( 2025:HHC:7044 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 80 of 2022 along with Civil Revision Nos. 129 of 2022 and 67 of 2023. Decided on : 21 st March, 2025. 1. Civil Revision No. 80 of 2022. Union of India & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Tape Ram & Ors. ....Respondents. 2. Civil Revision No. 129 of 2022. Union of India & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Roshan Lal & Ors. ....Respondents. 3. Civil Revision No. 67 of 2023. Union of India & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Dolu Ram & Ors. ....Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajinder Thakur, Central Government Standing Counsel. For the respondents: Mr. Maan Singh, Advocate, for the private respondents. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Mr. Baldev Singh Negi, 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 arise from the orders passed by the learned Executing Court rejecting the 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, …2… ( 2025:HHC:7044 ) 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 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. 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) Judge 21st March, 2025. (jai) …3… ( 2025:HHC:7044 )