JUDGMENT : 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sriganganagar in Reference Case No.63/1980, whereby the reference in terms of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1953”) has been decided by the Land Acquisition Officer in favour of the claimants and the amount of compensation has been recalculated in terms of the directions issued by the High Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.508/1996 (decided on 13.10.2009). 2. The facts of the case are that qua the acquisition of land for Suratgarh Military Station, an Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Hanumangarh on 27.03.1980. In pursuance to the said Award, the award amount was deposited with the Collector and the same was even disbursed to the claimants. However, the land owners preferred an application under Section 18 of the Act of 1953 with the prayer for making a reference against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. The reference was hence made and vide order dated 23.01.1995, the Civil Judge, while deciding the reference, although maintained the compensation amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer but enhanced the amount of solatium to 30% of the market value from 10% and also awarded interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years. 4. The said order dated 23.01.1995 was challenged by the Union of India before the High Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.508/1996. Vide order dated 13.10.2009, order dated 23.01.1995 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Reference Court for recalculation. 5. The Reference Court, after remand, vide order dated 14.03.2014, recalculated the amount and maintained the earlier order to grant solatium @ 30% of the market value and interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent years. It is the said order dated 14.03.2014, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 6. Three grounds had been raised in the appeal firstly, the solatium amount as well as the interest amount could not have even been granted in terms of Act of 1953 as the said Act did not provide for any such head/grant. It is the said order dated 14.03.2014, which is under challenge in the present appeal. 6. Three grounds had been raised in the appeal firstly, the solatium amount as well as the interest amount could not have even been granted in terms of Act of 1953 as the said Act did not provide for any such head/grant. The acquisition in question of the year 1977-1978, would definitely be governed by the Act of 1953 and not the amended Act of the year 1984 and hence, the rate of solatium and the rate of interest as granted by the Reference Court could not have been granted in absence of any provision. Secondly, the solatium, even if granted, cannot be made a component of the compensation itself and hence no interest would be payable on the same. Lastly, even if it is held that the interest shall be payable on the solatium amount, the same would be payable only from the date of judgment of Sunder v. Union of India; (2001) 7 SCC 211 and not for any period prior to that. 7. So far as the first ground to the effect that the solatium amount as well as interest amount could not have been granted as the Act of 1953 did not provide for the same is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted that the issue is no more res integra as the same has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh(dead) by LRs etc., (1989) 2 SCC 754 . Learned counsel therefore did not press the said ground and hence, this Court is not required to go into the said issue. 8. The second issue - Whether the solatium, even if, granted, be a component of the compensation amount itself and hence interest on the same would also be awarded, also rests decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunder’s case (supra), wherein it has been held that the amount of solatium provided under Section 23(2) of the Act of 1953 forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to the land owner and hence the interest would be payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. The Court concluded that the interest awardable under Section 28 of the Act of 1953 would include within its ambit both the market value and statutory solatium. The Court therefore, held that Section 28 of the Act of 1953 warrants and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well. 9. In view of the above ratio, there remains no quarrel on first two grounds as raised by learned counsel for the appellant and qua the said two grounds, it can be concluded as under : The solatium as well as the interest amount was payable qua the present acquisition and secondly, solatium would also form a component/part of the compensation itself and hence, would be liable for interest on the same. 10. The only issue now remains is as to the date from which the said interest shall be payable. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said interest, even if payable, would be payable only from the date of judgment of Sunder (supra) as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India; (2006) 8 SCC 457. 11. In Gurpreet Singh’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under : “40. 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 counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), the awarded/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 (supra) 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 (supra) 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 (September 19, 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. A bare perusal of the above observations makes it clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court specifically dealt with the matters wherein no solatium had been granted by the reference Court and the same came to be claimed after the judgment in the case of Sunder (supra) being pronounced and that too before the executing Court. It is in those circumstances that the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if no solatium has been granted by the reference Court and the claim has been for the first time, raised before the executing Court, the executing Court would although grant the solatium amount but then, the interest would be payable in those matters only from the date of judgment of Sunder’s case (supra). The said ratio evidently cannot apply to the present matter as herein, solatium amount as well as the interest had been awarded by the reference Court itself. As held in Sunder’s case (supra), the said amount clearly formed a part of the compensation itself and hence the claimants are definitely entitled for interest on the said compensation amount. The said ratio evidently cannot apply to the present matter as herein, solatium amount as well as the interest had been awarded by the reference Court itself. As held in Sunder’s case (supra), the said amount clearly formed a part of the compensation itself and hence the claimants are definitely entitled for interest on the said compensation amount. The award qua the solatium as well as the interest as awarded by the reference Court is totally in consonance with law and does not deserve any interference by this Court. Further, it is clear that the observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh’s case (supra) does not, as a precedent, hold that the interest in all the matters shall be payable only from the date of judgment in Sunder’s case (supra). 14. In view of the above observations, the third ground as raised by learned counsel for the appellant is also not found to be tenable and the present appeal, hence, being devoid of merit is dismissed. The appellant Union of India shall now deposit the complete due amount qua the award with the Collector within a period of three months from now. The amount when deposited be disbursed to the claimant/land owners/legal heirs in terms of the award on an application being filed for the said purpose. 15. Stay petition and the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.