C.R. No. 3827 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3827 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.08.2010 State of Punjab .......... Petitioner Versus Kuldeep Kaur (widow) & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. B.S. Sudan, Advocate for Mr. P.K. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 4.5.2009, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Patiala, vide which the application moved by the Land Acquisition Collector, PSEB, Patiala seeking stay against disbursing of the decretal amount, stands declined. The objections were filed on the ground, that the amount calculated by the decree-holder was not correct, as no interest was payable on the solatium. The contention of the petitioner, was rejected by the learned executing Court, by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India 2001(2) LACC 341, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased C.R. No. 3827 of 2010 -2- ***** to lay down as under :- “5. The Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India 2001(2) LACC 341 while answering a question referred to it “Is the State liable to pay interest on the amount envisaged under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has expressed its opinion that the person (land owner) entitled to compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. Then in Gupreet Singh V/s Union of India 2006(2) LACC 501 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the claim for interest on the solatium has been negative either espressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the reference court or of the appellate court, then the execution court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium on the ground that execution court cannot go behind the decree. 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 has 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) case 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. C.R. No. 3827 of 2010 -3- ***** 6. The above said rulings rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered the following proposition of law. 1. Interest on the amount of solatium is payable as solatium form part of the compensation (Sunder's Case) 2. If the claim for interest has been refused, then the executing Court cannot give the interest (Gurpreet's case supra) 3. If the claim of interest has not been rejected either expressly or impliedly by the reference court or trial court, then it is for the executing court to decide regarding the awarding of the interest at solatium (Gurpreet's case supra)” The order passed by the learned executing Court being in consonance of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. 25.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE