ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of india. The petitioner herein is the decree holder, who seeks to assail the order dated 21-4-2004 passed in E. P. No. Nil of 2004 in op No. 93 of 1985/cf. N0. 10970 dated 17-12-2003 on the file of the Court of principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, closing the proceedings in the above unnumbered ep and directing the claimant to file a fresh EP in accordance with the observations made in the order and further directing the office to note the guidelines issued in the order while registering the ep in this case as well as other EPs in land acquisition cases. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the decree holder filed EP for realization of the amount due pursuant to the decree passed by this Court in AS No. 791 of 1988, which was preferred against the award passed in op No. 93 of 1985 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. Originally the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the acquired land at rs. 3,765-00 per acre. But the Principal senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, while not enhancing the market value, directed payment of solatium at 30%, apart from additional market value at 12% and interest at 9% from the date of possession. Aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred to this court and this Court enhanced the market value from Rs. 3,765-00 to Rs. 8,000-00 per acre including all other benefits as contemplated under the provisions of Land acquisition Act. Thereafter, on the basis of the award, the decree holder filed EP no. 98 of 1988 in OP No. 93 of 1985. During the course of the said EP, the judgment-debtor has deposited an amount of Rs. 27,594-73 paise and the same has been withdrawn by the claimant. Thereafter, on the basis of the judgment of the High Court, the claimant filed EP. No. 38 of 1999 but the same was dismissed for default. The claimant thereafter filed the EP for realization of balance amount due and payable by the judgment- debtor. Initially the claimant filed EP for rs. 8,37,543-00 but in view of objections taken by the office with regard to the manner of calculation, the claimant filed a fresh calculation memo on 4-2-2004 claiming rs. 5,34,701-00. The claimant thereafter filed the EP for realization of balance amount due and payable by the judgment- debtor. Initially the claimant filed EP for rs. 8,37,543-00 but in view of objections taken by the office with regard to the manner of calculation, the claimant filed a fresh calculation memo on 4-2-2004 claiming rs. 5,34,701-00. Again on 12-2-2004 the claimant filed another calculation memo claiming Rs. 8,20,921-00. Thereafter the claimant filed yet another calculation memo on 3-3-2004 claiming an amount of rs. 6,81,413-00. Further certain clarifications were sought from the claimant; namely there is variation with regard to the amount paid to him during the award by the Land acquisition Officer. In EP. No. 28 of 1999 it is stated that an amount of Rs. 69,741-00 was paid during the award. Presently it is stated that an amount of Rs. 64,129-00 was paid by the Land Acquisition Officer. Secondly, as per Column No. 7 of EP an amount of Rs. 27,594-73 paise is paid in EP no. 98 of 1988. However, as per the calculation memos it was shown as if an amount of Rs. 92,234-00 consisting of two payments of Rs. 40,224-00 and Rs. 52,100-00 was received by the claimant without including the said amount of Rs. 27,594-73 paise. The claimant has also included a claim for Rs. 10,776-00 towards structures, which was not found in the award. Therefore, the decree holder was directed to furnish the details with regard to the said objections. In answer to the same, the decree holder has filed a fresh calculation memo deducting the claim for structures and showing payment of Rs. 27,595-00 only and claiming a total sum of Rs. 9,87,699-00. After hearing the Counsel for decree holder, the Senior Civil Judge framed the point for consideration is whether the calculations made by the decree holder claimant are in accordance with law. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing both sides, the learned senior Civil Judge while answering the point firstly observed that the calculations made by the decree holder must be strictly in accordance with the decree and the law governing the field. ( 3 ) AFTER hearing both sides, the learned senior Civil Judge while answering the point firstly observed that the calculations made by the decree holder must be strictly in accordance with the decree and the law governing the field. If fanciful and exorbitant claims are allowed to be made which are contrary to the decree and law, the Court can look into that aspect even at the stage of registering the EP so that there may not be any scope for excessive payment by the State whose interests are not often