JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 26.09.2019 passed by the District Judge Merta, Rajasthan in Execution Case Nos. 1/2011 and 2/2011. 3. Learned Senior counsel submits that while passing the order dated 26.09.2019, the learned trial court has committed an error while calculating the interest on the solatium amount awarded in the acquisition proceedings. Learned Senior counsel firstly, submits that the claimants are not entitled for any interest on the solatium amount. Secondly, he submits that the date of awarding the interest in the present case is taken as 07.11.1997, which is incorrect as actually the date on which the last Section 4 notification for acquisition of land published in the newspaper dated 23.05.1998 should have been taken into consideration. He, therefore, submits that the learned Executing Court has committed an error while calculating the amount in the present case. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no error in the order passed by the learned District Judge on 26.09.2019 as the respondents-claimants are entitled for the interest on the solatium amount in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457. As far as the second contention, learned counsels for the respondents submit that the respondents-claimants are entitled to the benefit of the acquisition proceedings w.e.f. 07.11.1997 as the controversy with respect to the date of Section 4 notification has attained finality right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the date of getting the benefits will remain 07.11.1997 and no other date can be substituted in the execution proceedings. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners may be dismissed. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the order impugned as well as the other relevant record of the case. 6. The first argument raised by the Senior counsel with respect to the entitlement of the respondents-claimants on the interest amount of solatium is not sustainable in the eye of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "54. 6. The first argument raised by the Senior counsel with respect to the entitlement of the respondents-claimants on the interest amount of solatium is not sustainable in the eye of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gurpreet Singh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "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. 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." 7. Thus, the respondents-claimants are entitled for interest on solatium amount as held by the Executing Court in its order dated 26.09.2019. 8. As far as the second contention with respect to the date of calculation of the acquisition award is concerned, the same has attained finality right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the date is taken to be 07.11.1997 i.e. the date of issuance of Section 4 notification. 9. This Court while deciding the S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 7/2011 and S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 8/2011 on 21.07.2011 preferred by the petitioners have taken this date of 07.11.1997 as the date of issuance of Section 4 notification and this date has been affirmed till the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court deciding the Special Leave Petitions in these very cases. Therefore, there is no question of taking any other date for consideration of the calculation of the amount awarded in the acquisition proceedings other than 07.11.1997. 10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petitions are bereft of merit and the same are dismissed. The order dated 26.09.2019 is affirmed qua the petitioners.