IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 418 of 2010 Date of decision: 24.11.2010 Union of India …Petitioner. Versus Labh Chand and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. P.P.Chauhan, Central Govt. Counsel For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. The only point involved in this petition is whether the petitioner-Union of India is liable to pay interest on the amount of solatium also or not. This matter is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, 2001(7) SCC 211 has clearly held as follows:- “We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub- section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 from Section 34 that the expression “awarded amount” would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof.” Thereafter, there are number of decision by this Court wherein the judgement of the Apex Court has been followed and it has been repeatedly held that the claimant is entitled to interest not only on the market value of the land but on the entire compensation worked out under Section 23 of the Act. Therefore, the Union of India is bound to pay interest on the amount of solatium also. 2. In this view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed in limine. However, the Union of India is granted time upto 28th February, 2011 to deposit the amount. Till then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. In case amount is not deposited by 28th February, 2011 then the learned Executing Court shall proceed in accordance with the impugned order. 24th November, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge