JUDGMENT By the Court.—By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for records and quashing the impugned order dated 19th September 2006 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi, respondent No. 1 filed as Annexure - 5 to the writ petition. Further, a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to pay the compensation awarded alongwith prescribed interest including solatium as mentioned in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has also been sought. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows. An area of 33 decimal of plot No. 564 situate in Village Khulaspur, Pargana Kaswar Raja, Tehsil and District Varanasi belonging to the petitioner was permanently acquired for construction of Lohata Minor under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 12.5.1984 and that under Section 6 was issued on 2.6.1984. The possession of the land was taken on 1.8.1982. The award was made on 29.8.1985. For some reason, the petitioner did not file Reference under Section 18 of the Act. However, other claimants whose land have been acquired under the same Notification filed Reference No. , 260 of 1989 Jaidev Versus Collector, Varanasi. The Reference was partly allowed vide judgment and order dated 31.5.1990. On the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner made an application on 3.9.1990 under Section 28 A (1) of the Act claiming same compensation as has been given/awarded in Reference No. 260 of 1989 to other claimants. The said application was allowed vide order dated 23.8.2001 and the compensation was fixed at Rs. 2500/- per decimal. However on the enhanced compensation so awarded, the petitioner was not paid solatium and interest as also interest on solatium. He, therefore, filed an application on 20.11.2001, before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi respondent No. 1 claiming payment of the aforesaid amount. The application was rejected vide order dated 19.9.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 4. He, therefore, filed an application on 20.11.2001, before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Varanasi respondent No. 1 claiming payment of the aforesaid amount. The application was rejected vide order dated 19.9.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this writ petition. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, this writ petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage itself in accordance with the Rules of the Court. 5. We have heard Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, who represents the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India and others, (2002) 1 UPLBEC 204, the petitioner is entitled for payment of solatium and interest on the enhanced amount as also the additional amount and, therefore, the view taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that as the judgment of the Constitution Bench came only on 19.9.2001 and the petitioner had been paid the amount on 5.9.2001, he is not entitled is not correct and contrary to law. 7. Learned standing counsel on the other hand submitted that whatever amount was due and payable to the petitioner has been paid and the petitioner is not entitled to any further amount. 8. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and find that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Sunder (supra) had categorically held that the compensation awarded under Section 28, therefore, would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot be sustained and is hereby set-aside. The petitioner is entitled for interest on the entire amount of compensation as also the solatium. 9. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 10. The respondent No. 1 is directed to recompute the amount of interest taking into consideration the entire amount of compensation and solatium into account and whatever amount has been paid be adjusted and the balance amount be paid within one month. ————