JUDGMENT ( 1. ) C. R. P. Nos. 831, 809, 58, 538 of 2005 are filed by the same petitioners namely the Bangalore Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'bda' for short) challenging the correctness of the respective orders dated 15. 9. 2005; 16. 9. 2005; 26. 11. 2004 and 11. 3. 2005 passed respectively in the Execution Case Nos. 1324/04; 361/03; 294/91, and 699/2002 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional City Civil Judge (sitting in CCH No. 17), Bangalore. C. R. P. No. 1059 of 2005 is filed by the claimants in LAC No. 227/89 aggrieved by the order dated 28. 10. 2005 passed in Execution Case No. 2490/2004 on the file of the same Court. The petitioners in this CRP No. 1059/2004 and also the respective respondents in other 4 CRPs are the claimants respectively in LAC Nos. 227/89, 152/1988, 157/1988, 254/1984 and 665/1983. These claimants obtained from the Reference Court namely the Court of learned II Additional City Civil judge (CCH No. 17), Bangalore, the respective awards in the said cases in respect of the lands acquired for BDA. These claimants filed their respective execution Cases before the said Court of the learned 2nd Additional City civil Judge (hereinafter referred to as "execution Court" for short) seeking execution of the awards obtained by them in their respective Land acquisition Cases. In last of such Execution Cases filed by the respective claimants in the said Land Acquisition cases, except in Ex. Case No. 2490/04, the Execution Court, by passing the respective orders impugned herein, directed BDA to pay to the claimant-Decree Holders therein, interest on solatium and additional market value also. Therefore the Judgment-Debtor- BDA has challenged the said orders in CRP Nos. 831, 809, 58 and 538 of 2005. The claimant - Decree-Holder in Execution Case No. 2490/04 has challenged in his CRP No. 1059/05, the correctness of the calculation memo accepted by the Execution Court by passing the impugned order. ( 2. ) IN all these revision petitions, the same questions of fact and law are involved in regard to the entitlement of the claimants in the respective land acquisition cases to the interest on solatium and additional market value components of compensation and the method of calculation to be adopted in arriving at the exact amount of compensation due to the claimants by the Judgment-Debtor-BDA. Therefore all these five Civil revision Petitions are disposed of by this common order. Stated in brief, the facts leading to each of these Civil Revision petitions (for short "crps") are as under: (i) The respondent - Claimant in CRP No. 831/2005 filed his first Execution Case No. 1379/2000 seeking execution of the award dated 4. 9. 1999 passed in LAC No. 152/1988. (ii) The respondent - claimant in CRP No. 809/2005 filed his first Execution Case No. 779/98 seeking execution of the award in LAC No. 157/1989 dated 19.2.1998 claiming interest on both the solatium and additional market value. (iii) The respondent - claimant in CRP 58/2005 filed his first and second Execution Petitions respectively in Execution case Nos. 235/1986 and 42/1987 seeking recovery of the compensation from the Judgment Debtor - BDA in terms of the award dated 31.7.1985 passed in LAC No. 254/1984 and both the said cases came to be dismissed as withdrawn respectively by orders dated 22.2.1986 and 11.7.1988. Thereafter he filed his 3rd Ex. Case No. 294/1991. While closing his 3rd Ex. Case, without calculating interest on the amounts of solatium and additional market value, the excess amount of deposit that was made by the Judgment debtor - BDA was ordered to be deposited with Canara bank. (iv) The respondent - claimant in CRP 538/2005 filed his earlier 3 execution petitions in Execution Case Nos. 280/1986 (Dated 10. 9. 1986); 1061/1991 (Dated 5.4.1993) and 621/1993 (Dated 13.10.1995) and the said cases came to be closed after the judgment/debtor-BDA deposited certain amounts in each of them. However, the third Execution case (No. 621/1993) came to be closed as 'fully satisfied' thereafter the claimant filed his subsequent execution case No. 699/2002 claiming balance amount of compensation including interest both on solatium and also additional market value. (v) CRP No. 1059/2005: is filed by the claimant-decree holder in LAC No. 227/1989 challenging the correctness of the order dated 28. 10. 2005 passed in his Execution Case No. 2490/2004 that was filed by him claiming balance of compensation including interest on solatium and additional market value as per award dated 22.11.1994 passed in the said land acquisition case. Earlier to the filing of the said execution Case No. 2490/04, the claimant - decree holder had filed his first execution case No. 193/1998. ( 3. Earlier to the filing of the said execution Case No. 2490/04, the claimant - decree holder had filed his first execution case No. 193/1998. ( 3. ) IT is pertinent to note that the Execution Court, by its order dated 5.10.1996, passed in Ex. Case No. 154/93 directed its Office not to calculate interest on the solatium and additional market value components of compensation while determining the net amount of compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor to the respective claimant - Decree-Holders in ex. Cases. Nos. 1379/2000; 779/98; 294/91 and 193/98. Accordingly, the office of Execution Court determined the said net amount in each of the said Ex. Cases and the Judgment-Debtor - BDA deposited the same into the Court and the Court issued cheque in favour of the respective