The liability to pay interest on solatium under the Land Acquisition Act was affirmed, rejecting the appellants' claims against such payment.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge (Oral).

CMP No. 915 of 2025 in C.R. No. 123 of 2022 This application has been filed under Order 22, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure rfead with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1.

2. It is averred that respondent No.1 Shri Mast Ram has expired on 21^st July, 2022. Copy of his death certi has been placed on record along with the application. Deceased Mast Ram is survived by his legal representatives as detailed in para-3 of the application.

3. The application is not opposed.

4. Though, the petitioner Union of India was to bring H on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 but since no steps have been taken, this application has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1.

5. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 is condoned and the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1 as detailed in para-3 of the application are ordered to be brought on record. Amended memo of parties has been filed and is taken on record. The application stands disposed of.

C.R. No. 4 of 2022 along with C.R. No. 123 and 128 of

2022.

6. Heard.

7. All these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as common qtuestions of facts and law are involved.

8. These petitions have arisen 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 solatiuhm.

9. 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.

10. 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. H

11. 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 rejectehd by this Court vide judgment dated 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.