Civil Revision No. 260 of 2005 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 20.7.2009 (i) C.R. No.260 of 2005. The Collector, Land Acquisition Industries Department, Punjab Government and another ......Petitioners Versus Jaswant Singh .......Respondent (ii) C.R. No.261 of 2005. The Collector, Land Acquisition Industries Department, Punjab Government and another ......Petitioners Versus Jarnail Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Ambica Luthra, AAG, Punjab. Shri S.K. Singla, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). This order shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 260 and 261 of 2005, both filed by the judgment debtor, arising out of the proceedings for execution of the Award in respect of acquisition of land. The challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned Executing Court on 27.4.2004, rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners that the amount of compensation has not Civil Revision No. 260 of 2005 (2) been computed in terms of the Award rendered by the learned Reference Court on 22.1.2000. The dispute before the Executing Court was whether the Reference Court has awarded interest on the amount of solatium. It was held by the Executing Court that even if the interest is not awarded, the same is an integral and statutory part of compensation and thus, the interest would be payable on the market value determined by the Court along with statutory solatium. Initially, the revision petition against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 13.1.2005 relying upon Sunder v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516 . However, the matter has been remanded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5640-41 of 2008, to examine the position in the light of the judgment in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India, 2006(8) Supreme Court Cases 457. Learned counsel for the decree holder has pointed out that the Award announced by the learned Reference Court has since been modified in appeal by this Court in RFA No. 1881 of 2001 and other connected cases on 25.8.2008. It is is contended that by virtue of the order passed by this Court on 25.8.2008, the land owners have been held entitled to interest on the amount of solatium as well. In view of the aforesaid fact and the fact that in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra), directions have been issued regarding the manner of adjustment of interest and payment of enhanced compensation, it will be in the interest of justice, if the impugned order passed by the Executing Court is set aside with the direction to re-determine the amount of compensation in terms of the principles laid down in Gurpreet Singh's case (supra). Ordered Civil Revision No. 260 of 2005 (3) accordingly. Parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 7.9.2009, for further proceedings, in accordance with law. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 20-07-2009 ds