JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder-respondent. 2. On 13.01.2015, the Executing Court [Additional District Judge, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala] in Execution (M) 02 of 2017 has passed the following order: “Today is fixed for hearing on the Execution petition. Yesterday was the date fixed for calculation sheet to be submitted on behalf of the JDs. But no calculation sheet was submitted by the JDs. Claimant petitioner DH already submitted calculation sheet. I heard the parties present today. Perused the award dated 30th August 1997. As per award this court gave award @Rs.80,000/- per kani i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for tilla class of land and @Rs.75,000/- per kani i.e. Rs.1,87,500/- per acre for bagan, lunga and nal class of lands. It was further stated that beside the land value the claimants are entitled to additional amount of 12% per annum on the market value w.e.f. the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act, 1894 i.e. from 03.02.1989 till the date of award of L.A. Collector or date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier i.e. 17.02.1990 (date of award of Collector). Beside the solatium @30% of the market value as determined by this court was also awarded. In addition 9% interest per annum from the date of taking possession of land i.e. from 05.07.1991 for one year i.e. 04.07.1992 and thereafter 15% interest per annum on enhanced amount. In addition Rs.100/- was awarded. Against the award an appeal bearing number F.A. No.16 of 1998 was preferred by Union of India before Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. In addition 9% interest per annum from the date of taking possession of land i.e. from 05.07.1991 for one year i.e. 04.07.1992 and thereafter 15% interest per annum on enhanced amount. In addition Rs.100/- was awarded. Against the award an appeal bearing number F.A. No.16 of 1998 was preferred by Union of India before Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. Said Appeal was decided on 06.09.2005 along with some other appeal cases arises out of same notification with the following findings: “We do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award of the learned L.A. Judge in the above noted cases and consequently all the above appeals being devoid of any merit stand dismissed” Hon’ble High Court also observed in the said judgment in para 7 as follows: “…… we do not feel inclined to add anything more touching the directions given in the impugned judgment with the trust and belief at the same time that the rate of interest on solatium being now settled legal position and no longer res-integra, the concerned authorities shall grant rate of interest on solatium to the respondent as admissible under the law. Now in the award of L.A. Judge, though it was silent whether interest on solatium would be given or not but in the appeal case, Hon’ble High Court has granted interest on solatium. As per judgment of our own High Court passed in CRP 53 of 2014 regarding payment of interest on solatium, a ration has been framed relying a decision of the Apex Court in Sundar vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 . Relevant para of the Hon’ble High Court is 7. Perused the said judgment. It appears to me that Hon’ble High Court framed a ratio in respect of pending L.A. execution cases regarding entitlement of interest on solatium. The ration as framed may be distinguished as under: 1. That executing court cannot go beyond the decree. 2. If reference Judge has rightly or wrongly specifically negated the prayer for grant of interest on solatium, then Executing court cannot grant such interest on solatium. 3. LA Judge specifically granted interest on solatium then it is payable from the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. 4. That executing court cannot go beyond the decree. 2. If reference Judge has rightly or wrongly specifically negated the prayer for grant of interest on solatium, then Executing court cannot grant such interest on solatium. 3. LA Judge specifically granted interest on solatium then it is payable from the date of notification under Section 4 of the LA Act. 4. Where in the Judgment of the L.A. Judge, specific reference of interest on solatium is not there, then the Executing court is free to follow the judgment of the Sundar’s case. Decision of Sundar’s case in such cases is that interest on solatium would be awarded only on and from 19.09.2001 i.e. from the date when that case was decided. But that ratio is only applicable to the pending execution cases. Closed execution cases cannot be reopened. So, regarding entitlement of interest on solatium the aforementioned does not stand as a bar. The land under this case is measuring 3.20 acres of tilla class of land. So, decreetal dues to be paid by the JDs appears to be as follows: (i) Land value of the acquired land measuring 3.20 acres @2,00,000/- per acres amounts to Rs.6,40,000/-. (ii) Additional amount of 12% on Rs.6,40,000/- from 03.02.1989 (from the date of notification) to 17.02.1990 (date of award by Collector) for one year and 14 days is calculated at Rs.79,740/-. (iii) 30% solatium on Rs.6,40,000/- comes to Rs.1,92,000/-. In total it comes to Rs.9,11,740/-. Initial payment received by the DH from Collector Rs.1,82,400/-. Now after deducting the initial receipt it comes to Rs.7,29,340/-. Now, DH is entitled to get 9% interest on Rs7,29,340/- w.e.f. 05.07.1991 to 04.07.1992 for one year which is calculated at Rs.65,641/-. Again the DH is entitled to get 15% on Rs.7,29,340/- w.e.f. 05.07.1992 to 20.05.1998 (upto the date of payment of Rs. 5,85,752/- to the DH) for 5 years 10 months and 15 days which s calculated at Rs.6,42,730/-. Total interest (9% to 15% as on 20.05.1998) comes to Rs.7,08,973/- and after deducting the payment of Rs.5,85,752/- on that interest it comes to Rs.1,22,619/-. Again, the DH is entitled to get interest @15% on Rs.7,29,340/- w.e.f. 21.05.1998 to 16.09.2006 (date of payment of Rs.3,79,958/-) for 8 years 9 months and 25 days which is calculated at Rs.9,10,155/- Adding previous interest of Rs.1,22,619/- interest upto 16.09.2006 comes to Rs.10,32,774/-. Again, the DH is entitled to get interest @15% on Rs.7,29,340/- w.e.f. 21.05.1998 to 16.09.2006 (date of payment of Rs.3,79,958/-) for 8 years 9 months and 25 days which is calculated at Rs.9,10,155/- Adding previous interest of Rs.1,22,619/- interest upto 16.09.2006 comes to Rs.10,32,774/-. After deducting the payment of Rs.3,79,958/- on 17.06.2006 balance interest comes to Rs.6,52,816/-. Again the DH is entitled to get interest @15% on Rs.7,29,340/- w.e.f. 17.09.2006 to till date for 8 years 6 months 26 days which is calculated at Rs.9,37,809/-. So as on to date the DH is entitled to get total interest of Rs.15,90,625/- (Rs.6,12,816/- + Rs.9,37,809/-). Principal amount of Rs.7,29,340/- and cost of Rs.100/-. The JDs are to make payment of the Principal outstanding amount of Rs.7,29,340/- together with interest @15% from to date, cost of Rs.100/- and arrear of interest amount of Rs.15,90,625/- within 60 days.” 3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 13.01.2015 this Civil Revision petition has been preferred on the ground that the calculation as made by the Decree Holder-respondent and as accepted by the Executing Court is faulty inasmuch as the inferior quality of land meaning “bagan” has been given the rate for superior class of land as determined by the Land Acquisition Judge by the judgment and order dated 30.08.1997 in Misc.