Judgment 1. The revision petitioner is the petitioner/decree-holder, and the respondent is the Land Acquisition Officer/respondent before the court below. 2. The revision petition is filed as against the fair and decretal order dated 27.8.1998 made in R.E.A.No.86 of 1998 in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court at Tirupattur in Vellore District. 3. The revision petitioner/decree-holder has challenged the award passed by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act for the enhanced compensation in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on the file of Subordinate Judges Court at Tirupattur, Vellore District. An award was passed by the Subordinate Judges Court at Tirupattur for the enhanced compensation. Aggrieved against said decision of the Subordinate Judges Court at Tirupattur in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993, the Respondent/Land Acquisition Officer has filed an appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 which is still pending on the file of High Court of Madras. There was no stay of execution granted by the High Court in the appeal preferred by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer herein in A.S.No.432 of 1997. So the revision petitioner/decree-holder filed the execution petition in R.E.A.No.186 of 1998 under Rules 163 and 165 of Civil Rules of Practice to withdraw the enhanced amount of Rs.14,60,810 which was deposited by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer. The said application was resisted by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer by filing a counter statement. After considering the objections of the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer, the learned Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur has passed the impugned order by stating in Tamil as follows: "TAMIL" Aggrieved against the said order, the present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner/decree-holder. 4. It is relevant to note that the reference for the enhanced compensation was taken on file by the Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur as L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993. Thereafter, a judgment was delivered by the learned Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur in the said L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on 31.10.1995 for enhanced compensation. As against the said judgment dated 31.10.1995, the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer has preferred an appeal only in the year 1997, which was taken on file as A.S.No.432 of 1997 on the file of High Court, Madras. There was no stay granted by the High Court, Madras for execution of the decree obtained by the revision petitioner/decree-holder in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 till date. These are the admitted facts in this case. 5. There was no stay granted by the High Court, Madras for execution of the decree obtained by the revision petitioner/decree-holder in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 till date. These are the admitted facts in this case. 5. O.41, Rule 5(1) of C.P.C. states that an appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the appellate court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree. 6. O.41, Rule 5(1) of C.P.C. states that where an application is made for stay of execution of an appellate decree, the court which passed the decree may on sufficient cause being shown order the execution to be stayed. Therefore, the mere pendency of the appeal itself cannot be a ground to dismiss the execution petition filed by the revision petitioner/decree-holder herein and in such circumstances the impugned order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur has to be set aside. 7. However the learned counsel for the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer argued that recently the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was amended by the Amendment Act 16 of 1997 and Sec.23-A was introduced for restriction on the withdrawal of the compensation amount in the land acquisition proceedings, and so the execution petition filed by the revision petitioner/decree-holder is not maintainable under law. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/decree-holder repudiated the above contention of the learned counsel for the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer by stating that the amendment Act of 16 of 1997 in respect of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette dated 20.3.1997, and it received the assent of the President of India only on 14.3.1997, and it is not retrospective in effect, and therefore, the said Sec.23-A will have no application to the facts of the present case in as much as the decree was passed for enhanced compensation by the Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 as early as on 31.10.1995. 9. 9. Sec.23-A of the Land Acquisition Act, which was incorporated by the Amendment Act 16 of 1997 in Land Acquisition Act of 1894 states that the amount of compensation awarded by any court under this Act shall be deposited in that court and the court shall not allow the person interested to withdraw such amount still the final disposal of the matter in this regard in the highest forum. There is a proviso also to the newly introduced Sec.23-A which states that if the court considers that it is absolutely necessary to allow the person interested to withdraw the compensation amount, the court may allow him to withdraw the only amount awarded by the Collector. At any rate this section newly introduced by the Amendment Act 16 of 1987, which came into force only on 14.3.1997 is only prospective and not retrospective, and therefore this is not applicable to the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on 31.10.1995. This view gains support from a decision of Madras High Court reported in Arumuga Muthariyar v. D.R.O., Thanjavur Arumuga Muthariyar v. D.R.O., Thanjavur Arumuga Muthariyar v. D.R.O., Thanjavur, (1998)1 MLJ. 428where His Lordship Justice Nainar Sundaram, J held as follows: “Retrospective operation of the provisions of an Act should not be given so as to impair an existing right or obligation unless it appears by express words or by plain implication that it was the intention of the legislature. In other words statutory provisions taking away substantive rights are ordinarily prospective.” 