IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3954 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 28.6.2010 Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Naseeb Kumar and another ......Respondent(s) CR No.3955 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Jagdish Chander ......Respondent(s) CR No.3956 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Baldev Raj ......Respondent(s) CR No.3957 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Jarnail Singh ......Respondent(s) CR No.3958 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Vipin Kumar ......Respondent(s) CR No.3959 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Vijay Singh ......Respondent(s) CR No.3960 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Mastan Singh ......Respondent(s) CR No.3961 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Shanti Parshad ......Respondent(s) CR No.3962 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Veeran Bai and another ......Respondent(s) CR No.3963 of 2010(O&M) Union of India and another ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sudarshan Rani ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Ram Chander, Advocate for the petitioners. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This judgment of mine shall dispose of 10 revision petitions i.e CR Nos.3954 to 3963 of 2010 as common order was passed in all these petitions by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa, which has been impugned by raising the similar question of law on similar facts, in these revision petitions. Vide these petitions, the Union of India has challenged the impugned orders dated 13.3.2010 and 14.6.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa in execution petitions whereby the Union of India has been directed to pay the interest on solatium and additional compensation as granted by the Reference Court and further for non-payment of the same, its account has been attached. As per the averments made in this petition, the land of respondent-land owners was acquired vide notification dated 13.2.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 12.6.1990 determining the market value of the acquired land. Aggrieved with the aforesaid award, the land owners including the respondents filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for determination of market value of the acquired land. The aforesaid references were decided by the Additional District Judge, Sirsa vide award dated 5.11.1999. Reference petitions were accepted partly and compensation payable to the land owners was enhanced. While passing the award, the Reference Court also awarded the statutory benefits accruing to the land owners. The Union of India challenged the aforesaid award dated 5.11.1999 by filing Regular First Appeals before this Court which are stated to be pending adjudication. However, on the application for stay of recovery of compensation, this Court directed the petitioner-Union of India to deposit entire decretal amount with the Executing Court within three months. As per further averments, the Union of India has deposited the entire amount of compensation payable to the respondent-land owners as determined by the Reference Court along with solatium and additional compensation and interest on the enhanced compensation. However, the amount of interest on solatium and additional compensation remained to be deposited. The Executing Court vide impugned order dated 13.3.2010 directed the petitioners to make the payment of interest on the amount of solatium and additional compensation and to pay the same to the decree-holders on or before 8.5.2010. However, the petitioners failed to make the payment and thus, vide order dated 14.6.2010, the account of the petitioners was attached. Challenging the aforesaid orders dated 13.3.2010 and 14.6.2010, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that no interest is payable on the amount of solatium and additional compensation as granted to the respondent-decree holders. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appeal (Civil) 4570 of 2006 (Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India) decided on 19.10.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned orders and the averments made in these revision petitions. Admittedly, while deciding the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Court has granted all the statutory benefits including interest to the respondent-land owners. It is well settled that the amount of solatium and additional compensation as envisaged under Section 23(2) and 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act are part of compensation and the statutory amount of interest as provided under the Act is payable on these amounts, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India (2001) Suppl. 3 SCR 176. The question in Gurpreet's case(supra) before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether the decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution proceedings though it was not specifically granted by the decree, whereas it is not in dispute that in the present case, the Reference Court has specifically granted the statutory benefits of interest to the respondent-landowners while granting other statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. In this view of the matter, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the present case. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to challenge the impugned orders on the ground that the account maintained by the petitioners belongs to public fund accounts in which salary etc. on account of Central Govt. Employees is deposited and therefore, the said account could not have been attached. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is without any force. Admittedly, the account belongs to the Union of India and the amount lying deposited in the aforesaid account also belongs to Union of India and is not a salary of a particular person and therefore, there is no legal impediment for attaching the aforesaid account for the purpose of enforcing the execution proceedings against the petitioners. Thus, I find no merit in these revision petitions. Dismissed. No costs. June 28, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE