IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision Nos. 24 & 28 of 2020 a/w Civil Revision Nos. 85, 86, 87 of 2021, Civil Revision Nos. 3, 5, 6, 23, 55, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 132, 134, 146, 149, 152, 157, 158, 160, 163, 194, 196 and 199 of 2022 and 66 of 2023. Date of decision 7.4.2025. 1. Civil Revision No. 24 of 2020 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Bala Ram & others ...Respondents 2. Civil Revision No. 28 of 2020 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Elu Ram & others ...Respondents 3. Civil Revision No. 85 of 2021 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Lachhi Ram & another ...Respondents 4. Civil Revision No. 86 of 2021 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Uttam Ram & others ...Respondents 5. Civil Revision No. 87 of 2021 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus -2- Ved Ram & others ...Respondents 6. Civil Revision No. 3 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Devi Ram & others ...Respondents 7. Civil Revision No. 5 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Shyamu & others ...Respondents 8. Civil Revision No. 6 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Khim Dass & others ...Respondents 9. Civil Revision No. 23 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Hukam Ram & others ...Respondents 10. Civil Revision No. 55 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Tashi Yangzum & another ...Respondents 11. Civil Revision No. 117 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. -3- Versus Shiv Ram & others ...Respondents 12. Civil Revision No. 118 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Bhagat Ram & another ...Respondents 13. Civil Revision No. 119 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Chet Ram & others ...Respondents 14. Civil Revision No. 120 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Puran Chand & others ...Respondents 15. Civil Revision No. 121 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Nokhu & another ...Respondents 16. Civil Revision No. 122 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Ruldu & others ...Respondents 17. Civil Revision No. 124 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. -4- Versus Chaine Ram & others ...Respondents 18. Civil Revision No. 132 of 2020 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Ved Ram & others ...Respondents 19. Civil Revision No. 134 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Jeet Ram & another ...Respondents 20. Civil Revision No. 146 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Dabe & others ...Respondents 21. Civil Revision No. 149 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Chhapu & others ...Respondents 22. Civil Revision No. 152 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Ram Chand & others ...Respondents 23. Civil Revision No. 157 of 2022 -5- Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Bholu Ram & others ...Respondents 24. Civil Revision No. 158 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Anant Ram & others ...Respondents 25. Civil Revision No. 160 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Man Dassi & others ...Respondents 26. Civil Revision No. 163 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Sukh Dev & others ...Respondents 27. Civil Revision No. 194 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Nokh Ram & another ...Respondents 28. Civil Revision No. 196 of 2022 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Nanak Chand & another ...Respondents 29. Civil Revision No. 199 of 2022 -6- Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Bala Ram & others ...Respondents 30. Civil Revision No. 66 of 2023 Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Belu Ram & others ...Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans, Senior Panel Counsel. For the respondents : Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. Mr. Pratush Sharma, Addl. A.G., for the respondent-State. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): Heard. 2. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as common questions of facts and law are involved. 3. These petitions have arisen from the orders passed by the learned Executing Court rejecting the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -7- objection of the petitioner as to its liability to pay interest on the amount of solatium. 4. The respondents in all these petitions were awarded compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. All 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. 5. After pronouncement of common award by the reference Court, since the awarded amount was not being deposited by the petitioner(s) 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. 6. 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 -8- 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 this Court vide judgment dated 24.11.2010 and later followed vide judgment dated 21.3.2015, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No. 80 of 2022 and other connected matters. 7. In result, there is no merit in the petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) 7th April, 2025 Judge (kck)