( 1 ) THIS batch of revision is filed by the A. P. Industrial infrastructure Corporation Limited, aggrieved by the individual orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nandigama, rejecting the calculation memo filed by the Land acquisition Officer, (for short the LAO ). ( 2 ) THROUGH a notification dated 5-1-1985, issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land acquisition Act (for short the Act ), an extent of Ac. 100. 00, situated in Tirumalgiri village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired for the benefit of the petitioner- corporation. Even before the award was passed, certain tentative amount of compensation was paid to the land-owners under Section 17 (3a) (b) of the Act. After completing the formalities, award was passed by the LAO on 25-9-1986, determining the market value, solatium and interest. He divided the lands into two categories and determined the compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-, per acre, respectively. He paid the compensation, duly taking into account, the amount paid earlier. The claimants demanded the compensation @ Rs. 70,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per acre. ( 3 ) THE LAO referred the matter to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act, in view of the request made by the claimants. The Trial Court, in turn, rendered its judgments on 22-2-1994, enhancing the compensation, uniformly, to Rs. 45,000/-, from Rs. 15,000/-, or Rs. 25,0007-, as the case may be, fixed by the LAO. Various benefits under the Act, as it stood amended by that time, were extended. The LAO filed appeals against the decrees of the Civil court. While granting stay of the execution of decree, this Court directed that half of the enhanced compensation be deposited. In the month of August, 1994, various amounts, said to be representing half of the enhanced compensation, were deposited. Appeals were ultimately dismissed on 11-2-1997, and thereby, the decree passed by the Trial Court, in the references made under Section 18 of the Act, became final. ( 4 ) AFTER the appeals were dismissed, the claimants filed execution petitions. The lao deposited certain amounts, which are far less than the amounts that were paid towards half of the decretal amount, deposited in August 1994, and pleaded that the decrees are satisfied. The claimants did not agree; and the Executing court rejected the calculation memo filed by the LAO. The lao deposited certain amounts, which are far less than the amounts that were paid towards half of the decretal amount, deposited in August 1994, and pleaded that the decrees are satisfied. The claimants did not agree; and the Executing court rejected the calculation memo filed by the LAO. At one point of time, the matters were brought before this Court by way of revisions, and the Executing Court was directed to consider the matter afresh. After such remand, the LAO filed calculation sheets afresh, depicting that the claimants were, in fact, paid excess amounts. The executing Court rejected the same, through the order under revision. ( 5 ) THOUGH the petitioner is not a party to the OP, or the execution proceedings, it filed the present revisions, since the liability to pay the compensation rests upon it. ( 6 ) SRI R. Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount paid so far by the petitioner, to each of the claimants, at various stages, has to be adjusted first, towards the market value, from the initial stage, upto the date of award; and interest is payable only on the amount of market value, which remains unpaid. In support of this contention he relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in V. Samrajya Laxmi v. LAO, Dy, director of Social Welfare, 1994 (1) APLJ 284 (HC) and the judgment of the Supreme court in Prem Nath Kapur v. National fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. , (1996) 2 SCC 71 . ( 7 ) SRI S. R. Mahajir, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no justification for the petitioner to adjust the amount of solatium and interest deposited at the time of passing of the award; towards the market value, that was enhanced many years later, by the civil Court. He submits that the judgment of this Court in V. Samrajya Laxmi s case (supra), does not apply to the facts of the case, and that the judgment of the Supreme court in Prem Nath Kapur s case (supra), supports the contention of the claimants. ( 8 ) THE controversy in this batch of revisions relates to the method of calculation of compensation, which became payable on enhancement of the market value, by the civil Court, in references under Section 18 of the Act. ( 8 ) THE controversy in this batch of revisions relates to the method of calculation of compensation, which became payable on enhancement of the market value, by the civil Court, in references under Section 18 of the Act. To properly understand the actual controversy, the facts and figures in crp No. 227 of 2004 are taken into account. The extent of land involved in it is Acs. 5. 45 cents. A sum of Rs. 1,55,530/- was paid towards tentative compensation, under section 17 (3a) (b) of the Act, because advance compensation of the land was taken. On 25-9-1986, award was passed by the LAO. A further sum of Rs. 37,324. 80 ps. was paid towards the balance. Thereby, a sum of Rs. 1,92,854. 80 ps. , was paid, on the basis that the market value is Rs,25,000/- per acre. The Civil Court enhanced the market value, to Rs. 45,000/- per acre. In the appeal preferred by the L. A. O. , an interim order was passed, directing payment of half of the decretal amount, which comprised of the corresponding amounts of solatium, interest etc. On 1-8-1994 a sum of rs. 1,95,643. 67 ps. was paid towards half of the decretal amount. After the appeals were dismissed, the L. A. O. deposited a sum of rs. 37,348/-, towards the balanced half, on 8-8-1997, and in fact, claimed, at later point of time, that a sum of Rs. 7,478. 84 ps. , was paid in excess. ( 9 ) THE basis for such a stand taken by the L. A. O. is that he proceeded as though the market value was fixed at rs. 45,000/- per acre, at the initial stage itself, and adjusted the entire amount paid, upto the date of award, towards the market value, calculated @ Rs. 45,000/- per acre. Thereafter, he calculated the interest at 15% per annum, on the balance of market value, upto 1-8-1994, on which date, further deposit was made pursuant to the interim direction by this Court. It is this calculation, that was found fault with by the Executing Court. It is beneficial to extract the calculation memo, which reads as under: ( 10 ) IT is rather difficult to accept the above method of calculation. When the l. A. O. fixed the market value @ Rs. It is this calculation, that was found fault with by the Executing Court. It is beneficial to extract the calculation memo, which reads as under: ( 10 ) IT is rather difficult to accept the above method of calculation. When the l. A. O. fixed the market value @ Rs. 25,000/- per acre in his award dated 25-9-1986 and made payment, it is impermissible to treat such payment, as though it was on the market value @ Rs. 45,000/ -. The enhancement took place several years later in the reference under Section 18 of the Act. If the method adopted by the petitioner, or the L. A. O. , is to be accepted, no solatium and interest etc. , can be said to have been paid under the award on 25-9-1986, and thereby, the award itself becomes invalid. Further, it does not satisfy the reason, common sense, or law, that one half of the enhanced compensation enhanced by the Civil Court is Rs. 1,95,643. 67 ps. (deposited on 1-8-1994) and the remaining half is Rs. 36,870/- (Rs. 37,348-7,478 ). ( 11 ) THE manner in which the provisions of the Act, in the matter of payment of various stages can be implemented would be; that: (a) the payment made by the L. A. O. , while passing the award shall be treated as comprising of, (i) market value determined by him, (ii) solatium, and (iii) interest payable under various sections. Such payment would liquidate his liability towards the land-owner, completely upto that stage. (b) If the market value is enhanced by a Civil Court under Section 18 of the act, or in further appeals, the difference of the market value, together with the corresponding solatium and interest, becomes payable, independently, as though it is an award passed afresh, to that extent. The claimant shall not be entitled to claim interest and other benefits, on the amount paid along with the award, for the period subsequent to such payment; on the basis of the enhancement in the reference. ( 12 ) THE following illustration may be of some guidance: let it be assumed that Ac. 1. 00 of land was acquired in the year 1990 and the market value was fixed by the L. A. O. at rs. 10,000/- per acre. The award was passed on 1-3-1994, and the amount of compensation, say, Rs. 16,500/-, was paid. ( 12 ) THE following illustration may be of some guidance: let it be assumed that Ac. 1. 00 of land was acquired in the year 1990 and the market value was fixed by the L. A. O. at rs. 10,000/- per acre. The award was passed on 1-3-1994, and the amount of compensation, say, Rs. 16,500/-, was paid. In the reference under Section 18 of the act, the compensation was enhanced to rs. 15,000/-, in the year 2000. The claimant would be entitled to receive the difference of market value of Rs. 5,000/-, the solatium and interest etc. , payable thereon, from the date of taking possession, till the date of deposit. The L. A. O. would not be entitled to adjust the payment made at the time of pronouncement of the award, towards the market value, enhanced at a later point of time. Similarly, the claimant shall not be entitled for any interest, on the market value of Rs. 10,000/-, initially fixed by the L. A. O, subsequent to 1-3-1994, on which date, the compensation at that rate was paid. ( 13 ) IN V. Samarjya Laxmi s case (supra), the issue was different from the one involved in this case. In that case the award was passed by the L. A. O. at two stages: one for the market value, additional compensation and solatium; and the second, which included the interest also. For one reason or the other, the compensation was not paid on the dates of the award. The second award was passed on 3-10-1986, for a sum of Rs. 7,97,631=50 ps. A sum of rs. 4,50,000/- was paid on 29-2-1988. By this time, the amount had swollen to rs. 9,30,578=20 ps. , with accrual of interest. The dispute arose as to whether the amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- was to be adjusted, towards the market value, which was determined at rs. 4,43,155=70 ps. , or towards the interest. It was in that context that a Division Bench of this Court held that the amount was liable to be adjusted towards the market value. A different rate of interest was awarded on the balance of the amount. There was no enhancement of market value. Therefore, the ratio laid down therein, is not helpful to the petitioner. It was in that context that a Division Bench of this Court held that the amount was liable to be adjusted towards the market value. A different rate of interest was awarded on the balance of the amount. There was no enhancement of market value. Therefore, the ratio laid down therein, is not helpful to the petitioner. ( 14 ) IN Prem Nath Kapur s case (supra), the Supreme Court dealt with a question which has a distant similarly, with the one, in this batch of revision. In fact, it arose in a converse situation. The claimants wanted that the amount paid through award be adjusted towards interest etc. , calculated on the enhanced market value. The Supreme court repelled the contention and held as under:"para 13: Thus we hold that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined under Section 23 (1) continues to subsist until it is paid to the owner or interested person or deposited into Court under Section 34 read with Section 31. Equally, the liability to pay interest on the excess (enhanced) amount of compensation determined by the Civil Court under Section 26 over and above the compensation determined by the Collector/land acquisition Officer under Section 11 subsists until it is deposited into Court. Proprio vigore in case of further enhancement of the compensation on appeal under Section 54 to the extent of the said enhanced excess (enhanced) amount or part thereof, the liability subsists until it is deposited into court. The liability to pay interest ceases on the date of which the deposit into court is made with the amount of compensation so deposited. As held earlier, the computation of the interest should be calculated from the date of taking possession till date of payment or deposit in terms of Section 34 or deposit into court in terms of Section 28, as the case may be. " ( 15 ) THIS principle squarely applies to the facts of the present case. It was categorically held that the liability to pay the compensation, enhanced by the Civil Court, over and above, the one determined by the l. A. O. , subsists, till it is deposited into the court, and the interest etc. , thereon, have to be calculated from the date of taking possession, till the date of payment. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the crps are dismissed. , thereon, have to be calculated from the date of taking possession, till the date of payment. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the crps are dismissed. The payment of balance of compensation, for the lands in question, shall be in accordance with the principle indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.