10. It was also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/decree-holder that a writ petition is pending before the High Court, Madras, questioning the constitutional validity of this Amendment Act 16 of 1997, and in those circumstances the revision petitioner/decree-holder must be permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount that is lying in the civil court deposit without giving any benefit to any one of the parties in the land acquisition proceedings, and the beneficiary by this deposit is only the State Bank of India. Where the deposited amount is lying idle, and the beneficiary is neither the landowner nor the Land Acquisition Officer because it is an idle deposit lying in the civil court deposit in the State Bank of India. Where the deposited amount is lying idle, and the beneficiary is neither the landowner nor the Land Acquisition Officer because it is an idle deposit lying in the civil court deposit in the State Bank of India. This contention is acceptable in view of the fact that the amount deposited will be lying idle till the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 by the High Court. In as much as the appeal in O.S.No.432 of 1997 is pending on the file of High Court, Madras, it cannot be predicted now as to whether the same enhanced compensation that is deposited into the lower court will be available to the decree-holder in this case after the disposal of the appeal. In other words if the High Court allows the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 and reduces the enhanced compensation, then the decree-holder will be entitled to a lesser sum than what was deposited before the lower court. Therefore in the interest of justice and equity I am of the view that only 50% of the enhanced compensation amount can be withdrawn by the revision petitioner/decree-holder from the deposited amount into court, and out the 50% of the compensation amount deposited into the lower court, 25% of the same can be withdraw by the revision petitioner/decree-holder without furnishing any security, and another 25% of the compensation amount deposited into the lower court can be withdrawn by furnishing sufficient security by the revision petitioner/decree-holder to the satisfaction of the Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993. 11. With regard to the remaining 50% of the amount deposited into the lower court towards the enhanced compensation, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/decree-holder made a submission that he must be permitted to withdraw the remaining 50% of the amount deposited into the lower court, in the event of the writ petition pending before the High Court of Madras challenging the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act 16 of 1997 is allowed. Even if the writ petition pending before the High Court, Madras challenging the Constitutional validity of the Amendment Act 16 of 1997 is allowed the risk of the enhanced compensation awarded by the trial court may be or may not be reduced in the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 pending on the file of High Court of Madras. Even if the writ petition pending before the High Court, Madras challenging the Constitutional validity of the Amendment Act 16 of 1997 is allowed the risk of the enhanced compensation awarded by the trial court may be or may not be reduced in the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 pending on the file of High Court of Madras. In other words we cannot at this stage speculate as to what will be the verdict that will be rendered by the appellate court in A.S.No.432 of 1997 on the file of the High Court, Madras, and we are not certain as to when the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 will be taken up for final disposal. In such a situation the High Court, Madras itself has given instructions to the lower courts for investing the compensation amount lying idle in civil court deposit in fixed deposit in any on of the nationalised banks. On this aspect there are two circulars issued by the High Court of Madras to the lower courts and they are as follows. 12. In the first circular dated 11.3.1991 in R.O.C.No.737/A/86 R.R. it is stated as follows: “Roc.No.737/A/86.R.R.Circular Sub: Investment of amount deposited in compensation cases - Instructions - Issued. Ref: (1) Suggestion made by the Thiru S.M.Sidickk Principal Sub-Judge, Coimbatore. (2) High Courts Official Memorandum Roc.No.2100/90 F.1 dt.5.9.1960 communicating a copy of the conclusions of the conference of Judicial Officers. It has been represented at the conference of the District Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Subordinate Judges held in the High Court on 12.7.1980 and 13.7.1980 that the amounts deposited in compensation cases remain unclaimed by the parties. They are lying idle in civil court deposit for a number of years. These amounts are being carried over every year in the accounts maintained by the office resulting in unnecessary scriptory and clerical work. They are also not lapsed to the Government. It has therefore been suggested that orders must be passed by the High Court that the amount deposited in compensation cases which remain unclaimed for more than one year, should be invested suo-motu by the courts in fixed deposit in any Nationalised Bank thereby reducing the scriptory and clerical work or in the alternative orders must be passed that the amount deposited in compensation cases, which remain unclaimed for more than three years should be lapsed to the Government. The above suggestions were considered by the High Court at the conference of the Judicial Officers. It was decided that the unclaimed land acquisition compensation amounts may be deposited in the Nationalised Bank for a minimum period 63 months with option to encash the same before the maturity period, if occasion arises. The Presiding Officers of the courts below are therefore required to implement the above decision as and when necessity therefore arises. (Sd) Registrar 11.3.1981”. 