ORDER: This Court passed a detailed interim order on 17.03.2009. In the light of the said order, the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition submitted that the amount of compensation payable to the petitioners has been deposited. To ascertain the said fact, Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, sought time and submitted the calculation memos. In the light of the said calculation memos, this Court directed the Government Pleader for Land Acquisition to verify as to whether the said amounts deposited and the amounts claimed are the same. Pursuant thereto, the learned Government Pleader also submitted the calculation memos. However, a variance in the amounts is found when the Calculation memos filed by learned counsel for the petitioners are compared with the Calculation memos filed by the learned Government Pleader. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the amount of compensation, amount of solatium and the amount of interest on the compensation and solatium, but, there is a dispute with regard to the interest on the additional market value awarded by the trial Court. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sunder V. Union of India1 and Guru Preeth Singh V. Union of India2. 3. Learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition opposed the same stating that the entire amounts are deposited and the petitioners are not entitled to any interest on the additional market value for the reason that the trial Court did not award any interest insofar as the additional market value is concerned. 4. In the light of the said submissions, this Court looked into the said judgments of the Supreme Court. 5. Paras 23 and 24 of Sunder's case (1 supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: - In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under S.34 of the Act a peep into S.31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. 5. Paras 23 and 24 of Sunder's case (1 supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: - In deciding the question as to what amount would bear interest under S.34 of the Act a peep into S.31(1) of the Act would be advantageous. That sub-section says: "On making an award under S.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 S.23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from S.34 that the expression "awarded amount" would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in S.23, including all the sub-sections thereof. 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. 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. 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." 6. In the last paragraph of Guru Preeth Singh's case (2 supa), the Supreme Court observed as under: - "One other question was also sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in courts all over the country, we permitted the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder ( (2001) 7 SCC 211 ) the awarded/decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. 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 either 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 Revenue 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. 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 any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree-holder. 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 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." 7. In the light of the said ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are entitled to interest on the additional market value also and the same can as well be agitated by them before the executing Court. 8. The lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired by the Government as early as in the year 1980, pursuant to the notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation and on a reference, the civil Court passed an award, dated 26.02.1986, enhancing the compensation. The same was questioned by the Government by filing appeal and it was dismissed by this Court on 08.04.1994. 9. From the above, it is clear that even after 30 years from the date of acquisition of the lands of the petitioners, they have not received the entire amount of compensation. May be true that the petitioners can as well approach the executing Court for redressal of their grievance, but, at this length of time, i.e., after three decades, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to send them to the executing Court as the area with regard to the amount of compensation is in a narrow compass and the dispute is only with regard to the interest on the additional market value. The Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above held that the claimants are entitled to interest on the additional market value with effect from the date of the judgment in Sunder's Case (1 supra) i.e., from 19.09.2001. 10. The Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above held that the claimants are entitled to interest on the additional market value with effect from the date of the judgment in Sunder's Case (1 supra) i.e., from 19.09.2001. 10. In view of the above, the respondents-Land Acquisition Officer and others are hereby directed to pay the interest on the additional market value to the petitioners with effect from 19.09.2001, at the earliest, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. With the above directions, the Contempt Case is closed.