Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order and decree dated 22-2-2010 in E.P.No.1/2009 in L.A.O.P.No.767/1998 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Suryapet, Nalgonda District. 2. The lands belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2 were acquired by respondent No.3 on behalf of the petitioner. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded, respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1874 (for short "the Act"). Accordingly, the reference was made and registered as L.A.O.P.No.767/1998 in the court of the learned Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. The compensation was enhanced by award dated 16-1-2000 from Rs.50,000/- per acre to Rs.1 lakh per acre. The decree passed in the award reads as under : “01. That the petition of the claimants be and hereby is allowed partly and the compensation is fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for the acquired lands. Less the amount already paid. 02. It is further ordered and decreed that the claimants are entitled to solatium @ 30% on the enhanced compensation amount. Less amount already paid. 03. That the claimants are entitled to additional amount @ 12% P.A. on the enhanced compensation from the date of Notification to till the date of passing award i.e., from 28-11-1994 to 7-12-1996. That the claimants are entitled to 15% P.A. on the enhanced compensation amount from 8-12-1996 till the amount is deposited in the court.” Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed E.P.No.1/2009 for recovery of the amount. The petitioner has disputed the calculation made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 on two grounds, namely, that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have added interest on the components of solatium and additional market value even though the same was not awarded by the reference court and that they have also added interest to interest. The court below having rejected the objections of the petitioner, allowed the E.P. and ordered issuance of attachment warrant. This order is questioned in the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. I have heard Sri B.P. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ashok Kumar and Sri D.Venkaiah, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the two objections raised by the petitioner before the executing court. This order is questioned in the present Civil Revision Petition. 3. I have heard Sri B.P. Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Ashok Kumar and Sri D.Venkaiah, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the two objections raised by the petitioner before the executing court. Having invited my attention to the decree passed in L.A.O.P.No.767/1998, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on paragraph-54 of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurupreet Singh Vs. Union of India ( 2007(4) A.L.D. 105 (S.C.)) and submitted that as the decree of the reference court has not awarded interest on solatium and market value, respondent Nos.1 and 2, at the most, may be entitled to such interest from the date of the Judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sunder Vs. Union of India ( (2001) 7 SCC 211 = (2001) Suppl. 3 SCR 176) i.e., 19-9-2001 and not from the date of the award. 5. I have carefully considered these submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the decree reproduced hereinabove, it is clear that the reference court has awarded interest only on the component of enhanced compensation amount under item No.1 in the decree while separately specifying the component of solatium @ 30% and additional market value at 12% per annum under item Nos.2 and 3, respectively. Therefore, the expression “enhanced compensation” used by the court below while awarding the interest is confined to the compensation proper excluding, solatium and additional market value. Indeed, by the time the decree was passed, the Judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder (2 supra) was not rendered and the law that existed at that time did not permit payment of interest on solatium and additional market value. In Gurupreet Singh (1 supra) the Supreme Court has held that where the decree of the reference court or the appellate court does not provide for payment of interest on solatium and additional market value, in cases where the E.Ps. are pending, the interest on these two components can be claimed from the date of the Judgment in Sunder (2 supra) i.e., 19-9-2001, and not for the anterior period i.e., from the date of award. are pending, the interest on these two components can be claimed from the date of the Judgment in Sunder (2 supra) i.e., 19-9-2001, and not for the anterior period i.e., from the date of award. In view of this settled legal position, it is to be held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to interest on the additional market value and solatium on the enhanced compensation from 19-9-2001. 6. As regards the objection of the petitioner that interest on interest is calculated, I have carefully gone through the calculation memo filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the court below. Sri D. Venkaiah, the learned counsel, who prepared the said statement and appeared before the lower court, has explained to this court and submitted that care was taken to see that interest on interest has not been calculated. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that such interest is added he is unable to substantiate his submission in this regard. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner failed to prove that the calculation sheet filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 includes interest on interest. 7. For the above mentioned reasons, the order and decree of the court below in E.P.No.1/2009 in L.A.O.P.No.767/1998 is set-aside. The E.P. is remanded to the lower court for passing a fresh order in the light of this order and dispose of the same after giving notice to both the parties, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. 9. As a sequel, interim order dated 30-3-2010 is vacated and CRP.M.P.No.1910/2010 is disposed of as infructuous.