claimant-Decree-Holders therein. Thereafter, the Execution Court closed the said execution Cases 'subject of the results in CRP No. 83/97' which was then pending before this Court wherein the order dated 5.10.1996 passed in the Ex. Case No. 154/1993 was challenged. However, Ex. Case No. 621/1993 that was filed by the respondent - claimant in CRP No. 538/2005 came to be closed as 'fully satisfied' without the said rider i.e., without subjecting it to results in CRP No. 83/1997. ( 4. ) THUS it is clear from the above, that the said four Execution Cases came to be closed subjecting the question of entitlement of the respective claimant - Decree-Holders to the interest on solatium and additional market value to the results in CRP No. 83/97 that was pending before this Court. After the said CRP No. 83/97 came to be allowed by this Court by order dated 26.3.2002 the respective claimant - Decree-Holders, whose above said Ex. Cases were closed subject to results in the said CRP No. 83/97, filed their subsequent and last Execution Case Nos. 1324/04; 361/03, 294/91 and 2490/2004. Further, the Decree-Holders in Ex. Case No. 621/93 which was closed as "fully satisfied", also filed his subsequent Ex. Case No. 699/02 claiming balance amount of compensation by calculating interest on solatium and additional market value. The Execution Court accepted the calculation memo prepared by its officers, except in Ex. Case No. 2490/04, and passed the respective impugned orders in all the above said five last of the Ex. Cases and correctness of the said orders is challenged in these CRPs. The Execution Court accepted the calculation memo prepared by its officers, except in Ex. Case No. 2490/04, and passed the respective impugned orders in all the above said five last of the Ex. Cases and correctness of the said orders is challenged in these CRPs. I have heard the arguments of Sri S. G. Hegde. the learned Counsel for the petitioner-claimants in CRP. No. 831/2005, Sri Marigowda. the learned Counsel who is appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in CRP. No. 1059/05 and also for the petitioner Nos. l and 2 in each of CRP Nos. 809/05, 58/05 and 538/05. Sri Vijaya Kumar and Sri B.G. Nanjundaradhya, the learned Counsel for the petitioners in CRP No. 1059/2005, and sri P. Krishnappa. the learned Counsel for the respective respondent-claimants in CRP Nos. 58/05 and 538/05 and Sri P.V. Chandrashekar for respondent in CRP No. 809/05. Perused the respective orders impugned in these revision petitions. Also perused the records in the respective execution cases obtained from the Execution Court. ( 5. ) HAVING heard the arguments of the learned Advocates for the respective parties in all these revision petitions, the points that arise for my determination are: 1. "whether the orders passed in the respective execution cases by the Execution Court challenged in CRP Nos. 831, 809, 58 and 538 of 2005 directing the Judgment-Debtor-BDA to pay interest on solatium and additional market value components of compensation in terms of the memo of calculation prepared by the office of the said Court, call for any interference in all these revisions? 2. Whether the impugned order passed in Execution case no. 2490/04 by the Execution Court challenged in CRP No. 1059/1995 declining to accept the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner - Decree - Holder and to direct Judgment - Debtor -BDA therein to make payment accordingly calls for interference in the said CRP?" My findings on both these points are in the 'affirmative' except in respect of the order impugned in CRP No. 831/2005 which does not call for nay interference and all other impugned orders deserve to be set aside for the following: ( 6. ) SRI S. G. Hegde and Sri Marigowda. ) SRI S. G. Hegde and Sri Marigowda. the learned Advocates appearing for the Judgment-Debtor - BDA in all these revisions strongly contended that all the earlier execution petitions that were filed by the respective respondent claimants seeking Execution of the respective awards passed in land acquisition cases were closed as 'fully satisfied' and the Decree -. Holders - claimants therein accepted the amount paid by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA in all the said cases and in some of the cases, in which the amount deposited by BDA was in excess over the amount held payable to the Decree-Holders therein, the excess amount came to be refunded to judgment-Debtor - BDA and as such, the respective Decree-Holders could not either re-open the said Ex. Cases nor could they file any subsequent ex. Case. They further contended that though four of the said five execution cases (Except Ex. Case No. 621/1993) which came to be closed by order dated 13.10.1995 as 'fully satisfied' with a rider, 'subject to the results in CRP No. 838/1997', which was then pending before this Court, the very execution cases filed by the respective claimants subsequent to disposal of the said CRP, were not maintainable and hence the execution Court was quite justified in passing the order dated 28.10.2005 in Ex. Case No. 2490/2004 challenged in CRP No. 1059/2005, but it was not justified in passing other four orders in the respective execution cases challenged in the respective revision petitions. As against the above contentions of Sri S.G. Hegde and Sri marigowda, the learned Counsels for BDA, Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRP No. 1059/2005 strongly contended that the earlier Ex. Case No. 193/1998. As against the above contentions of Sri S.G. Hegde and Sri marigowda, the learned Counsels for BDA, Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in CRP No. 1059/2005 strongly contended that the earlier Ex. Case No. 193/1998. wherein the revision petitioner-claimants had claimed interest on solatium and also on additional market value components of the compensation came to be closed subject to the results in CRP No. 83/1997 that was then pending before this Court wherein the question as to whether the respondent claimants therein were entitled to interest on solatium and market value components of the compensation was involved and since the said revision petition came to be allowed, the petitioner claimants were entitled to the said interest which was not paid in earlier Execution Case No. 193/98 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the execution Court declining to accept the memo of calculation prepared by the decree-holders therein cannot be sustained in law. ( 7. ) SRIYUTHS P. Krishnappa and P.V. Chandrashekar. the learned advocates appearing for the respondent-claimants in other revision petitions strongly contended that the earlier executions that were filed by the claimants in CRP Nos. 831/05, 809/05 and 58/05 were closed subject to the results in the said CRP No. 83/97 and therefore, the Execution court was quite justified in accepting the subsequent execution petitions of the respective claimant - Decree-Holders. In the said cases and in awarding interest on solatium and additional market value components of the compensation and as such the said three revision petitions deserve to be dismissed as being devoid of merits. ( 8. ) AS to the order impugned in CRP No. 538/05. Sri Marigowda. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner - BDA strongly contended that the execution Court committed serious error in re-opening the Ex. Case no. 621/1993 which was closed by order dated 13. 10. 1995 as 'fully satisfied', and in recalculating the amount of compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA to the Decree-Holders therein right from the date of award itself as it amounts to re-opening of appropriation and re-appropriation of the various amounts deposited by the Judgment-Debtor- BDA in all the earlier execution cases which is not permissible in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurpreet Singh's case 2006 AIR scw 5813. Per contra, Sri P. Krishnappa, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent - claimants in CRP No. 538/2005 vehemently contended that there were errors in making calculations in the earlier Ex. Case Nos. 280/86 (dated 10.9.1986); 1061/91 (dated 5. 4. 1993) and 621/93 (dated 13.10.1995); and therefore, the execution Court rightly accepted the case of the Decree-Holders in their last Ex. Case No. 699/2002 and rightly passed the impugned order and as such, the same cannot be disturbed in this revision. He further contended that each deposit made by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA towards payment of compensation amount in each of all the earlier Ex. Cases and also in the last one, fell short of the amount of interest accrued on the principal amount of compensation which included solatium and additional market value and therefore, it cannot be said that the filing of the last Ex. Case No. 669/2002 amounts to either re-opening of appropriation or re-appropriation of the amounts deposited by Judgment-Debtor-BDA in all the earlier Execution cases. ( 9. ) IN the light of the above rival contentions, it has to be seen whether the orders impugned in the respective revisions call for any interference by this Court. It is not in dispute that the respective claimant - Decree-Holders in LAC Nos. 152/88, 227/89 and 157/89 filed their earlier respective Ex. Case Nos. 1379/2000, 193/1998 and 779/1998 and that ex. Case No. 294/1991 filed by the claimant Decree-Holder in LAC No. 254/1984 has to be treated as the only Ex. Case inasmuch as his two previous ex. Cases in Nos. 235/1986 and 42/1987 were dismissed as withdrawn by orders dated 22.2.1986 and 11.7.1988. ( 10. ) IT is also not in dispute that the Judgment-Debtor - BDA, in all the said last of the previous Ex. Cases, took a contention that the Decree-Holders were not entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value components of the compensation and therefore, the said previous execution cases came to be closed with a rider 'subject to results in CRP. No. 831/97' that was pending before this Court wherein the order dated 5.10.1996 passed in Ex. Cases, took a contention that the Decree-Holders were not entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value components of the compensation and therefore, the said previous execution cases came to be closed with a rider 'subject to results in CRP. No. 831/97' that was pending before this Court wherein the order dated 5.10.1996 passed in Ex. Case No. 154/1993 on the file of the same Execution court was challenged and the question as to whether the claimant- Decree holders, (who had filed the said execution No. 154/93) were entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value was involved in the said crp no. 83/97. Further, it is also not in dispute that the same question was raised by the Judgment-Debtors (including BDA) in quite a number of Ex. Cases that were pending on the file of the said Execution Court including the above said last of the earlier Execution Cases that were filed by the respondent - claimants herein. Therefore, the said Ex. Case Nos. 1379/2000, 193/1998, 779/1998 and 294/1991 came to be closed 'subject to the results in the said CRP No. 83/1997' that was then pending before this court. Thus, it is clear that the respective Decree-Holders in the said four ex. Cases were not paid interest on solatium and additional market value despite they claiming the same in the said Execution Petitions as awarded in their favour in the respective awards. On careful reading of the order dated 5.10.1996. passed by the same Execution Court in the said Ex. case No. 154/1993, the correctness of which was challenged in the said CRP. No. 83/97, it could be seen that the execution Court, observed at the relevant paragraphs therein as under: "the learned Advocate Sri S. G. Hegde, seriously argued that the solatium awarded under Section 23 (2) is not a component of compensation and hence, no interest shall be calculated on the solatium awarded". (Para. 3) "on behalf of the decree holders, Sri S. Rangarajan, has argued that the solatium is a part and parcel of the compensation and hence calculation of interest on compensation including of solatium is legal and supported by decisions of the supreme Court in the case of Gurpreeth Singh Vs. Union of India, 2006 AIR scw 5813 Para 4)". (Para. 3) "on behalf of the decree holders, Sri S. Rangarajan, has argued that the solatium is a part and parcel of the compensation and hence calculation of interest on compensation including of solatium is legal and supported by decisions of the supreme Court in the case of Gurpreeth Singh Vs. Union of India, 2006 AIR scw 5813 Para 4)". "the contention of the judgment-debtors that the interest cannot be calculated on the solatium awarded under Section 23 (2)of the Land Acquisition Act is up held and the office shall prepare a fresh memo of calculations in all the pending executions and future executions that may be filed without calculating interest on solatium". ( 11. ) WHILE allowing the said CRP No. 83/97 and setting aside the above order of the Execution Court, this Court observed that the claimants are entitled to interest on the amount of solatium also and therefore, the finding of the Execution Court recorded in the said impugned order could not be sustained. ( 12. ) AS rightly submitted by Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in CRP. No. 1059/05 and also the learned advocate representing the respective respondent-claimants in other CRPs. it could be seen from the operative portion of the above order dated 5. 10. 1996 passed in the said Ex. Case No. 154/93, that the Execution Court ordered for preparing 'fresh memo of calculation' in all the executions pending on its file and also in respect of the future executions, without calculating interest on solatium and accordingly, in execution case Nos. 1379/2000, 193/1998, 779/1998 and 294/1991 the office prepared calculation memos therein without calculating interest on solatium and additional market value and determined the balance amount of compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA to the respective decree-Holders and ultimately, the said Execution Cases, based on the said calculation memos came to be closed with a rider 'subject to the results in CRP No. 83/97. Thus, in view of the final order dated 26. 3. 2002 passed by this court in CRP No. 83/97 holding that the claimants are entitled to interest on 'solatium' and 'additional Market Value' also, I am of the considered opinion that the above submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the respective claimant - Decree-Holders in these CRPs. that since the said Ex. 3. 2002 passed by this court in CRP No. 83/97 holding that the claimants are entitled to interest on 'solatium' and 'additional Market Value' also, I am of the considered opinion that the above submissions made by the learned Counsels appearing for the respective claimant - Decree-Holders in these CRPs. that since the said Ex. Cases came to be closed 'subject to the results in crp No. 83/1977, the claimants were entitled to file their respective subsequent Execution Cases, seeking payment of interest on the solatium as awarded in their favour in the respective awards and the Decree-Holder in Ex. Case No. 294/91 was entitled to get the said case re-opened seeking payment of interest on compensation that was deposited with Canara Bank, deserves acceptance. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsels appearing for the Judgment-Debtor - BDA, that the last of the Ex. Cases filed by the respective respondent - Claimants herein were not maintainable in view of their earlier execution cases being closed after making payment of compensation to them as 'fully satisfied' though with the rider 'subject to results in CRP No. 83/97 cannot be accepted. ( 13. ) FURTHER, placing reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble supreme Court at Para No. 54 of its judgment in the case of Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India reported in 2006 AIR SCW 5813: (2006) 8 SCC 427, the learned Counsels appearing for the Judgment-Debtor - BDA strongly contended that the respective last of the Execution Cases filed by the respondent - claimants herein could not be said to be pending as on 19. 9. 