Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - This civil revision petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-decree holder challenging order dated 29.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Executing Court, whereby it was held that the decree holders are liable to refund the amount received in excess in view of the provisions of Section 23 (1A) and Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. It is claimed that the impugned order neither takes into account the factual matrix nor the legal position correctly. It is further pleaded that the impugned order is neither valid nor legal.

3. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have urged that in terms of statutory provisions as also in view of the judicial mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Gurpreet Singh Versus Union of India 2006(8) Supreme Court Cases 457, the petitioner-decree holder had received a sum of Rs.2,72,957/- in excess from respondent-JD and the decree holder thus was liable to refund the same or may claim adjustment in the subsequent payments, if any, due from the JD to the decree holder.

4. Hearing arguments addressed by counsel for the parties while perusing the paper book and considering the attending circumstances, it is revealed that the entire dispute is with regard to extent of entitlement of the decree-holder to interest on the amount statutorily due to him from the JDs.

5. The land owner had preferred a reference claiming enhancement of compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) qua acquisition of his land by the State of Haryana. The compensation was enhanced by the reference court @ Rs.18/- per square yard. This Award was challenged by the State of Haryana in this Court vide RFA No.608 of 1988. Vide its verdict of 7.12.1993, this Court had upheld the Award of the District Judge i.e. the reference court.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner-decree holder had filed execution application during pendency of which, State of Haryana had filed application under Section 144 CPC for recovery of the decreetal amount paid in excess claiming that interest is payable only on market value of the acquired land and not on the additional amount and solatium which were payable under Section 23(1A) and 23(2) respectively of the Act. The claimants had opposed the application of the State of Haryana tooth and nail pleading that the amount paid by the JD to the decree holder has first to be appropriated towards interest and only then to any other components of the claim.

7. Vide order dated 20.7.2002, the Executing Court had held that calculations made by the JD were correct and sequelly, refund of the excess amount was ordered. The petitioner-decree holder challenged the said order of 20.7.2002 in civil revision petition before this Court. Sequelly, orders dated 30.5.2001 and 20.7.2002 passed by the Executing Court were set aside and the case was sent back for fresh decision.

8. Vide impugned order, it has been held by the Executing Court that in view of Gurpreet Singh’s case (supra), the interest on solatium amount is permissible only w.e.f. 19.9.2001 i.e. the date of pronouncement of judgment in Sunder Versus Union of India AIR 2001 SC 3516.

9. Merely the fact of payment made in excess than what was permissible under the statutory provisions and in terms of the judicial mandate, would not debar the JD to get back the excess amount paid to the decree holder. Looking from another angle, no undue enrichment can be allowed merely because the excess payment had already been made, even though the decree holder was not entitled for it.

10. At this stage, question arises as to what is the domain and sweep of “interest” awardable to the decree holder. Section 28 of the Act is the relevant provision. In short, interest is payable on the market value of the acquired land but which of course does no