IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3646, 3772, 3774, 3778 AND 4413 of 2010 Between: Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, APIIC Ltd., Visakhapatnam. … Petitioner And Chinni Arjamma … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3646, 3772, 3774, 3778 AND 4413 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These revisions are filed by the Land Acquisition Officer-A.P.Industrial Infrastructure Corporation against the docket orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, in E.P.No.39 of 2008 in O.S.No.52 of 2003, dated 16.07.2008, for issuance of Rule 54 attachment warrant and Rule 54(1) notice to the Judgment Debtor through court and also registered post. The present revisions are filed on the premise that the calculation made by the trial court for issuing attachment warrant namely award of interest on the total sum of compensation including enhancement of compensation, Solatium and additional market value under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, is erroneous. Admittedly, the O.Ps were ordered on 31.07.2007 directing the Land Acquisition Officer to pay sum of Rs.45,476/- towards enhanced market value and also with statutory benefits. On the date when the O.P. was ordered, law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of India[1] holds the field namely that the claimants are entitled to interest not only on the enhanced compensation but also on the Solatium and additional market value. The same has been clarified by the Constitutional Bench in Gurupreet Singh v. Union of India[2] holding that whenever 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’s case (1 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 and the execution court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of judgment in Sunder’s case (1 supra), i.e., 19.09.2001. The said proposition applies to the awards and decrees passed by the trial court or the appellate court prior to the judgment of Sunder’s case. In view of the same, since the claimants as matter of right are entitled to interest not only on the enhanced compensation, but also on additional market value and solatium and in fact the reference court awarded interest on the compensation amount, which includes Solatium and additional market value, no infirmity is discernable with the order so passed by the trial court, warranting interference by this court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 1st October 2010 lmv [1] AIR 2001 SC 3516 [2] 2006(8) SCC 457