2025:HHC:15008-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 166 of 2019 Date of decision: 21 .5 .202 5 Union of India. ….Petitioner. Versus Chhapu & others. ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr.Lokender Pal Thakur, Senior Panel Counsel. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Maan Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3, 4(a) to 4(d). Ms.Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No. 5 and 6. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral) This petition has been preferred by the petitioner against orders dated 24.4.2017 and 25.7.2019 passed by the Executing Court/District Judge Kinnaur at Rampur, whereby petitioner has been directed to pay interest on solatium, i.e. being component of 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2025:HHC:15008-DB Civil Revision No. 166 of 2019 compensation awarded under Section 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The respondents herein were awarded compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. The respondents were affected by the same acquisition proceedings. Award was passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector against which reference petitions were filed separately by the respondents. 3. After pronouncement of common award by the reference Court, since the awarded amount was not being deposited by the petitioner herein, the respondents had filed execution petitions. In such execution petitions, objection raised by the petitioners herein was that they were not liable to pay the interest on the solatium. Learned executing Court vide impugned order(s) rejected the objection raised by the petitioners herein. 4. I find no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders as the interest on solatium has been held to be payable in Sunder Singh vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in these petitions. Even otherwise also, the petitioners cannot be granted any relief as the same contention raised by them in an identical matter arising out of the same acquisition proceedings in CMPMO No. 4181 of 2010 stands dispelled and rejected by the Court vide judgment 2 2025:HHC:15008-DB Civil Revision No. 166 of 2019 dated 24.11.2010 and Civil Revisions No. 80 of 2022, 129 of 2022 and 67 of 2023 vide judgment dated 21.3.2023 and various other matters. 5. In result, there is no merit in the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Vivek Singh Thakur), 21st May, 2025 Judge. (Keshav) 3