2001. the date on which, the judgment in the case of Sundar Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3516 came to be pronounced and therefore, the said claimants could not be held to be entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value following the proposition laid down in Sundar's case. ( 14. ) PER contra, the learned Counsels appearing for the respective claimant -Decree-Holders strongly contended that the earlier execution cases came to be closed 'subject to the results in CRP No. 83/97' that was pending before this Court and the said Ex. Cases came to be filed by them subsequent to disposal of CRP. ( 14. ) PER contra, the learned Counsels appearing for the respective claimant -Decree-Holders strongly contended that the earlier execution cases came to be closed 'subject to the results in CRP No. 83/97' that was pending before this Court and the said Ex. Cases came to be filed by them subsequent to disposal of CRP. No. 83/97 by this Court in the light of the order of this Court dated 26.3.2002 passed in the said CRP and therefore, the said subsequent execution cases are nothing but continuation of their respective earlier execution cases which came to be closed subject to results in CRP. No. 83/97 and hence the said execution cases should be held to be pending as on the said date i.e., 19.9.2001. The learned Counsels for the respective claimant - Decree-Holders further contended that as on the dates of the respective awards passed in the said land acquisition cases, (except the award dated 4.9.99 passed in lac No, 152/98 which was sought to be executed in Execution Case Nos. 1379/2000 and 1324/04 and which is the subject-matter of CRP. No. 831/05,) came to be passed during the period from 1985 to 1994 during which period, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Mehar and Others reported in AIR 1973 SC 305 , that the 'compensation' is inclusive of solatium was holding the field and, the said awards came to be passed in consonance therewith, awarding 'interest on the compensation enhanced and by the reference Court' and therefore, the pendency or non pendency of Execution Case as on the date of the judgment in Sundar's case has no relevancy in seeking recovery of interest on solatium and additional market value by executing the said awards in the respective execution cases. In view of this contention, the matter needs careful examination in these CRPs. ( 15. ) HON'ble Supreme Court, at para No. 54 (on page 485) of the judgment in the case of Gurupreet Singh Vs. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457, has clarified as to under what circumstances an awardee-decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium and the said paragraph reads as under: Para 54: "one other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Union of India, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457, has clarified as to under what circumstances an awardee-decree holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium and the said paragraph reads as under: Para 54: "one other question also was sought to be raised and answered by this Bench though not referred to it. Considering that the question arises in various cases pending in Courts all over the country, we permitted the Counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in sunder's case, the awardee/decree-holder would be entitled to claim interest on solatium in execution though it is not specifically granted by the decree. It is well-settled that an execution Court cannot go behind the decree, (i) If. therefore the claim for interest on solatium had been made and the same has been negatived either expressly or by necessary implication by the judgment or decree of the Reference Court or of the Appellate Court, the execution Court will have necessarily to reject the claim for interest on solatium based on Sundar's case (supra) on the ground that the Execution Court cannot go behind the decree, (ii) But If the award of the Reference Court or that of the Appellate Court does not specifically refer to the question of interest on solatium or in cases where claim had not been made and rejected either expressly or impliedly by the Reference Court or the Appellate court, and merely interest on compensation in awarded, then it would be open to the Execution Court to apply the ratio of Sundar's case and say that the compensation awarded includes solatium and in such an event interest on the amount could be directed to be deposited in execution. Otherwise, not. (iii) We also clarify that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and not in closed executions and the Execution Court will be entitled to permit its recovery from the date of the judgment in Sundar's (19.9.2001) and not for any period, (iv) We also clarify that this will not entail any reappropriation or fresh appropriation by the decree holder. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question. This we have indicated by way of clarification also in exercise of our power under Articles 141 and 142 of the Constitution of India with a view to avoid multiplicity of litigation on this question. " (Emphasis supplied by me by giving Nos. (i) to (iii)and by underlining) ( 16. ) IN the light of the above clarification by Hon'ble Supreme Court, what is to be considered by me in all these revisions is: a. Whether the claim for interest on solatium had been made by the claimants in their respective Land Acquisition Cases and the same had been negatived, either expressly or by necessary implication in the respective awards sought to be executed in these Execution cases? b. Whether the awards pssed in the respective Land acquisition Cases which are sought to be executed in the respective Execution Cases, do not specifically refer to the question of interest on the solatium and