Judgment : This Revision has been preferred by the compensation awardee/decree holder, challenging the order passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole in E.A. No. 684 of 2012 in E.P. No. 184 of 2009 in L.A.O.P. No. 123 of 1988. The petitioner herein has filed E.A. No. 684 of 2012 seeking interest on solatium from 19.09.2001 at the rate of 15%. The claimant awardee has relied upon the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court that even the Execution Court can grant interest on the amount of 30% solatium awarded by the reference Court or the appellate Court. The petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Chhanga Singh v. Union of India (2012 Supreme Appeal Reporter (Civil) 518), which was decided on 08.05.2012, which, in turn, referred to and relied upon the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457). This Application has been dismissed by the learned Principle Senior Civil Judge and hence, this Revision. Heard Sri I. Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition for the respondent. It will be appropriate to notice that in the judgment reported in Sunder v. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 ), popularly known as Sunder’s case, the Supreme Court has held that 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 principle for payment of interest on the amount of solatium also while undertaking the execution proceedings as well, but however, if the reference Court or the appellate Court had specifically adverted to or referred to the issue relating to payment of interest on the solatium and has either expressly or by necessary implication rejected such a claim, it shall not be open to the Executing Court to go behind such a decree. In fact, this is what has been settled by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh’s case, as under: “……It is well settled that an execution Court cannot go behind the decree. In fact, this is what has been settled by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh’s case, 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 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 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 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.” (Emphasis is brought out by me) This principle is unexceptionable. The facts in the present case reveal that the claim for payment of interest on solatium was made but was rejected earlier and hence, the learned Principle Senior Civil Judge, who was dealing with the execution proceedings, has not committed any illegality or irregularity warranting exercise of revisional jurisdiction by me. Hence, this Revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if any shall also stand dismissed.