13. In the second circular dated 7.3.1984 in Roc.No.5572/A/83 F1 it was stated by the Registrar of the Madras High Court in the following words: “Roc.No.5572-A/83 F-1. Dt.7th February, 1984. Circular Sub: Investments-Investments of suitors’ monies of funds in the Nationalised Banks by the Civil Courts-instructions-issued. A clarification has been sought for from the High Court as to the propriety of suitors’ (amounts invested by one of the Subordinate Courts in fixed deposit with a Nationalised Bank and in this regard, the following instructions are issued by the High Court. (2) If the concerned parties to the suit or proceedings desire that the suitors’ amount in Court deposit be invested in any one of the Nationalised Banks (which is also one of the approved form of securities even under the Guardian and Wards Act) or the State Bank, then such investments should be made accordingly. In other cases the suitors’ amounts may be invested for short periods in any Nationalised Bank (as such Banks are also carrying on all Banking business activities transacted by the State Bank of India) by the Court ensuring that the amounts could be withdrawn at short notice and also recording the reasons for such investment. (3) The receipt of this circular is required to be acknowledged at an early date. (sd) S.Janarthanam Registrar.” 14. In the light of the circulars of the High Court of Madras and in view of the pendency of the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 in this matter, it is desirable that the remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation should be invested in any one of the Nationalised Bank for a period of 5 years with liberty to encash the same before the maturity period whenever required by the Court of Law. The interest that will accrue on such fixed deposits will ensure to the benefit of the decree holder and he can withdraw the same after the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997. 15. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am to hold that the only 50% of the enhanced compensation amount deposited into the lower court by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer in this case can be withdrawn by the revision petitioner/decree-holder from the deposit amount into the court, and out of the 50% of the compensation amount deposited into the the lower court, 25% of the same can be withdrawn by the revision petitioner/decree-holder without furnishing any security, and another 25% of the compensation amount deposited into the lower court can be withdrawn by the revision petitioner/decree-holder by furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993, and the learned Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur is directed to invest the remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation amount deposited in fixed deposit for a period of five years in any one of the Nationalised Banks with liberty to the court to withdraw the same before the maturity period whenever required by any court of law, and the interest that will accrue on such fixed deposit will enure to the benefit of the decree-holder, and the decree-holder is entitled to withdraw the interest that will accrue on such fixed deposit after the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 on the file of High Court, Madras, and the revision petition has to be allowed accordingly, and I answer this point accordingly. 16. In the result the revision petition is allowed without costs. The fair and decretal order dated 27.8.1998 made in R.E.A.No.86 of 1998 in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court at Tirupattur, Vellore District are set aside. 16. In the result the revision petition is allowed without costs. The fair and decretal order dated 27.8.1998 made in R.E.A.No.86 of 1998 in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court at Tirupattur, Vellore District are set aside. It is ordered that only 50% of the enhanced compensation amount deposited into the lower court by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer, can be withdrawn by the revision petitioner/decree-holder from the de- (1999) 2 MLJ 767 at 772 posited amount into the lower court, and out of the 50% of the compensation amount, deposited into the lower court, 25% of the same can be withdrawn by the revision petitioner/decree-holder without furnishing any security, and another 25% of the enhanced compensation amount deposited into the lower court can be withdrawn by the revision petitioner/decree-holder by the furnishing sufficient security to the satisfaction of the Subordinate Judge at Tirupattur in L.A.O.P.No.35 of 1993. 17. It is further ordered that the remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation amount deposited into the lower court by the respondent/Land Acquisition Officer is directed to be invested by the lower court in fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalised Banks for a period of 5 years with liberty to encash the same before the maturity period whenever required by any court of law, and the interest that will accrue on such fixed deposits will ensure to the benefit of the revision petitioner/decree-holder, and the revision petitioner/decree-holder is entitled to withdraw the interest that will accrue on such deposit along with the remaining 50% of the enhanced compensation amount that will be fixed by the appellate court after the disposal of the appeal in A.S.No.432 of 1997 pending on the file of High Court, Madras.