merely 'interest on compensation' is awarded so as to enable the execution Court to apply the ratio in Sundar's case and say that 'compensation awarded includes solatium' and to direct the Judgment-Debtor to deposit such interest? c. Whether the clarification of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such interest on solatium can be claimed only in pending executions and the Execution Court would be entitled to permit its recovery only from the date of judgment in Sundar's case i.e., 19.9.2001 and not for any other period would be attracted in respect of the awards in these cases? d. Whether application of Sundar's case to the present cases amounts to re-appropriation or fresh appropriation of the amounts deposited by Judgment-Debtor, in the respective execution Cases? It is not in dispute that in all the awards in these respective cases which have been sought to be executed in the respective execution cases interest is awarded 'on the compensation enhanced by the reference Court'. It is pertinent to note that except the awards in lac Nos. 152/1988 and 157/1989 which are sought to be executed in execution Case Nos. 1325/2004 and 361/2003 which are the subject-matter in CRP Nos. 831 and 809 of 2005, the respective awards in all other three cases had been passed in the years 1985 and 1994 i. e., much earlier to 29.11.1995 on which date, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premnath Kapoor and Another Vs. 1325/2004 and 361/2003 which are the subject-matter in CRP Nos. 831 and 809 of 2005, the respective awards in all other three cases had been passed in the years 1985 and 1994 i. e., much earlier to 29.11.1995 on which date, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Premnath Kapoor and Another Vs. National Fertilisers corporation of India and Others, reported (1996) 2 SCC page 71 came to be pronounced holding that the word 'compensation' does not include 'solatium' and 'additional market value' and therefore the claimants cannot be awarded interest on the solatium and the additional market value. During the period from 1973 till 29.11.1995 i.e., till the date of pronouncement of judgment in the case of Premnath Kapoor (surpa), the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ram Mehar and Others reported in AIR 1973 SC page 300 was holding the field. It was held in the said case that 'compensation included solatium'. This being so, undisputedly the claimants in LAC Nos. 227/89 (Award dated 22.11.1994); 254/84 (Award dated 31.7.1985) and 665/83 (Award dated 31.7.1985) who are respondents herein in the respective crps had been entitled to interest on the enhanced market value including solatium and Additional Market Value in terms of the respective awards though the Reference Court in all the said cases simply stated in the respective awards that the interest is awarded 'on the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court'. In this view of the matter, either the ratio in Sunder's case AIR 2001 SC 3516 or the clarification in Gurpreet singh's case (2006) 8 SCC 457 given at para 54 therein, would not be required to be applied to the awards in the said 4 cases i.e., LAC Nos. 227/89; 157/89; 254/84 and 665/1983 which awards are subject-matter of CRP nos. 1059/05, 809/05, 58/05 and 538/05. ( 17. ) THEREFORE, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants in the said cases had been entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value even independently of the decision in Sundar's case and the clarification in Gurupeet Singh's case referred to supra. This being so, the pendency or non-pendency of the respective execution cases as on 19.9.2001 on which date the judgment in Sunder's case (supra) came to be pronounced has no application to the said execution cases. This being so, the pendency or non-pendency of the respective execution cases as on 19.9.2001 on which date the judgment in Sunder's case (supra) came to be pronounced has no application to the said execution cases. In this view of the matter what is required to be done by the Execution Court in the respective execution cases wherein the awards in these 4 cases are sought to be executed is to calculate the interest in solatium and additional market value and direct the Judgment Debtor - BDA to pay the same to the respective claimant-Decree Holder. ( 18. ) INSOFAR as the case of the claimants in LAC 152/88 and 157/1989 is concerned, the awards therein, which were sought to be executed in Ex. Case Nos. 1324/04 and 361/03 (which are the subject-matter of crp Nos. 831 and 809 of 2005) came to be passed respectively on dated 4. 9. 1999 and 19. 2. 1998 on which dates, the law in the case of Premnath kapoor, (1996) 2 SCC 71 that 'compensation does not include solatium and additional market value' was applicable to the said case. Therefore, in my considered opinion if at all the ratio in Sundar's case and the said clarification in Gurpreet Singh's case has to be applied, it may have to be applied only to the Ex. Case Nos. 1324/04 and 361/2003 in respect whereof CRP Nos. 831 and 809 of 2005 have been filed by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA. However, in one of its recent decisions, in the case of Patel joitaram Kalidas and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2007)2 SCC 341 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at para No. 17 therein as under: "para 17: "having regard to the submissions urged on behalf of the respondents we could have remitted the matter to the High court to