M. P. CHINNAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THE Government acquired for the benefit of Karnataka Industrial areas Development Board the land measuring 16 acres 29 guntas in S. Nos. 62/b, 186 and 187 of Koragalli Village, Yelwal Hobli, Mysore, from the respondent. Compensation was awarded in favour of the respondent. Therefore, to recover the compensation awarded by the Court, the respondent filed Ex. Petition No. 19 of 1996 on the file of the I Additional civil Judge, Mysore against the petitioner and the petitioner had made certain payments and thereafter filed a memo of calculation reporting to the Court that the amount paid by the petitioner is much more than the amount for which the respondent is entitled to under the execution. The office also calculated and came to the conclusion that the amount paid by the petitioner is insufficient to satisfy the decree. After hearing both the parties, the Court has accepted the method of calculation adopted by the office of the Court. Being aggrieved by the order, the petitioner/j. Dr. approached this Court under Section 115 of the CPC. ( 2 ) ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that no interest can be awarded on solatium and additional amount awarded by the Court, He also submitted that the interest on enhanced amount shall be calculated from the date of enhancement order. Therefore, the calculation adopted by the office of the Court cannot be accepted as it is erroneous. He also argued that the amount paid by the J. Dr. cannot be adjusted towards the interest only. ( 4 ) REPELLING this argument, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the present execution petition is the 3rd petition. The petitioner has not raised these contentions in the earlier two petitions. Therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend these grounds in this petition as it is barred under Section 11 of the CPC. He also submitted that the guidelines of the Supreme Court in the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be followed since they are contrary to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the act' ). ( 5 ) IT is an admitted fact that the respondent filed Execution Petition in No. 202 of 1989 on the file of the same Court which came to be dismissed on 21-1-1990. ( 5 ) IT is an admitted fact that the respondent filed Execution Petition in No. 202 of 1989 on the file of the same Court which came to be dismissed on 21-1-1990. Subsequently, the respondent filed Ex. P. 229 of 1991 against the petitioner which also came to be dismissed on 27-7-1991. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the very outset in reply to all the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the decisions of the Supreme Court (which will be referred presently) came to be rendered subsequent to the dismissal of these petitions. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to raise these contentions in the earlier petition. He also further contended that it cannot be treated as res judicata in view of the fact that there was no point raised by the Court and no decision was rendered on that question in the earlier petitions. In Urban Improvement Trust, jodhpur v Gokul Narain and Another, their Lordships have held that provisions of the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 made applicable to acquisitions under Rajasthan Improvement Act by Rajasthan Act 29 of 1987, w. e. f. [l-8-1997] - Additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium under Section 23 (2) of the L. A. Act cannot be applied to award made before 1-8-1987. Under those circumstances, the question before their Lordships was whether the question could be raised in execution. While answering that question, their Lordships have held it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Hence, the 1st objection raised by the respondent is untenable in law. ( 7 ) IN addition to that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided these points subsequent to the dismissal of the two earlier execution petitions referred to above. It is a law laid down by the Supreme Court and the same is binding on this High Court and all subordinate Courts. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent that the Supreme court has not considered Section 28 of the Act while delivering this judgment is also untenable. For the foregoing reasons, this objection is rejected. ( 8 ) COMING to the merits of this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as indicated above submitted that no interest can be awarded on solatium. For the foregoing reasons, this objection is rejected. ( 8 ) COMING to the merits of this petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as indicated above submitted that no interest can be awarded on solatium. This question was considered by their Lordships in Prem nath Kapur and Another v National Fertilizers Corporation of India limited and Others, wherein it is held that Section 34 or 28, as the case may be, fastens liability to pay interest only on amount of compensation or such excess amount of compensation or part thereof determined under section 23 (1 ). In other words, by virtue of the language of Section 23 (2), viz. ,"in addition to the market value", as provided in Section 23 (1), solatium becomes payable. Compensation under Section 23 (1), by necessary implication, excludes the liability to pay interest on solatium. Equally, no solatium is payable on additional amount payable under section 23 (1-A ). So too, no interest is payable on additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) on other components except on compensation or excess compensation or part thereof determined under Section 23 (1) over and above the award under Section 11, by Civil Court under Section 26 or on appeal under Section 54, respectively. ( 9 ) IT is also held by their Lordships in Yadavrao P. Pathade (dead) by l. Rs and Others v State of Maharashtra, that Section 28 does not comprehend payment of interest on solatium when it expressly mentions payment of interest on compensation under Section 28 referable on to section 23 (1) of the Act. Thus the High Court was right in not awarding interest on solatium. Under Section 28 the claimants will be entitled to the interest on enhanced compensation from the date of the award of the court under Section 26 and on appeal under Section 54 on the respective compensation, if enhanced, till date of deposit in the Court. Therefore, the State is required to only deposit the balance of interest on the ehancod compensation till date of deposit into the Court. Therefore, the State is required to only deposit the balance of interest on the ehancod compensation till date of deposit into the Court. ( 10 ) IN Tehri Hydro Development Corporation v S. P. Singh and Others, their Lordships following the decision of Prem Nath Kapur's case, supra, further clarified, the relevant portion reads as follows:"in this appeal, Shri Juneja, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that in view of the judgment in the case of Prem nath Kapur, supra, wherein it was held that the claimants are not entitled to solatium on additional amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, they are also not entitled to interest on the solatium. The learned Counsel for the respondent, in fairness, has stated that as per the decree of the High Court, there was no specific mention that the claimants are entitled to the above reliefs. It mentions only that the statutory benefits would be granted as per law. Under these circumstances, it is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to interest on solatium and on additional amount awarded