JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J. Heard Shri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), U.P.S.E.B./Additional District Judge, Bareilly in Execution Case No.1 of 1994 (Namo Narayan (since deceased represented by legal representatives) vs. State). 3. It appears from the records that an agreement between the father of the petitioners, namely Namo Narain and Bareilly Development Authority (in short, the BDA) took place on 5.3.1984 with regard to plot no.239 area 21 Bigha 2 Biswa situated in village Udaipur Khan, Tehsil Sadar, District Bareilly. It was agreed between both the parties that the BDA shall acquire the land in question @ 39.52 per sq. meters and in addition to the price, the owner will also be entitled to get 15% solatium and the BDA will also pay Rs.10 lacs as earnest money within 20 days from the date of possession. He had given the possession of the said land to the BDA on 21.3.1984. 4. Is alleged that the BDA committed breach of the condition of the aforesaid agreement and paid only Rs.5 lacs through a cheque much beyond 20 days and the said cheque was dishonoured by the bank. Consequently, the father of the petitioners filed objection before the Land Acquisition Officer and an award was passed on 15.10.1986. The father of the petitioners moved an application under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. The District Magistrate, Bareilly referred the matter to the District Judge, Bareilly and case was registered as L.A. Case No.63 of 1988 (Namo Narain vs. U.P. State). The Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Bareilly allowed the reference on 7.2.1994 and declared that the father of the petitioners was entitled to get compensation of the land in question acquired by the BDA @ Rs.200/- per sq. meter. He was also entitled to receive interest @ 15% from the date of possession and 30% solatium on the compensation. The said award was assailed by the BDA before this Court by preferring Writ C No.8912 of 1994 in which an interim order was passed in favour of the BDA on 28.11.1994. After passing of the judgment and award dated 7.2.1994, the decree holders initiated proceedings for execution and the same was registered as Case No.1 of 1994. The said award was assailed by the BDA before this Court by preferring Writ C No.8912 of 1994 in which an interim order was passed in favour of the BDA on 28.11.1994. After passing of the judgment and award dated 7.2.1994, the decree holders initiated proceedings for execution and the same was registered as Case No.1 of 1994. Finally, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on 18.1.2017. 5. Thereafter, the BDA moved an application (no.25-Ga) for exemption of interest on account of there being an interim order w.e.f. 28.11.1994 to 18.01.2017 in the said writ petition. The application was rejected by the Executing Court vide its order dated 22.10.2017. The aforesaid order was also challenged before this Court by the BDA in Writ C No.7775 of 2017 and the same was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 12.12.2017. In the execution proceedings, the petitioners moved an application on 12.9.2017 for payment of compensation, solatium and 15% interest on the compensation from the date of their dispossession till the date of actual payment. The respondents filed their objections. By the impugned order dated 20.12.2017, the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption, U.P.S.E.B.)/Additional District Judge, Bareilly has declined to make payment of interest on the solatium from the date of taking possession of the land in question by the BDA i.e. 21.3.1984 and directed for payment of interest on the solatium @ 15% from 19.9.2001 till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri K.K. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree holders are entitled for payment of interest @ 15% over the composite amount of compensation including the market value and the solatium from the date of dispossession i.e. 21.3.1984 to the date of actual payment. The solatium also constitutes compensation and it is part of the compensation. The Court below erred in law in not awarding interest @ 15% over the solatium also from the date of dispossession of the decree holders from 21.3.1984 to the date of actual payment. The market value, solatium and additional compensation constitute compensation within the meaning of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, the Act) and the decree holder is entitled to interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act. The decree holders are also entitled to payment of additional compensation @ 12% per annum on the market value as provided under Section 1-A of the Act. The decree holders are also entitled to payment of additional compensation @ 12% per annum on the market value as provided under Section 1-A of the Act. The impugned order dated 20.12.2017, insofar as it relates to denial of interest on solatium from 21.3.1984 to 19.9.2001, is bad in law and the same cannot sustained in the eyes of law. The request has been made to issue direction to the judgment debtor to make payment of interest on the composite amount of compensation/finalized market value of the land alongwith solatium @ 15% from the date of their dispossession i.e. 21.3.1984 to the date of actual payment, otherwise the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, 2001 LawSuit (SC) 1251; Chimanlal Kumerdas Modi (dead) by LRs vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and others (2010) 10 SCC 635 and Periyar & Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vs. State of Kerala 2015 LawSuit (SC) 859. 7. On the other hand, Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the BDA resisted the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners by contending that rightful order has been passed and no interference is required with the order impugned. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 457; Chimanlal Kuberdas Modi (Dead) by LRs vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and others (2010) 10 SCC 635 ; Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner and another vs. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur and others (2010) 12 SCC 387 and Chhanga Singh and another vs. Union of India and another (2012) 5 SCC 763 . 8. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions and having gone through the cited decisions, the Court has scrutinized the records in question and finds that the agreement was entered between the parties on 5.3.1984 with regard to the land in dispute and the BDA acquired the land in question @ 39.52 per sq. meters. In addition to the price, the owner was also made entitled to get 15% solatium and the BDA was also directed to pay Rs.10 lacs as earnest money within 20 days from the date of possession. The father of the petitioner had given possession of the said land to the BDA on 21.3.1984. meters. In addition to the price, the owner was also made entitled to get 15% solatium and the BDA was also directed to pay Rs.10 lacs as earnest money within 20 days from the date of possession. The father of the petitioner had given possession of the said land to the BDA on 21.3.1984. When the compensation of the land in question was not paid within the stipulated time, then the father of the petitioners filed objection before the Land Acquisition Officer and the award was passed on 15.10.1986. Against the judgment and award dated 15.10.1986 as made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bareilly, the father of the petitioners raised a dispute and the same was referred to the District Judge, Bareilly under Section 18 of the Act. Finally, the Reference Court partially allowed the reference on 7.2.1994 and the amount of compensation was enhanced @ Rs.200/- per sq. meter alongwith 30 @ solatium on the compensation amount and the interest @ 15% from the date of possession. The decree holders initiated execution proceedings and the same was registered as Case No.1 of 1994. The BDA moved an application 25-Ga for exemption of interest and the same was rejected by the Executing Court on 22.10.2017. The aforesaid order was also challenged by the BDA in Writ C No.7775 of 2017, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 12.12.2017. In the execution proceedings, as at no point of time any interest had ever been accorded on the solatium either in the award or by the reference court, the petitioners moved an application on 12.9.2017 for payment of 15% interest on solatium from the date of their dispossession till the date of actual payment. By the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption, U.P.S.E.B.)/Additional District Judge, Bareilly has refused for payment of interest on the solatium from the date of taking possession of the land in question i.e. 21.3.1984 and directed for payment of interest on the solatium @ 15% from 19.9.2001 till the date of actual payment. 9. In Prem Nath Kapur & Anr. Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. [(1995) Supp. 9. In Prem Nath Kapur & Anr. Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. [(1995) Supp. 5 SCR 790], a three Judge Bench of this Court held that the expression 'compensation' under Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as amended by Act 68 of 1984 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act") read in the context of Section 28 or Section 34 thereof, by necessary implication excludes solatium and that no interest is payable on solatium or on the additional amount under Section 23(1)(A) of the Act. In other words, it was held that the liability to pay interest was only on the excess amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) of the Act by the Civil Court either under Section 26 or on appeal under Section 54 of the Act over and above the amount awarded under Section 11 of the Act. 10. In the case of Sunder (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs-23 & 24 has stated thus:- "23. .......We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression "awarded amount" would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof. 24. The proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that "if such compensation" is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year "on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry". It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the preceding period. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. What the legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the contemplation of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted." 11. The aforesaid decision of Sunder (supra) came to be considered once again by the Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra). The Apex Court considered the issue as to whether the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium though it is not specifically awarded by the Court and in cases wherein interest is granted and the legal position in this regard has been explained in paragraph 54 of the said judgment. It would be necessary for this Court to reproduce the conclusion reached by the Apex Court in paragraph 54 of the judgment, which reads thus:- "54. 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 the counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder, the awardee/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 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. 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 (19-9-2001) 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." 12. While deciding the said case, the Constitution Court has considered and explained the judgment in Sunder (Supra). The view taken by the Constitution Bench has consistently been re-iterated and followed by the Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner & Anr. v. Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur & Ors. (supra); Nadirsha Shapurji Patel (dead) by Lrs. & Ors. v. Deputy Collector & Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. (2010) 13 SCC 234 and Iyasamy & Anr. v. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition (2010) 10 SCC 464 . 13. In the instant case, the execution petition is disposed of in part satisfaction. The Court does not wish to enter into the question as to what remained to be satisfied in execution of the decree under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The Court is dealing with the limited issue as to whether the law explained and declared in the case of Sunder (supra) is applicable to cases, wherein judgment and decree is passed even prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Sunder (supra) wherein no interest has been accorded on the solatium. The Court is dealing with the limited issue as to whether the law explained and declared in the case of Sunder (supra) is applicable to cases, wherein judgment and decree is passed even prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the Apex Court in the case of Sunder (supra) wherein no interest has been accorded on the solatium. As per clarification made by the Apex Court in paragraph-54 of the judgment in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India (supra), 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 judgment in the case of Sunder (19-9-2001) and not for any prior period. 14. There is no doubt that the execution Court cannot examine the reasons so as to go behind the decree but if in the award passed, the reference Court makes specific reference to payment of interest but without any such reference to the payment of interest on solatium and merely payment of interest of compensation is granted, then it would be open to the executing court to apply the ratio of Sunder (supra) and declare that the compensation awarded includes solatium and consequently, the interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. 15. In this backdrop, this Court cannot ignore the observations made in paragraph-54 of the judgment passed by the Constitution Bench in Gurpreet Singh, as such the ratio of the aforesaid decision is also applicable. In view of the fact, that such interest on solatium is claimed by the petitioner herein in the adjudication case, accordingly this Court is of the considered opinion that the executing court was justified to permit recovery of interest on solatium from the date of judgment in the case of Sunder (supra) i.e. 19-9-2001 and not for any prior period. 16. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is hardly any scope of interpretation. Suffice to indicate that the observations of the Constitution Bench in Gurpreet Singh were made under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question, as such no interference is required. 17. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.