give an opportunity to the claimants to make a claim of interest before the High Court. That however, would only be a formality because having regard to the law laid down in Sunder's case, the High Court is bound to award the interest on the additional amount payable under Section 23 (1-A) and solatium payable under Section 23 (2) of the Act. Moreover, grant of interest on these amounts is consequential and automatic and involves only arithmetical calculation and not application of judicial mind or exercise of judicial discretion. Moreover, grant of interest on these amounts is consequential and automatic and involves only arithmetical calculation and not application of judicial mind or exercise of judicial discretion. It is no doubt true that the appellants ought to have made such a claim before the High court, even in the appeals preferred by the State. But in fairness to the appellants it must be conceded that during the pendency of the appeals before the High Court the law as laid down in prem Nath Kapur held the field and, therefore, it would have been futile for them to claim interests. The claimants could have filed such an application before the High Court if the judgment in Sunder, was pronounced when the appeals were pending before the High Court. Unfortunately, they could not be do so because the judgment in Sunder and the impugned judgment in the appeals preferred by the State before the High Court were pronounced on the same day. Having regard to these facts, peculiar to this case, we are persuaded to allow the appeals preferred by the appellants as a special case in the interest of justice. Accordingly, we hold that the appellants are entitled to interest on the amounts payable to them under Section 23 (1-A)and Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. We direct the collector to calculate the interest payable and pay the same to the appellants without further delay. These appeals are accordingly allowed. " In another recent decision in the case of General Manager, oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another reported in 2008 AIR SCW 5947 relied upon by Sri Vijaya kumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-claimants in CRP No. 1059/2005 it is observed at para No. 19 therein as under: Para. 19: "subsequent to the decision of the High Court, a for the purpose of interest will include not only the market value but also the additional amount under Section 23 (1a) and solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act. In Patel Joitaram Kalidas and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2007) 2 SCC 341 , this Court held that the calculation of interest on the additional amount under Sections 23 (1a) and 23 (2) is automatic and consequential, even in the absence of any specific appeal by the claimants in respect of non-grant of such interest". In Patel Joitaram Kalidas and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another, (2007) 2 SCC 341 , this Court held that the calculation of interest on the additional amount under Sections 23 (1a) and 23 (2) is automatic and consequential, even in the absence of any specific appeal by the claimants in respect of non-grant of such interest". While observing so, Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded interest on Solatium and Additional Market Value in favour of the respondent - claimants therein-though they had not claimed the same before the Reference Court and the High Court. ( 19. ) FURTHER, in the case of Shivappa Mallappa Jigalur and Others vs. The LAO and Assistant Commissioner, Koppal and Another reported in ILR 2004 Kar. 2784 the Division Bench of this Court held that it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer/the Court to grant interest on solatium and additional market value suo motu, once the conditions prescribed under Sections 28 or 34 of the Act are satisfied, to the owners, denial of that relief to the owners of the acquired land would be totally unjust, illegal and violative of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act (Head note-C). The bench observed at para Nos. 14, 19 and 20 as under: Para 14: "the entitlement of the owners of the acquired land to receive interest on solatium and additional market value is settled by the binding judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India (supra) holding that the owner of the acquired land is entitled to interest on the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act including all the sub-sections thereof meaning thereby sub-sections (1), (1a)and (2) of Section 23. " Para 19: "the Supreme Court furthermore, while emphasizing on the duty of the Collector to pay interest on the amount due to the owners of the acquired land under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act and why procedural hazards should come in the way of the Court granting interest on solatium and additional market value. " Para 19: "the Supreme Court furthermore, while emphasizing on the duty of the Collector to pay interest on the amount due to the owners of the acquired land under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act and why procedural hazards should come in the way of the Court granting interest on solatium and additional market value. " Para 20: "if we read the observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment carefully and conjointly, it makes abundantly clear that the owners of the acquired land need not raise any claim or make any application for interest on solatium and additional