protected but looked after properly by the concerned authorities for various reasons; such as, the change of officers etc. , and thus rejected the contention of the claimant holding that EP has to be numbered on the basis of calculations made by the claimant the Senior Civil Judge observed that in pursuance of the one and same decree, the claimant made claims ranging from rs. 5,34,701-00 to Rs. 9,87,699-00. It is further observed that the most distinguishing feature of various calculation memos filed by him is that the claimant is under an impression that he is entitled for interest-on- interest i. e. , compound interest The total claim for the entire acquired land consisting of market value, solatium and additional market value does not exceed Rs,l,73,270-00. Admittedly more than an amount of rs. 60,000-00 has been paid at the time of the award. Therefore, the claimant cannot claim interest at any point of time on any amount in excess of about Rs. 1,00,000-00 and odd. However, the claimant at one stage at Serial No. 7 of calculation memo dated 13-10-2003 has claimed interest on rs. 1,90,644-00. At Serial No. 8 of the said memo, interest is again claimed on rs. 4,96,322-00. A similar phenomenon is found in various other calculation memos. ( 4 ) SECONDLY, the Senior Civil Judge observed that in the calculation memo dated 13-10-2003 the claimant has referred to total market value i. e. , the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and also the amount enhanced by the High Court and thereafter claimed interest on the total amount and thereafter deducted the amount paid under the award of the Land acquisition Officer and so on and so forth. The claimant must have necessarily received the amount awarded by the Land acquisition Officer together with statutory benefits due on the date of award itself. The claimant must have necessarily received the amount awarded by the Land acquisition Officer together with statutory benefits due on the date of award itself. The subsequent reference to the Civil Court and appeal to the High Court would at best result in enhanced compensation together with statutory benefits on the said enhanced compensation and also interest on such enhanced compensation till the date of payment or deposit. ( 5 ) AFTER elaborately discussing the matter, the Principal Senior Civil Judge observed in his order that in view of general importance of this matter, he issued the following guidelines to the office to follow them while registering the EPs in land acquisition matters. 1. The amount due shall be calculated only with reference to the enhanced, market value. The enhanced market value together with 30% solatium and 12% additional market value from the date of notification till the date of award or possession, whichever is earlier shall alone be considered for grant of interest it is made clear that in the event of possession having been taken even before notification, additional market value at 12% shall be restricted to the period from the date of notification till the date of award. 2. If the Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded the statutory benefits in accordance with law existing at the time of passing of the award, the claimant may be permitted to make an independent claim under a separate head in the same ep and such claim will be considered subject to the objections and subject to the prevailing case-law. 3. The amounts deposited by the Land acquisition Officer shall first be appropriated towards the compensation consisting of the market value, solatium and the additional market value and balance leftover shall be deposited to the interest and further interest from the date of deposit shall be allowed on the balance on such a reduced compensation amount. ( 6 ) WHILE framing the above guidelines, the Senior Civil Judge held that as the details furnished by the claimant is inconsistent and therefore the EP proceedings are closed with liberty to file a fresh EP in accordance with the above guidelines. Questioning the order followed by the above guidelines dated 21-4-2004 passed in EP No. Nil of 2004 in op No. 93 of 1985/cf. Questioning the order followed by the above guidelines dated 21-4-2004 passed in EP No. Nil of 2004 in op No. 93 of 1985/cf. No,10970 dated 17- 12-2003 on the file of the Court of Principal senior Civil Judge, Anantapur, the decree holder filed this civil revision petition. ( 7 ) SMT. A. Chayadevi, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner- decree holder submits that the learned Judge in the impugned order misinterpreted the rulings of the Supreme Court and decided the matter against the revision petitioner. The learned Judge wrongly concluded that the decree holder is claiming interest-on- interest even claiming interest is on the basis of Larger Bench judgment of the supreme Court. But the learned Judge