K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 18-1 1980 passed by the learned II Addl. City Civil Judge, bangalore City, in Exn. case No. 658/78 directing the petitioner to file a fresh memo of calculations to the extent of the enhanced compensation and the interest payable thereon only. The aforesaid conclusion has been reached by the learned civil Judge on the grounds that the award decree made in a reference under Ss. 30 and 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is only a declaration and it is incapable of being executed ; that if the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as apportioned' by the court is not paid, the proper remedy for the party is to proceed against the Land acquisition Officer and it is not for the court to execute the award passed by the land Acquisition Officer. The relevant portion of the order is as follows: 'it is not known whether such deposit has been made or not. However if the lao has not made the deposit but has only made a reference under Ss. 30 and 31 of the LA Act, the decree that is passed by the Court apportioning compensation amount cannot be executed by filing execution petition. If the compensation amount awarded by the LAO and as apportioned by the Court is not paid, the proper remedy for the petitioner is" to proceed against the LAO. This Court is not a Court to execute the award passed by the LAO. This Court can execute only an award decree made on a reference under S. 18 of the LA Act. Award decree made on a reference under ss. 30 and 31 of the LA Act, is only a declaration decree incapable of being executed. Hence, in this execution petition the petitioner decree holder cannot seek to recover the compensation awarded by the LAO and apportioned by the court. He cannot also seek to recover any interest on such compensation awarded by the LAO and apportioned by the Court. Therefore the memo of calculation filed by the petioner- decree holder is clearly incorreet. Hence, in this execution petition the petitioner decree holder cannot seek to recover the compensation awarded by the LAO and apportioned by the court. He cannot also seek to recover any interest on such compensation awarded by the LAO and apportioned by the Court. Therefore the memo of calculation filed by the petioner- decree holder is clearly incorreet. The petitioner decree holder is therefore directed to file a fresh memo of calculation to the extent of the enhanced compensation amount and interest payable thereon. Further, orders will be passed on filing of such fresh memo of calculation. Let the matter be called on 4-2-1980". ( 2 ) THE facts that have led to the present case are as follows ; The land belonging the claimants in question was acquired under the Act. The Land acquisition Officer passed an award, awarding compensation of Rs. 8,209-39. As there were three claimants, there was a dispute regarding the apportionment of the compensation. The claimants also sought for enhancement of the compensation. Therefore, a reference was made by the land Acquisition Officer under Ss. 18 and 30 of the Act to a Civil Court. The Civil court passed an award decree to the effect that the claimants were entitled for 1/3 rd share each in the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The award-decree specifically stated that the petitioner was entitled for a sum of rs. 2,736 46 in respect of his share out of the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It also further stated that in the enhanced com- pensation of Rs. 8,695 61 the petitioner claimant was entitled to get Rs. 2,898-53 with interest at 6 per cent per annum. 22, Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the Exn. Case No. 658/78 for recovery of the amount of Rs. 2,736-46 being his share in the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and also rs. 2,898 53 being his share in the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 8,695 68 as awarded by the Civil Judge court, and on both the sums the petitioner-claimant has claimed interest at 6% on the ground that the Land Acquisition officer has not deposited the amount awarded by him in the Civil Court while making a reference to the Court under Ss. 18 and 30 of the Act. 8,695 68 as awarded by the Civil Judge court, and on both the sums the petitioner-claimant has claimed interest at 6% on the ground that the Land Acquisition officer has not deposited the amount awarded by him in the Civil Court while making a reference to the Court under Ss. 18 and 30 of the Act. The learned Judge, without noticing a special provision contained in the Act as amended by the State of Karnataka viz. , S. 30-A, has passed the order under revision. The relevant portion of the order has already been reproduced in the earlier paragraph ; therefore it is not necessary to repeat the same here once again. ( 3 ) THE reasoning of the learned Judge is not correct. It is obvious that the learned Judge has not looked into S. 30a of the Act, which reads as follows : 30a. Apportionment of compensation :- (1) Where there are several persons interested in the amount of compensation, the Court shall apportion the amount according to the interest of each such person, and shall specify in the award the amount due to each person. (2) Each such person shall be entitled to obtain execution of the award to the extent of the amount due to him without the consent or concurrence of the other persons" the award passed by the Civil Judge in lac 49/67 is quite in accordance with s. 30a of the Act, which provides that the court shall apportion the amount according to the interest of each person. Accordingly, the same is specified in the award. Further, sub-sec. (2) of S. 30a of the Act, provides that each such person is entitled to execute the award to the extent of the amount due to him without the consent or concurrence of the other persons. That being so, the learned City Civil Judge is not right in holding that the award passed under S. 30 of the Act is not executable and the petitioner is not entitled to recover the amount in execution which he is entitled to get out of the compensatioa awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 4 ) IF the Land Acquisition Officer has not deposited, the amount in the Civil court while making a reference, the claimant is entitled for the interest as per the provisions contained in S. 34 of the act. ( 4 ) IF the Land Acquisition Officer has not deposited, the amount in the Civil court while making a reference, the claimant is entitled for the interest as per the provisions contained in S. 34 of the act. Therefore, it is for the Land Acquisition Officer to prove that the amount has been deposited in the Court while making a reference. If he fails to prove that fact, he is liable to pay the interest on the amount of compensation awarded by him as per S, 34 of the Act. Without enquiring into this aspect of the matter, the learned city Civil Judge has directed the petitioner to file a fresh memo of calculation only to the extent of the enhanced compensation amount and the interest payable thereon. ( 5 ) SRI E. R. Indra Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that the respondent be permitted to produce the records pertaining to the ease relating to deposit of money. As the matter is required to be remitted to the lower Court, it is open for him to place necessary records before the lower Court to prove that the amount has been deposited. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 18-1-1980 is set aside and the case is remitted to the lower Court with a direction to proceed with the execution in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. --- *** --- .