Judgment :- These revisions are by the Corporation of Cochin, a local authority within the meaning of S.50 of the Land Acquisition Act. It challenges the orders refusing to lift the attachment of its assets. 2. In execution of awards for enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court, the executing court ordered attachment of the assets of the Corporation. The attachments were effected. Thereupon the Corporation filed Execution Application praying for withdrawal of the attachment on the ground that the assets of the Corporation were not liable to be proceeded against for recovery of the enhanced compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act and that the Corporation was not a party either to the award or to the reference or to the decree and consequently no execution could be levied against it, for recovery of the amounts covered by the decree. The decree holders contended that the acquisition was on a requisition by the local authority, the Corporation of Cochin, and since they had the obligation to provide the funds necessary for the acquisition, they could be proceeded against in execution of the decree. It was further contended that in any view, the Corporation was a State and consequently what is decreed to be recovered from the State can be recovered by proceeding against the assets of the Corporation. The executing court overruled the contentions of the Corporation and ordered that the attachment cannot be withdrawn as claimed by the Corporation. The Execution Application filed by the Corporation were dismissed. These dismissals are challenged in these revisions by the Corporation. 3. In the Land Acquisition Act, the local authority is defined under S.3(aa) as to include a Town Planning Authority set up under any Law for the time being in force. There is no dispute that Corporation of Cochin is a local authority within the meaning of the Land Acquisition Act. In the Act, the local authority appears to have been bracketed with a company, as defined under the Act. But whereas Part VII lays down conditions and procedure for acquisition of land by the State for companies, there are no corresponding provisions with regard to local authorities. Nor does the definition of company, under S.3(e) of the Act take within its purview, a local authority. But whereas Part VII lays down conditions and procedure for acquisition of land by the State for companies, there are no corresponding provisions with regard to local authorities. Nor does the definition of company, under S.3(e) of the Act take within its purview, a local authority. S.41 of the Act provides for an agreement to be entered into by the Company with the Government providing to the satisfaction of the Government, the payment to the Government of the cost of the acquisition and other matters. The local authority is paired with a company and is roped in by S.50 of the Act. The section reads: "50. Acquisition of land at cost of a local authority or Company - (1) Where the provisions of this Act are put in force for the purpose of acquiring land at the cost of any fund controlled or managed by a local authority or of any Company, the charges of and incidental to such acquisition shall be defrayed from or by such fund or company. (2) In any proceeding held before a Collector or Court in such cases the local authority or Company concerned may appear and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. Provided that no such local authority or Company shall be entitled to demand a reference under S.18." It can be seen from sub-section (1), dial the obligation to provide the cost of acquisition and the charges incidental thereto has to come out of the fund of the local authority at whose requisition, the acquisition is to be made. It is therefore clear that the cost of acquisition has to come from the fund of the local authority and the provisions of the Act are set in motion on the understanding that the cost of the acquisition will come out of the 'funds of the local authority. Rule 4 of the Land Acquisition (Kerala) Rules provides for the form of requisition to he made for acquisition of land, under the Act. Form 2 insists on providing for information as to whether the sanction of the competent authority had been obtained for the requisition for acquisition to be made and whether necessary budget provision exists for meeting the cost of acquisition. Form 2 insists on providing for information as to whether the sanction of the competent authority had been obtained for the requisition for acquisition to be made and whether necessary budget provision exists for meeting the cost of acquisition. On a scrutiny of these provisions it appears that in the absence of any other understanding between the Government and the local authority the cost of this acquisition has to be borne by the local authority. It is not disputed in this case that the local authority has the obligation to bear the expenses of the acquisition including the satisfaction of any decree for enhanced compensation passed by a Reference Court or in appeal. It is therefore clear that the amounts awarded under the decrees put in execution in these cases, must really originate from the funds of the local authority. 