deducted the interest part amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award from the compensation component amount i. e. , market value plus additional market value plus solatium. The learned Judge not at all appreciated the Larger Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder v. Union of india reported in 2001 (5) ALD 136 (SC) = 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC), wherein the supreme Court held that the component question does not arise, due to non-providing the same in the Legislature Act. But the learned Judge wrongly interpreted and split up the compensation amounts and decided calculation memo on the basis of component methods. ( 8 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner further submits that the learned Judge wrongly decided the calculation memo at the first instance itself before numbering the execution petition on one side, without issuing notice to the respondent due to that the matter is decided against the revision petitioner, even though the revision petitioner has filed the calculation memo correctly claiming interest on the aggregate amount. But the learned Judge arbitrarily gave a finding not only in this case but also to other cases observing that the guidelines framed in the order shall be followed by the ministerial staff at the time of registering the execution petitions. Due to that wrong version, the revision petitioner looses compensation amount heavily, even though he is legally entitled to interest. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the respondent- judgment debtor filed the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit it is submitted that an extent of Acs. 9-12 cents and Acs:4-98 cents of land in Survey Nos. Due to that wrong version, the revision petitioner looses compensation amount heavily, even though he is legally entitled to interest. ( 9 ) ON the other hand, the respondent- judgment debtor filed the counter-affidavit. In the counter-affidavit it is submitted that an extent of Acs. 9-12 cents and Acs:4-98 cents of land in Survey Nos. 459-A and 458 of Raketla Village of Uravakonda Mandal belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for burrow area of PABR under Award Nos. 1/85 and 2/85 dated 22-2-1985. The Land Acquisition officer fixed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 3,765-00 per acre. Not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Court of principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur and numbered as OP No. 93 of 1985. The principal Subordinate Judge, Anantapur by order dated 31-10-1987 confirmed the value fixed by the Land Acquisition officer and further directed to pay additional market value @ 12% from the date of notification to the date of award or to the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier and also directed to pay solatium at 30% on the market value and interest at 9% p. a. from the date on which possession was taken. An amount of rs. 69,741-73 paise was paid during march 1985 to the claimant under the above two awards. ( 10 ) THE respondent submitted that questioning the decree and order in OP no. 93 of 1985 the claimant filed AS No. 791 of 1988 on the file of the High Court and the High Court by order dated 12-8-1998 enhanced the market value of the land from Rs. 3,765-00 to Rs. 8,000-00 per acre and also directed to pay all statutory benefits as per the amended Act. Further the government Pleader for Appeals opined that there are no grounds to carry the matter to Supreme Court by way of SLP then the Special Deputy Collector prepared a calculation memo for an amount of rs. 2,78,986-00 and sent proposals through the District Collector on 10-11-2000 to the chief-Commissioner of Land Acquisition for sanction of enhanced decretal amount. Subsequently, the petitioner filed EP. No. 98 of 1988 in OP. 2,78,986-00 and sent proposals through the District Collector on 10-11-2000 to the chief-Commissioner of Land Acquisition for sanction of enhanced decretal amount. Subsequently, the petitioner filed EP. No. 98 of 1988 in OP. No. 93 of 1985 before the court of Principal Subordinate Judge and as per the directions of the Executing Court an amount of Rs. 27,594-73 paise has been deposited in the month of March 1989 and subsequently the petitioner withdrawn the above EP. ( 11 ) IT is submitted that the Government through G. O. Rt. No. 88 dated 5-2-2001 directed the District Collector, Anantapur to file SLP in the Supreme Court against the judgment and decree in AS No. 791 of 1988 and the SLP filed by the Department on 9-4-2001 was dismissed on 12-5-2001. Subsequently, the respondent prepared a revised calculation memo for an amount of rs. 2,90,926-00 and submitted the proposal to the Government and the Government vide G. O. Rt. No. 42, dated 10-1-2003 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 