(LA) 77 of 1992 [Sri Janardhan Dey vs. LA Collector, West Tripura and another]. By that judgment, the Land Acquisition Judge has determined the land value for the tilla class of land from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/-. The present petitioner had challenged that judgment and award dated 30.08.1997 by filing an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act in the Gauhati High Court, which had the territorial jurisdiction over the State at the relevant part of time, being F.A. 16 of 1998. The award enhancing the land value was not interfered. However, the following has been observed to dis-spel any confusion: “At this juncture, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents submits that the learned L.A. Judge in the above noted cases committed a mistake by not directing that the respondents are also entitled to interest on the amount of solatium at the same rate as on the amount of compensation. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents submits that the learned L.A. Judge in the above noted cases committed a mistake by not directing that the respondents are also entitled to interest on the amount of solatium at the same rate as on the amount of compensation. It is true no such specific direction has been given in para 12 of the impugned judgment, but at the same time, the claimants-respondents have not preferred any appeal for modification of the directions given in para 12 of the impugned judgment. This being the position, we do not feel inclined to add anything more touching the directions given in the impugned judgment with the trust and belief at the same time that the rate of interest on solatium being now a settled legal position and no longer res integra, the concerned authorities shall grant the rate of interest on solatium to the respondents as admissible under the law.” 4. Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the petitioner has submitted that from the assessment sheet it would appear that the total land, as acquired from the Decree Holder-respondent was 3.2 acres comprising of bagan and tilla but no division of rate has been made while drawing the calculation in the execution proceeding. 5. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder-respondent has categorically submitted that what Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has submitted is not correct as it would be apparent from the calculation sheet that they were treated as the same class of land. Mr. Debnath, learned counsel has further submitted that it has been written in the calculation sheet as bagan-tilla meaning bagan, means the orchard, standing on the tilla. The basic class of the land is tilla. Therefore, it would carry the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kani and Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. There is no mistake or inflation as alleged in the calculation sheet. 6. This court has scrutinized the order dated 13.01.2015 and found that if the acquired land is rated in the classification of tilla then there is no mistake in the entire calculation. 7. Mr. Therefore, it would carry the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kani and Rs.2,00,000/- per acre. There is no mistake or inflation as alleged in the calculation sheet. 6. This court has scrutinized the order dated 13.01.2015 and found that if the acquired land is rated in the classification of tilla then there is no mistake in the entire calculation. 7. Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has also submitted that the Executing court has passed the order directing the respondents to make payment of the calculated amount by the order dated 19.08.2016 in the same proceeding, but from perusal of the said order dated 19.08.2015, it appears that on the basis of the earlier order dated 13.01.2015, the said order has been passed and nothing new has been added in that order. Only on the request of the petitioner the time for payment had been extended and finally by the order dated 18.01.2015, the Executing court asked the petitioner to pay the amount for which the execution proceeding was set in. In this backdrop, this petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.01.2015. 8. This court finds that no document has been produced by the petitioner to show that out of the 3.20 acres of land, there was any part of the land which had been acquired from the Decree Holder-respondent is comprised in bagan class of land. Even in the assessment sheet produced from the Land Acquisition Collector it appears that everywhere it is written as “bagan-tilla” meaning basic classification of the land is tilla, otherwise it was the duty cast upon the Land Acquisition Collector to show the plot numbers which are constituted of the different classification of land. 9. In view of this, this court does not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The petitioner is directed to make the final payment within a period of 3(three) months else the execution will be taken to its logical end with expedition. It is to be mentioned that the interested person namely Janardhan Dey expired on 08.03.2015 and by dint of the survival certificate dated 25.04.2016 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, West Tripura his legal heirs namely Smt. Kalpana Dey (wife), Smt. Aparna Dey (daughter) and Sri Anupam Dey (son) have been substituted in his place. It is to be mentioned that the interested person namely Janardhan Dey expired on 08.03.2015 and by dint of the survival certificate dated 25.04.2016 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Sadar, West Tripura his legal heirs namely Smt. Kalpana Dey (wife), Smt. Aparna Dey (daughter) and Sri Anupam Dey (son) have been substituted in his place. As such, now the amount shall be distributed in equal share between the said three legal heirs of the original Decree Holder-respondent namely Janardhan Dey. There shall be no order as to costs.