4. It is now clear from the decisions of the Supreme Court that the local authority on whose requisition the acquisition is made, has the locus standi to appear in the Reference Court and also to file an appeal against the decree of the Reference Court if it was a party to the Reference. But, S.50(2) of the Act though it enables the local authority to appeal" and adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation, denies it the right to seek a reference under S.18 of the Act. The position therefore is that though in appropriate cases, the local authority could file even an appeal against the award, there is nothing in the Act which insists that the local authority must be included in the array of parties so as to make it liable for the costs of acquisition, in case the acquisition is made on its requisition. The question that arises is whether in such circumstances, the decree holder could directly proceed against the local authority to recover the enhanced compensation notwithstanding the fact that the decree for enhanced compensation is passed by the Reference Court against the State and without the local authority being formally on the array of parties. 5. Section 31 of the Act imposes the obligation on the Collector to tender payment of the Compensation awarded by him to the persons interested, or, to deposit the same in court for being disbursed among the claimants. 5. Section 31 of the Act imposes the obligation on the Collector to tender payment of the Compensation awarded by him to the persons interested, or, to deposit the same in court for being disbursed among the claimants. In other words, the obligation to pay the compensation for a land acquired under the Act, is that of the Government notwithstanding the fact that the acquisition is made on behalf of a Company or of a local authority. The decree passed by the court on a reference for enhancement also casts the obligation to pay the additional compensation on the State. Thus, on the scheme of the Act, the obligation to pay compensation is that of the State and not that of the requisitioning authority. The claimant can only look to the State for recovery of the compensation awarded to him by the Collector or by the Court. There is nothing in the Act or the Rules which makes the local authority the requisitioning authority, primarily responsible to the owner of the land who is awarded the compensation. Obviously, in these cases, there is no decree as such against the local authority, as well. In such a situation, it is clear that the decree holder can recover the amounts due under the decree only against the State and not by proceeding against the local authority on whose requisition, the acquisition is made. The contention that the local authority is also a State or is a limb of the State and consequently anything that is recoverable from the State can be recovered from the local authority, cannot be accepted in view of the dichotomy maintained in the Act conferring on the local authority only the status of a requisitioning authority and conferring on the State alone, the status of the acquiring authority. The argument advanced by counsel for the decree holder that since the local authority can be treated' as a State, the amount can be recovered from that authority direct, cannot therefore be accepted. Even going by the terms of the decree in these cases, it cannot be said that the local authority can be treated as the judgment debtor so as to enable the decree holders to proceed against it, in execution. Even going by the terms of the decree in these cases, it cannot be said that the local authority can be treated as the judgment debtor so as to enable the decree holders to proceed against it, in execution. The theory that the local authority can be understood as a State within the meaning of Art.12 of the Constitution or that it could possibly be understood as a limb of the State, cannot be of any avail to the decree holders to proceed in execution against the assets of the local authority on the scheme of the Act. I therefore hold that the executing court has acted without jurisdiction in ordering attachment of the assets of the Corporation and consequently it should have withdrawn the attachment on the applications made by the Corporation. The order of the Executing Court is therefore liable to be set aside and the execution applications filed by the Corporation are liable to be allowed. In these cases, this is at the moment, of academic interest because subsequent to the dismissal of these applications by the executing court and during the pendency of these revisions, the amounts due to the respective claimants have in fact been paid and the obligations under the decree are discharged. 6. At this stage it is necessary to notice the difficulties that a claimant-decree holder faces in realising the fruits of his decree. His lands have been acquired against his volition, under the law of eminent domain. The Act as amended in 1984, has provided for enhanced benefits to such a land owner, when the Act has provided such benefits to the owner, a situation where that owner has to run from piller to post, to realise the compensation decreed to him, cannot be appreciated. Once a decree is made for enhanced compensation by the Reference Court, there is a duty plain and simple, on the State to deposit that compensation into court, for being disbursed to the claimant. Now, what happens is that, inspite of the decree for enhancement the claimant has to wait for years to get the amount awarded by the decree. It appears to me that it is time for the State to rectify this situation, bearing in mind the spirit with