2,90,926-00 and directed the Engineer-in-Chief to submit proposals surrendering equal amount from voted provision with a direction to send necessary supplementary estimate proposals at appropriate time during the financial year 2002-2003 toward recoupment of advance sanctioned from the contingency fund. Accordingly, the Engineer-in-chief addressed the Government on 15-3-2003 for sanction of Rs. 2,90,296-00 from contingency fund, as no budget was available under voted provisions as directed by the Government in the above GO. It is submitted that on the letter from Engineer-in-chief, the superintending Engineer, HLC Anantapur through letter dated 31-3-2003 authorised the Pay and Accounts Officer, L. A. HLC stage-II to make payment of decretal charges to the respondent on submission of bill. The Pay and Accounts Officer returned the bill presented by the respondent on 8-4-2003 with certain objections and requested to obtain fresh LOC for the financial year 2003-2004 as the LOC issued earlier had lapsed. It is submitted that immediately, the respondent herein addressed the Superintending Engineer, HLC, Anantapur on 29-4-2003 for issuance of fresh LOC and the Superintending Engineer in turn addressed the Engineer-in-chief for issue of LOC for the financial year 2003-2004 while the matter stood thus, the petitions herein again filed un-numbered EP of 2004 in OP No,93 of 1985 CF. It is submitted that immediately, the respondent herein addressed the Superintending Engineer, HLC, Anantapur on 29-4-2003 for issuance of fresh LOC and the Superintending Engineer in turn addressed the Engineer-in-chief for issue of LOC for the financial year 2003-2004 while the matter stood thus, the petitions herein again filed un-numbered EP of 2004 in OP No,93 of 1985 CF. No. 10970 dated 17-12-2003 with fresh calculation memos for realization of balance of enhanced decretal amount and the Principal Subordinate judge, Anantapur passed the following order on 21-4-2004. "in the result, the proceedings in the unnumbered EP are closed with liberty to the claimant to file a fresh EP in accordance with the observations in this order. Office is directed to note the guidelines issued in this order while registering the EP in this case as well as other EPs in the land acquisition cases. " ( 12 ) QUESTIONING the above order, the petitioner herein filed this CRP. It is submitted that subsequently, the petitioner herein filed ep No. 99 of 2004 in OP No. 93 of 1995 and sought for attachment of the account of the District Collector, Anantapur for realization of enhanced decretal amount proposals have been sent to the Government for sanction of the above amount. It is submitted that the calculations made by the petitioner are unjust, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Sections 23, 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the unjust and erroneous claim of the petitioner, the Government will be put to irreparable loss. It is submitted that the respondent already filed a revised calculation sheet duly deducting the amount already paid at the time of award in the month of March 1985 and also showing the amount deposited in the Court of Principal Subordinate Judg during March 1989 with interest. It in submitted that the claim of the petitioner is hereby denied as it is untenable and nd maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and it would amount to payment compound interest to the petitioner, which is not contemplated in the amended provisions of Land Acquisition Act 68/84 and also on the basis of legal position in view of the clarifications issued by the Apex Court with regard to payment of compensation to the awardees. The respondent therefore prayed to dismiss the CRP with costs. The respondent therefore prayed to dismiss the CRP with costs. ( 13 ) PURSUANT to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, the petitioner filed reply counter-affidavit stating that his land to an extent of Ac. 14-11 cents was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for foreshore submersion of the PABR Dam. Sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) notification was published on 20-9-1982. The land of the petitioner was taken possession in the month of February 1981. The Land Acquisition officer passed Award No. 2/85 on 22-2-1985. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value at the rate of Rs. 3,765-00 per acre. The matter was referred under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1985. The reference Court disposed of OP on 30-10-1987. AS No. 791 of 1988 was disposed of by this Court in the year 1998. ( 14 ) IT is submitted that the petitioner filed the above revision petition against the order dated 21-4-2004 of the Principal Senior civil Judge, Anantapur passed in EP. Nil/ 2004 in OP No. 93 of 1985 in CF. No. 10970/ 2003, dated 17-12-2003. The petitioner filed calculation memo along, with EP for recovery of decretal amount in the above op. Further the petitioner has preferred an Appeal Suit No. 791 of 1988 on the file of this Court and this Court ordered on 12-8-1998 enhancing the market value of the land from Rs. 3,765-00 per acre to rs. 8,000-00 per acre and also held entitlement of the benefits contemplated under the amended Land Acquisition Act, 1984. The petitioner states that he is entitled to interest on total compensation amount. But the learned Judge failed to allow the interest on total compensation amount and adopted component method. The learned judge deducted the LAO payment from the market value, but not on total three components. The interest part component was separately shown by the learned judge. As per the Supreme Court s judgment in Sunder v. Union of lndia, reported in 2001 (5) ALD 136 (SC) = 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC), as observed that what the legislature s intention was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed at any rate as soon as is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up of compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under section 34 was not the intention of the legislature when that section was framed or enacted. But the learned Judge, not at all appreciated the judgment and decided the calculation memo on the basis of component methods, which is illegal as per the above judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in abhay Singh Surana and others v. The secretary, Ministry of Communication and others, reported in 1987 LACC 726, the interest will be payable on the balance amount, which remained to be payable to the appellants i. e. , the amount due minus what has been paid from the respective dates. The ruling of the Supreme Court categorically states that after deduction of the amount paid by the LAO the claimant is entitled to interest on the remaining balance amount ( 15 ) IT is submitted by the petitioner that as per Section 34 of the Land acquisition Act, 1984 the claimant is entitled to interest @ 9% p. a. , from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. After one year. petitioner is entitled to interest at 15% p. a. , from the date of expiry of said one year period on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry. The legislature itself made it clear that the interest @ 15% is entitled on the part of that amount also. But the learned Judge not at all considered the same facts. The High court decided the appeal in the year 1998 but so far the LAO has not taken any steps for payment of decreetal amount even after a lapse of six years. The entire land of the petitioner was acquired by the LAO for foreshore submersion of P. A. B. R. Dam. The petitioner and his family members are facing financial crisis. The petitioner is a senior citizen, aged about 72 years and he got two unmarried daughters. The entire land of the petitioner was acquired by the LAO for foreshore submersion of P. A. B. R. Dam. The petitioner and his family members are facing financial crisis. The petitioner is a senior citizen, aged about 72 years and he got two unmarried daughters. ( 16 ) IT is further submitted that the respondent filed calculation memo before this Court by calculating interest on the market value only and not on the total compensation amount. The petitioner is filing reply calculation memo on the basis of the above rulings. In the calculation memo, the interest component is shown separately. Even though, the petitioner is entitled to rs. 4,54,689-00 excluding interest-on-interest amount. As per the Supreme Court judgment, the petitioner is entitled to rs. 8,45,659-00 which is shown in the note of calculation memo. As per the ruling of the Division Bench of this Court in WA no. 1249 of 1997 between Chilukuri ramarao and others v. Government of a. P. and others, reported in 1998 (3) ALD 491 , wherein the Division Bench observed that taking the said judicial precedents as a guiding factor and considering the fact that there was inordinate delay on the part of the State in depositing the amount towards interest as per the directions of this Court, we feel that interests of justice and equity will be met, if an additional amount equivalent to interest at 12% p. a. , on the amount of rs. 9,85,442-00 from 1-5-1992 to 22-7-1993 is granted to the appellants. Accordingly, we grant the same. We direct that this amount shall be paid by the respondents to the appellants herein within a period of three months from this day. The petitioner therefore prayed to consider the above facts and circumstances and allow the CRP as well as his reply calculation memo in the interest of justice. ( 17 ) THE reply calculation memo filed by the petitioner is as follows: Date of 4 (1) notification 20-9-1982 Date of 6 (1) notification 20-9-1982 Date of possession taken February, 1981 {2119811 Award Number and date of award 2185, dated 22-2-1985 Total extent acquired by the LAO lil In Survey No. 459-A Ac. 9-13 cents (ii) In Survey No. 458 Ac,4-98 cents Total extent acquired Ac. 14-11- cents Market value fixed by LAO Enhanced market value by High Court Rs. 3,765-00 per acre Rs. 4,235-00 per acre (fixed at Rs. 9-13 cents (ii) In Survey No. 458 Ac,4-98 cents Total extent acquired Ac. 14-11- cents Market value fixed by LAO Enhanced market value by High Court Rs. 3,765-00 per acre Rs. 4,235-00 per acre (fixed at Rs. 8,000-00 per acre) 1. (a) Market value of the lands in S. No-459-A extent 9-1 2 acres and S. No. 458 extent 4. 