ORDER Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. These Civil Revision Petitions filed against the Orders in E.P. No. 34 of 2004 in O.P. NO. 461 of 1993 and E.P. No. 72 of 2003 in OP. No. 73 of 1989, dated 05.07.2007 and 26.07.2007 respectively, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. 2. The grievance of the Revision Petitioner-Land Acquisition Officer is that the executing Court has travelled beyond the judgment and decree in granting the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as enhanced by the Court below in O.P. Nos. 461 of 1993 and 73 of 1989, which included an amount of 30% of solatium. Learned counsel would submit that originally in Judgment and Decree no interest was granted on solatium and inasmuch as for the first time the same is being granted in Execution Petition, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 3. A careful perusal of the Order in O.P. No. 461 of 1993 does not support the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the revision petitioner. With regard to the solatium, the Trial Court ordered as follows: The claimant is also entitled to 30% solatium on the enhanced compensation amount. The claimant is also entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation amount @9% p.a. for one year from the date of Award i.e., 24.05.1993 till 23.05.1994 and thereafter 15% p.a. till the payment is made. 4. The above extracted matter leaves no manner of doubt that while granting interest, the Court did not exclude granting of interest on solatium. On the other hand, the Court below by using the expression “enhanced compensation” in para 24.4 of its order in O.P. No. 461 of 1993, that the interest on the enhanced compensation amount at 9% p.a. for one year from the date of Award i.e. 24.05.1993 till 23.05.1994, thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a., till the payment is made. Now, it is no longer in dispute that the compensation that is required to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, includes solatium. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 and Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Now, it is no longer in dispute that the compensation that is required to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, includes solatium. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (2001) 7 SCC 211 and Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Vasantrao and Others (2002) 7 SCC 657 . A careful reading of judgment in Gurpreet Singh’s case (supra) also would not support the case of the petitioner. This is clear from para 54 of the Judgment. A reading of para 54 is as follows: One other question also was 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 counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), 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 (supra) 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 (supra) 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 recovery from the date of the judgment in Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior period. 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 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. In the facts of this case and in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the judgments referred to above, I do not see any reason to interfere with the orders of the Court below as there is no illegality in allowing the interest on solatium. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stand dismissed.