which the Amendment Act of 1984 was enacted, providing for enhanced benefits to a deprived laud owner. It appears to me that it is time for the State to rectify this situation, bearing in mind the spirit with which the Amendment Act of 1984 was enacted, providing for enhanced benefits to a deprived laud owner. Though deprived of his land against his wishes, an anxiety is evinced by the Amendment Act, to compensate that owner to the extent possible. That object will certainly not be achieved, by merely granting him a decree. That can be achieved, only by making available to him, the additional amounts, immediately on the passing of the award decree. The-submission of the learned Government Pleader that it is the failure of the local authority to make available the amounts needed promptly, that leads to delay in satisfying the decree, cannot be appreciated. It is for the State, while it is undertaking the acquisition on the basis of a requisition, to ensure that the requisitioning authority makes available the amounts that has to be paid as compensation under the Act both at the time of the award and at the time of the decree, by the Reference Court. If the local authority, who is the requisitioning authority, is recalcitrant in meeting its obligation to the State in terms of the compact between the State and the requisitioning authority, it is for the State to take appropriate, timely and effective action against the local authority, to ensure that the funds are made available, so as to enable the State to deposit the same into court, without much delay alter the award decree is passed. The State cannot throw up its hands and leave the citizen to resort to such desperate measures as the attaching of the tables, chairs and the parked vehicles of the local authority in an attempt to get the fruits of the award decree. We are even aware of a desperate attempt made by one of the decree holders to attach the salary of an officer connected with the acquisition, for recovery of the amounts decreed as compensation under the award decree. It is time that the Government woke up to its responsibility to the citizen and ensured that necessary amounts are recovered from the local authority as soon as the award decree is passed and the amount decreed are deposited in court, towards the satisfaction of the decree. It is time that the Government woke up to its responsibility to the citizen and ensured that necessary amounts are recovered from the local authority as soon as the award decree is passed and the amount decreed are deposited in court, towards the satisfaction of the decree. It is also to be noted that the interest payable to the claimant is substantial, as per the amended Act and the delaying of the payment can only lead to further expenditure for the acquisition. One way of tackling the situation, it appears to me, would be not to start the process of acquisition on a requisition by a local authority, unless substantial funds including the probable enhanced compensation that may be adjudged by the reference court, is made available to the local authority and unless the public purpose put forward by the local authority is clearly essential, for the public weal. In other words, the requisition for acquisition by a local authority should be scrutinised very closely and a decision to set in motion, the provisions of the Act should be made, only after a careful scrutiny of the requisition put forward, including the availability of funds with the local authority to meet the obligations arising out of the acquisition. The contention of counsel for the local authority in this case that the local authority was not in a position to provide funds to the Government in time, because, the Government in turn had not disbursed the amounts due to it from the Government and if such amounts are disbursed, the local authority can easily fulfil the obligations under the award decree, is of no avail, as against the owner who had been deprived of his land, by setting in motion, the proceedings under the Act. Any lack of rapport between the local authority and the Government or the existence of a dispute between them regarding the amounts due to each other or from each other cannot be a ground to deprive the decree holder of the fruits of his decree or to delay the recovery of the amounts due under the decree. The disputes between the local authority and the State has to be adjudicated elsewhere and that cannot be made an excuse for keeping the decree holder-claimant at bay. The disputes between the local authority and the State has to be adjudicated elsewhere and that cannot be made an excuse for keeping the decree holder-claimant at bay. It is for the State to seriously ponder over these aspects and give strict directions regarding the acts of acquisition to be undertaken on the basis of requisition by a local authority or a company, and to ensure that immediately on the -award being passed by the court on a reference, funds are made available by the requisitioning authority for meeting obligations cast on the State under the decree. , 7. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the applications filed by the Corporation in the Executing Court seeking withdrawal of attachment are allowed. I make no order as to costs. Communicate a copy of this order to the Board of Revenue for taking necessary. steps to tackle this recurring problem in the light of the observations in this order.