98 acres at Rs. 8,000-00 per acre as fixed by the High Court Rs. 1,12,800-00 (b) Already paid at the time of award (Award Nos. 1/85 and 2/851 Rs. 53,103-00 (c) Balance to be paid Rs. 59,697-00 (a) 30% solatium on RS. 1,12,800-00 Rs. 33,840-00 (b) Already paid at the time of aw tawardnos. 1 (85and2l85) Rs,7,965-00 (c) Balance Rs. 25,875-00 (d) Deposited in the lower Court on 3i89 Rs. 12,937-00 (e) Balance to be paid Rs. 12,938-00 ( 18 ) AFTER hearing Mrs. A. Chayadevi and Mr. J. Narayanaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for assignments, this Court after going through the rulings of the Apex Court and this court on the above issue is of the opinion that the Government has decided to acquire the land of the petitioner and accordingly issued Section 4 (1) notification in the month of March 1983, but possession of the land was taken in the month of February 1981 prior to issuance of Section 4 (1) notification by dispensing with the enquiry, in respect of an extent of Acs:9-13 cents in Survey no. 459-A and Acs:4~98 cents in Survey No. 458 totalling to Acs:14~ll cents. Thereafter, the land Acquisition Officer passed Award no. 2 of 1985 on 22-2-1985, complying the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, fixing the compensation at Rs. 3,765-00 per acre and on appeal to this Court by the claimant, it was enhanced to Rs. 8,000-00 per acre. Thus, the total compensation for acs: 14-11 cents @ Rs. 8,000-00 per acre comes to Rs. 1,12,800-00 whereas the quantum of compensation deposited by the land Acquisition Officer is Rs. 53,103-00. Thus, the balance of compensation has to be deposited will be at Rs. 59,697-00. Under the Act, the claimant is also entitled to solatium on the market value i. e. , Rs. 1,2,800-00 at 30%, which comes to Rs. 33,840-00 and the respondent herein has already deposited rs. 20,902-00 leaving a balance of Rs. 12,938- 00. 53,103-00. Thus, the balance of compensation has to be deposited will be at Rs. 59,697-00. Under the Act, the claimant is also entitled to solatium on the market value i. e. , Rs. 1,2,800-00 at 30%, which comes to Rs. 33,840-00 and the respondent herein has already deposited rs. 20,902-00 leaving a balance of Rs. 12,938- 00. This apart, the claimant-petitioner herein is also entitled to additional market value on Rs. 1,12,800-00 at 12% p. a. , from march 1983 to February 1985 (24 months), which is calculated to Rs. 27,072-00 and the respondent has already deposited an amount of Rs. 12,744-00 leaving a balance of Rs. 14,328-00. Apart from this, the claimant-petitioner herein is also entitled to interest at 9% p. a. , for one year from February 1981 to January 1982 on Rs. 1,73,712-00 i. e. , Rs. 15,634-00 and at 15% on the said sum from February 1982 to February 1985 i. e. , Rs. 80,341-00; whereas the respondent herein has deposited a sum of Rs. 8,673-00 under this head leaving a balance of rs. 87,302-00. From March 1985 to March 1989 i. e. , 49 months, the interest at 15% is calculated to Rs. 53,625-00. Whereas the respondent has deposited only Rs. 1,913-00 leaving a balance of Rs. 51,352-00. Further for the period from April, 1989 to December 2004 i. e. , for 189 months, the claimant is entitled to the interest on Rs. 86,963-00 which comes to Rs. 2,05,450-00. Thus, under the interest component, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 3,44,104-00. Therefore, in all the claimant-petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,31,067-00 i. e. , Rs. 59,697-00 under the head of difference in market value, rs. 12,938-00 difference in 30% solatium, rs. 4,328-00 towards difference in 12% additional market value and Rs. 3,44,104-00 towards the difference in interest. Further it is held that the petitioner has not claimed interest-on-interest which is payable by Land acquisition Officer, as observed by the learned Judge, but claimed interest on the gross compensation and interest on delayed payment of compensation i. e. , equitable interest. Further it is held that hereafter the authorities are directed to calculate aggregate compensation under Section 23 of the Act, to be payable to the land owner and the above said compensation should not be split