Since the Government order challenged is in consonance with the subsequent Supreme Court pronouncement in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, reported in 2007 (3) CTC 170, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.