ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board represented by its Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer, Vellore Housing Unit, Vellore challenging the order of attachment attaching the Bank account of the Revenue Divisional Officer and District Collector of Thiruvannamalai and also the vehicle belonging to the District Collector apart from the furnitures in the Collector's Office. 2. The genesis of the above revision is the acquisition of the lands belonging to the respondents herein for construction of house under the Mini Neighbourhood Scheme by the revision petitioner herein. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 18.09.1987, had fixed a compensation of 50 Paise per sq.ft for dry lands and Rs.1.46/- for irrigated lands. Possession of the lands was also taken on 23.11.1987. Thereafter, on a reference being made to the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai under the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1988. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai by his judgment dated 26.07.1990, enhanced the compensation to a sum of Rs.12/- per Sq.ft. Challenging this judgment and decree, the revision petitioner filed A.S.No.884 of 1991. By a judgment dated 12.07.2001, this Court had confirmed the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai. Cross Objection No.135 of 1992 filed by the respondents herein was also dismissed by this Court. 3. The Bench of this Court had directed that the claimants would be entitled to 30% solatium on the market value of the land acquired along with an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the Section 4(1) Notification till date of passing of the award or delivery of possession whichever is earlier. The Bench had granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of possession for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit. Since the issue regarding the grant of interest on solatium was then pending before the Larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, this Court had not granted interest on solatium, but granted liberty to the respondents to file an appropriate petition before the concerned Sub Court depending upon the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court. The revision petitioner had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.15884 & 15885 of 2004. The revision petitioner had filed Special Leave Petitions before the Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.P.Nos.15884 & 15885 of 2004. These Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by order dated 22.03.2004. 4. It appears that the revision petitioner had thereafter filed a Review Petition for review the order in the SLPs in Review Petition Nos.429 & 559 of 2016 with a delay of 684 days and the same came to be dismissed on 02.08.2006, thereby confirming the order passed by this Court in A.S.No.884 of 1991. 5. In the interregnum, the revision petitioner had made a following deposits : Sl. No. Dates Deposited Amount 1. 18.09.1987 Rs.9,25,203.75/- 2. 29.09.1992 Rs.70,96,455.66/- 3. 07.09.2006 Rs.61,19,157.00/- Thereafter, no payments have been made. It is also to be noted that the lands were ultimately sold by the revision petitioner at the rate of Rs.1,75,000/- per ground. 6. After the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, the respondents had filed E.P.No.80 of 2008 in which they had claimed interest on solatium. They had claimed a total sum of Rs.3,35,36,259/-. The revision was filed on 24.04.2008. The respondents had sought the attachment of the schedule mentioned properties and to bring the same for sale. 7. The revision petitioner resisted the above petition on the ground that they had in all deposited a sum of Rs.1,32,15,612/- as per the Ruling of the Honourable Supreme Court and they contended that the respondents were not liable to pay any money. They had also provided a working sheet along with the counter affidavit. 8. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai by order dated 03.08.2011 rejected the calculation provided by the revision petitioner as opposed to the orders of this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court and directed the attachment. Challenging this order, the revision petitioner had filed the instant Civil Revision Petition. 9. The main argument adduced on the side of the revision petitioner was that they are only opposed to the grant of interest on solatium as interest was payable on solatium only in matters where the execution proceedings are pending. 10. Heard Mr. R. Jayaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Om.Prakash, learned Senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 to 12 & 15 and Mr. Venkateshkumar, learned Government Advocate for thirteenth respondent. 11. 10. Heard Mr. R. Jayaseelan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.E.Om.Prakash, learned Senior counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 to 12 & 15 and Mr. Venkateshkumar, learned Government Advocate for thirteenth respondent. 11. Per contra, Mr.E.Om.Prakash, learned Senior counsel for the respondents would argue that post the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457, the Honourable Apex Court has held that interest on solatium can be claimed in cases pending executions and not in matter which had been closed and executing Court will be entitled to grant interest from the date of the judgment in Sunder Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 . The learned Senior Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the paragraph No.54 of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh case. He would further argue that the calculation filed by the revision petitioner is totally erroneous. The revision petitioner had not calculated interest on the unpaid amount on the different dates of deposits. On the contrary, the petitioner had frozen the payment of interest till February 1992 which is totally in contrast to the decree of the Sub Court, Thiruvannamalai in L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1988 which has been confirmed right up to the Honourable Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the respondents have provided a statement of account calculated upto 08.08.2018 giving credit to the various amounts paid by the revision petitioner on various dates and thereafter, re-working the interest on the balance amount. As regards, the argument of the learned counsel for revision petitioner that the respondents are not entitled to interest on solatium, the same has been laid to rest by the Full Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court. In the judgment of the Gurupreet Singh case supra, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows : “54. ........................That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder 2, 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. ........................That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder 2, 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 2 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 2 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 2 (19.09.2001) and not for any prior period.” 12. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the claim of interest on solatium made by the respondents is valid. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai. It is needless to state that the amount of compensation which is payable as on date has gone up and in the Calculation Sheet provided by the respondent as on 08.08.2018, the amount payable was Rs.1 Crore. 13. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs and the order passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai in E.P.No.80 of 2008 in L.A.O.P.No.57 of 1988 dated 03.08.2011 is confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.