up into different components to calculate the interest payable under Section 34 of the act. Further it is held that hereafter the authorities are directed to calculate aggregate compensation under Section 23 of the Act, to be payable to the land owner and the above said compensation should not be split up into different components to calculate the interest payable under Section 34 of the act. ( 19 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision petitioner made a submission that for the delay in payment of compensation, the respondent is liable to pay equitable interest on the balance of amount payable to the claimant-petitioner herein and reliance is sought to be placed on a decision of division Bench of this Court in Chilkuri ramarao and others v. Government of a. P. and others, reported in 1998 (3) ALD 491 , when there is an abnormal delay in depositing interest in spite of the order of the Court, additional amount at 12% interest can be ordered on the ground of justice and equity. This observation was made by the Division Bench of this Court in the above decision following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar and Batch, reported in air 1984 SC 1764 = 1984 (4) SCC 316 . As per the above calculation, the petitioner is entitled for interest on the balance amount of award of Rs. 87,302-00 as on the date of the award. Therefore, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court referred supra, the revision petitioner is entitled for equitable rate of interest at 12%. After going through the catena of decisions relied by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, I am satisfied that the Division Bench of this court has granted interest at 12% when there is a delay of one-and-half year in payment of compensation in spite of the order of the Court. In the present case also there is delay of more than twenty years, therefore, it is a fit case, wherein the revision petitioner is entitled for equitable rate of interest at 12% on an amount of rs. 87,302-00 till the date of deposit. ( 20 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 4,31,067-00 together with 12% of equitable rate of interest on Rs. 87,302-00 on the balance of awarded amount from the date of award till the date of deposit. 87,302-00 till the date of deposit. ( 20 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 4,31,067-00 together with 12% of equitable rate of interest on Rs. 87,302-00 on the balance of awarded amount from the date of award till the date of deposit. Accordingly taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ( 21 ) FURTHER the Senior Civil Judge in the impugned order observed that in view of general importance of this matter, he issued the guidelines referred supra to the office to follow them while registering the EPs in land acquisition matters, but I am not able to understand as to how the Senior civil Judge is empowered to issue such guidelines, when he is not delegated with such power or authority to frame the guidelines. I am at loss to understand, issuing such guidelines and keeping the Execution petitions pending for some reason or the other, is it not the delay committed by the court below? I am rather forced to comment about the conduct of the Presiding officer who passed the guidelines in the impugned order without application of mind by ignoring the basic human values and respect and without considering the ordeal underwent by the revision petitioner. This type of routine course of light approach on the part of the Court below cannot be appreciated. The Senior Civil Judge is, however, exhorted to be more careful in future while passing this type of orders. However, instead of keeping the EPs pending, the Senior Civil Judge is directed to cause immediate registration of Execution petitions, if they are otherwise, in order, and dispose of the same with due promptitude and diligence and in all probability the execution Petitions shall be brought on to the track of disposal. Accordingly, the guidelines framed by the Senior Civil Judge, anantapur, is set aside. The Senior Civil judge of the Court below shall borne (sic bear) in mind that "equity shall be the main essence of instrument in dispensing larger interest of justice". Accordingly, the guidelines framed by the Senior Civil Judge, anantapur, is set aside. The Senior Civil judge of the Court below shall borne (sic bear) in mind that "equity shall be the main essence of instrument in dispensing larger interest of justice". At least now, the Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur is expected to dispose of the remaining Execution petitions as expeditiously as possible with right perspective on merits instead of compelling the litigant parties to file multiple calculation memos in the Execution petitions. ( 22 ) WITH the above directions, the CRP is disposed of. No costs.