ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The only question that arises for consideration in this CRP is as to whether (SIC) respondent i.e., the owner of the land, which is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, is entitled for payment of interest on solatium.
2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the lands of the respondent have been acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. A decree has been passed by the Civil Court fixing the compensation. The petitioner herein deposited the decretal amount into the Court. The respondent filed an application before the trial Court for withdrawal of the amount together with a calculation memo. One of the items included in the calculation memo was interest on solatium, which comes to Rs. 34,542/-. While there was no dispute as to the correctness of the other items of the memo an objection was taken by the petitioner stating that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Premnath Kapoor v. National Fertilizer Corporation , the claimant is not entitled for interest on solatium. The trial Court, however, distinguished that Judgment on facts and took the view that the respondent herein is entitled for the same and accordingly order was passed on 23-1-1998 in I.A.No. 311/97 in OP.No. 3034/87.
3. The petitioner filed this CRP contending inter alia that the order of the trial Court cannot be sustained in law in view of the Judgment of. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Premnath Kapoor’s case (referred to supra), which is in clear and unambiguous terms and states that the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
4. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred the matter as to the permissibility of interest on solatium to a larger bench in Sunder v. Union of India, 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC) = 2001 (2) An.W.R. 343 (SC) = 2001 ALT (Rev.) 30 (SC) = 2001 (5) DT (SC) 191 The larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision reported in 2001 (5) Decisions Today (SC) 191, held that ‘person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium’.
5. Whatever may be the grounds to challenge the correctness of the order under revision and whatever may have been the defect or illegality in the order under revision/having regard to the law as it obtained when it came to be passed; in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunder’s case (1 supra), the matter is no longer res integra. The respondent is entitled for interest on solatium. The CRP is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.