under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act". ( 11 ) IT is also further held that claimant is not entitled to appropriate from the amount deposited towards costs, interest, additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) with interest and then claim the balance amount with interest. Right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implication by the award itself. Order 21, Rule 1 of the CPC being inconsistent with Sections 28 and 34 not applicable to cases under LAA. From this it is clear that the debtor may indeed exercise the right and may specify his appropriation expressly or his intention may be implied as shown by other circumstances, indicating that this intention at the time of payment was to appropriate the amount deposited by him to a specific debt or account towards the debt. The right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implication by the award itself as the award or decree clearly mentions each of the items. When the deposit is made towards the specific amount, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct interest, additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) with interest and then to claim payable balance amount with further interest. ( 12 ) THE next question is whether the D. Hr. is entitled to adjust the amount deposited by the J. Dr. When the deposit is made towards the specific amount, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct interest, additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) with interest and then to claim payable balance amount with further interest. ( 12 ) THE next question is whether the D. Hr. is entitled to adjust the amount deposited by the J. Dr. from time to time only towards interest, solatium and thereafter towards the principal amount. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur's case, referred to above, has answered this question thus:"even in general principles of law, Section 60 of the Contract act provides that where the debtor has omitted to intimate and there are no other circumstances indicating as to which debt the payment is to be applied, the creditor may apply it at his discretion, to any lawful debt actually due and payable to him from the debtor, whether its recovery is or is not barred by the law in force for the time being, as to the limitation of suits. Therefore, the debtor may indeed exercise that right and may specify his appropriation expressly or his intention may be implied as shown by other circumstances, indicating that his intention at the time of payment was to appropriate the amount deposited by him to a specific debt or account towards the debt. The right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implication, by the award itself as the award or decree clearly mentions each of the items. When the deposit is made towards the specified amounts, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct from the amount of compensation towards costs, interest, additional amount under section 23 (1-A) with interest and then to claim the total balance amount with further interest". ( 13 ) AT the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that constructive res judicata is applicable as held by this Court in Ramappa Naika v Madappa Holla. It is clear that the facts of that case before his Lordship are entirely different from the facts of this case. ( 13 ) AT the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that constructive res judicata is applicable as held by this Court in Ramappa Naika v Madappa Holla. It is clear that the facts of that case before his Lordship are entirely different from the facts of this case. In that case, the Court has held that an order for execution of a decree by necessary implication means that the Court which issued the order has come to the conclusion that the applicant has a right to apply for execution, that the decree is executable, that the decree is not barred by limitation and the judgment-debtor is liable to satisfy the decree. Such is the necessary implication of law, when notice of the presentation of an execution petition has been served personally on the judgment-debtor. There is no further requirement that the judgment-debtor should have knowledge or must be shown to have knowledge of all the facts constituting the defence which he could have made. Whether those facts are available in the records or elsewhere is of no consequence to the principle. The petitioner herein does not even say that the petitioner was not liable to pay the amount. What he has contended in his objection is that the amount paid by the petitioner was not appropriated in accordance with law. On the other hand, it was adjusted only towards the interest leaving the principal which attracted more interest. He has also contended that the interest on solatium and also additional amount was not allowed by the Court. Therefore, calculating interest on these counts also is against the principles of law. Therefore, that cannot be held to be a constructive res judicata as argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent. ( 14 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent however submitted that what has been done by the Executing Court cannot be reopened. According to him. the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and section 28 does not make any distinction between the Reference Court and the High Court. This argument is unacceptable. It is clear from the section itself that an appeal lies against the order passed by the Reference court and the High Court being the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Court below. This argument is unacceptable. It is clear from the section itself that an appeal lies against the order passed by the Reference court and the High Court being the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the Court below. If the High Court were to enhance the compensation, the interest is payable only from the date of the order passed by the High Court in view of the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court referred to above. Under those circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 28 the respondent is entitled for interest even on the enhanced amount from the date of the order passed by the LAO cannot be accepted. Therefore, from the above discussion it is abundantly clear that the contentions raised by this petitioner are in accordance with law and a perusal of the calculation of the office of the Executing Court appears to be not in accordance with law. The calculation filed by the petitioner and the figure arrived at by the office will have to be examined by the office or the Court giving full opportunity to both the parties and in the light of the law laid down in the decisions cited above. As contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the observation made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court cannot be taken only as mere guidelines. On the other hand, it is a law laid down by the supreme Court. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Court below to apply the principles in respect of the amount claimed by the respondent in the execution petition and arrive at a just and correct conclusion to find out what is the amount payable by the petitioner to the respondent or vice versa. ( 15 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9-9-1997 passed in Ex. Case No. 19 of 1996 on the file of the i Additional Civil Judge, Mysore, is set aside directing both the parties to file their memo of calculations in the light of the observations made in this order and after hearing both the parties, pass necessary orders in accordance with law. --- *** --- .