ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, J. SLPs (C) Nos. 8408, 19525 of 2003, 3429 and 5609 of 2004 The High Court, by the impugned judgment, has held that the amount of compensation deposited by the Union of India is required to be appropriated first towards the principal amount, then towards interest and costs and thereafter towards the solatium, by relying upon a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corpn. of India Ltd., (1996) 2 SCC 71 2. In Prem Nath Kapur, observations have been made to the effect that 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. Further, it has been held that the ratio in Meghraj v. Bayabai, (1969) 2 SCC 274 , is inapplicable to appropriation of debt under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"). According to Prem Nath Kapur, by operation of Section 53 of the Act, Order 21 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short "the Code") will not be applicable, being inconsistent with the express provisions contained in Sections 34 and 28 of the Act. The earlier decision in Mathunni Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., (1995) 4 SCC 26 , has been overruled by Prem Nath Kapur. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the normal rule that in case of a debt due with interest, any payment made by the debtor, in the first instance, is to be appropriated towards the satisfaction of interest and thereafter towards principal, subject to a contract to the contrary, is not excluded by the provisions of the Act. The normal principle is embedded on the basis of Section 60 of the Contract Act, 1872. It is also indicated in Order 21 Rule 1(3)(c) of the Code. We may note that the decision in Prem Nath Kapur though has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 , but the Constitution Bench has not gone into the question of appropriation. The question of appropriation, in the decision in Prem Nath Kapur requires to be reconsidered. 3. We may note that the decision in Prem Nath Kapur though has been overruled by the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 , but the Constitution Bench has not gone into the question of appropriation. The question of appropriation, in the decision in Prem Nath Kapur requires to be reconsidered. 3. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that it is necessary to refer the question of appropriation, as aforenoticed, for decision by a larger Bench, subject to the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 4. We need not express any opinion, at this stage, on other questions. To decide other questions, the special leave petitions would be placed for hearing after the referred question is decided by the larger Bench. 5. It seems that a large number of cases are pending before the executing court and other courts. The question referred may be decided at an early date. 6. Pending decision by the larger Bench, the admitted amount shall be paid by the Union of India to the claimants within a period of four weeks. SLP (C) No. 12306 of 2004 7. Delay condoned. 8. The Additional District Judge as also the High Court, in the civil revision petition, by the impugned order, have held that the contention of the petitioner Union of India that already excess amount has been paid, after contest, was rejected on merits on terms of order dated 26-2-1998 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bhatinda and that order has attained finality. There is nothing on record to show that the order dated 26-2-1998 was varied by any court. 9. In this view, the special leave petition is dismissed.