2025:HHC:43725 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 164 of 2022 Decided on : 16 th December, 2025. Union of India ...Petitioner. Versus Tek Ram and Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Pal Manhas, Senior Panel Counsel For the respondent No. 1: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate. For the respondent No. 2: Mr. P.K. Nadda, Additional Advocate General. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral). Heard. 2. This petition has arisen from the order passed by the learned Executing Court rejecting the objection of the petitioner as to its liability to pay interest on the amount of solatium. 3. The respondents in this petition were awarded compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. Award was passed 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? by the learned Land Acquisition Collector against which reference petition was 0led by the respondents. 4. After pronouncement of award by the reference Court, since the awarded amount was not being deposited by the petitioner herein, the respondents had 0led execution petition. In such objection raised by the petitioner herein was that it was not liable to pay the interest on the solatium. Learned executing Court vide impugned order rejected the objection raised by the petitioner herein. 5. I 0nd 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 this petition. Even otherwise also, the petitioner 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 …2… 2025:HHC:43725 24.11.2010 and later followed vide judgment dated 21.03.2025, passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.80 of 2022 and other connected matters. 6. In result, there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge 16th December, 2025. (Vriti) …3… 2025:HHC:43725