JUDGMENT : Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist at length. 2. Although the matter has been called out in the revised list, none has appeared for the opposite parties. 3. The instant revision is directed against the order dated 15.3.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Moradabad, whereby an objection under section 47, C.P.C. filed by the revisionist in Execution Case No. 1 of 2005 has been rejected. 4. The Execution Case No. 1 of 2005 was filed for implementation of the final order in a land acquisition reference. The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation awarded and directed it to be paid at the rate of 180 per sq. yard. In an appeal filed by the State, the amount was reduced to Rs. 127.50 sq. meter. The compensation determined by the High Court was affirmed upon dismissal of its challenge before the Apex Court. 5. Under the circumstances, there is no dispute that the market value of the land acquired had been finally determined as Rs. 127.50 per sq. meter. The total area of land belonging to the respondents, which was acquired was Rs. 7,525.56 sq. meters. 6. While dismissing the revisionist's objection under section 47, C.P.C., a sum of Rs. 32,66,264.78/- was directed to be deposited by the revisionist, judgment-debtor. This amount is being disputed by the revisionist in this revision. 7. Disputing the calculation, the first contention of learned Counsel for the revisionist is that the Executing Court has granted interest also on the solatium of Rs. 3,17,923.91/-. This interest on the solatium was not admissible. 8. The second contention raised is that the amount deposited by the revisionist has at times been adjusted exclusively towards the interest due. This manner of calculation is illegal and in fact compound interest has been paid. 9. The last submission made is that there is also a dispute as regards the date on which possession was taken by the revisionist. The possession has been taken on 25.6.1986 while the Court below, in the impugned order, has wrongly held that possession was taken on 25.9.1996. This also vitiates the impugned order as also the calculations therein. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The possession has been taken on 25.6.1986 while the Court below, in the impugned order, has wrongly held that possession was taken on 25.9.1996. This also vitiates the impugned order as also the calculations therein. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. On deciding the controversy raised in this revision, it would be relevant to refer to section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which is quoted below: "34. Payment of interest.--When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of [nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited:" 12. In my opinion, the interest that has been claimed and awarded by the impugned order has been calculated on the compensation payable and for its delayed payment. 13. The provision of section 23(1)(A) relied upon by Counsel for the revisionist in support of this contentions is for determining the compensation payable. While calculating the compensation no interest is to be levied on the solatium amount. However, once the compensation has been determined in accordance with the provisions contained in section 23(1)(A), which includes the market value of the property, the solatium etc., the same becomes part of the compensation payable and any delay in payment of this amount is to be dealt with in accordance with section 34 of the Act and interest thereon is liable to be calculated as provided in this section. This is precisely what has been done in the impugned order. 14. The first contention of learned Counsel for the revisionist therefore, cannot be accepted because the interest under section 34 is payable on the delayed payment of compensation, which necessarily includes also the solatium payable to a tenure holder whose land is compulsorily acquired. 15. The second contention that on occasions the entire amount deposited by the revisionist has been adjusted towards interest and not towards the principle amount is also without substance. 15. The second contention that on occasions the entire amount deposited by the revisionist has been adjusted towards interest and not towards the principle amount is also without substance. This controversy has been set to rest by the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India 2007 (66) ALR 327 (SC), wherein it has been held that any deposit made is to be first appropriated towards the interest payable and only if some balance remains this balance is to be appropriated towards the principle amount. 16. This Court therefore finds that the calculation, which has been accepted by the Court below is in consonance with the decision of the Apex Court and, therefore, also the impugned order calls for no interference. 17. The plea that compound interest has been claimed and has been directed to be paid is also without merit as this aspect has been specifically dealt within the impugned order and rightly repelled. 18. Insofar as the date on which actual possession of the land acquired was taken, the Court below has returned a finding that possession was taken on 20.9.1986. This finding has been returned on the basis of and upon examination of the original record. The finding therefore is a pure finding of fact, which is not liable to be interfered with, more-so because no material has been filed by the learned Counsel for the revisionist to rebut the same. 19. In view of the foregoing and since all arguments raised by learned Counsel for the revisionist have been repelled herein above, the revision is found to be without merit and is accordingly dismissed.