market value. On the other hand, the statement of law that may be culled out from paragraphs 13 and 14 of the judgment is that once conditions specified under Sections 28 or 34 of the Act are satisfied, it becomes imperative for the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court to pay interest on solatium and additional market value as a statutory duty without waiting for a demand or application from the owner of the acquired land". (Emphasis supplied) ( 20. ) IF the facts of the cases in LAC Nos. 152/1988 and 157/1989 (Ex. Case No. 1324/04 and 361/2003 which are subject matter of CRP Nos. 831 and 809 of 2005 are carefully examined in the light of the decisions of the supreme Court and the Division Bench decision of this Court referred to supra, it is quite clear that even if the award is silent as to the payment of interest to the claimants on the amounts of solatium and the additional market value awarded therein, the claimants would be entitled to the same and, a duty is cast on the Land Acquisition Officer and also the Court dealing with the compensation cases to see that interest is ordered to be paid to the claimants on solatium and also market value components of the compensation, whether or not the same is claimed by the claimants. Besides the above, as observed by me supra, in the awards in all the said cases including LAC Nos. 152/1988 and 157/1989, interest is awarded on the compensation enhanced by the reference Court. As such, in no case, the claim of the claimants for the interest on solatium and additional market value had been negatived by the reference Court in the respective awards. 152/1988 and 157/1989, interest is awarded on the compensation enhanced by the reference Court. As such, in no case, the claim of the claimants for the interest on solatium and additional market value had been negatived by the reference Court in the respective awards. This being so, I am of the considered opinion that the claimants in all the said cases had been entitled to interest on the amounts of solatium and additional market value even independently of the ratio in Sunder's case and the said clarification in Gurpreet Singh's Case referred to supra. ( 21. ) HAVING been found, as discussed supra, that the respondent-claimants in all these CRPs are entitled to interest on solatium and additional market value components of compensation and therefore their respective execution cases seeking recovery of the said interest are maintainable now I have to examine, whether the Execution Court committed any error in passing the orders in the respective execution cases which are impugned in CRP Nos. 831,908,58 and 538 of 2005, by accepting the memo of calculation prepared by its office in the respective executive cases and whether it committed error in passing the order in Ex. No. 2490/04 (subject-matter in CRP No. 1059/05) by not accepting the memo of calculation prepared by the claimant -Decree-Holder therein. ( 22. ) SO far as CRP No. 831/2005 is concerned (filed by the BDA), Sri s. G. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner - BDA strongly contended that the earlier Ex. Case No. 1379/2000 came to be closed on 15.9.2005 as 'fully satisfied subject to the results in CRP No. 83/1997' after issuing, in favour of claimant - Decree Holders a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,628/-and after ordering refund of excess amount of Rs. 27,665/- in favour of the judgment-Debtor and therefore, the subsequent Ex. Case No. 1324/2004 filed by the claimant-Decree Holder, was not maintainable. The respondent - claimant in this CRP No. 831/2005 has remained absent despite receipt of notice of this Revision Petition. Therefore, at the request of this Court, Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner- claimant in CRP No. 1059/05, while assisting the Court in this CRP No. 831 2005, submitted that though the claimant - Decree-Holder therein had claimed interest on solatium and the additional market value, by reason of the order dated 5.10.1996 passed in Ex. Therefore, at the request of this Court, Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner- claimant in CRP No. 1059/05, while assisting the Court in this CRP No. 831 2005, submitted that though the claimant - Decree-Holder therein had claimed interest on solatium and the additional market value, by reason of the order dated 5.10.1996 passed in Ex. Case No. 154/1993 by the execution Court (which was challenged in CRP No. 83/1997 before this court), the office of the Execution Court determined the total amount of compensation due by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant Decree-Holder therein, without calculating interest on the solatium and the additional market value portions of the compensation and therefore, after issuing the cheque for the said amount to the Decree-Holder therein, the Execution court closed the said Ex. Case awaiting the results in CRP No. 83/1997 in respect of payment of interest on solatium and additional market value and therefore, it cannot be said that the said subsequent Ex. Case No. 1324/2004 was not maintainable. ( 23. ) ON perusal of the memo of calculation prepared by the Execution court in Ex. Case No. 1324/04, it could be seen that interest has been calculated up to 25. 10. 2000 on the principal amount of enhanced compensation of Rs. 44,913/- as per the award passed by the Reference court and then the sum of Rs. 1,00,628/- which was paid by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant - Decree-Holder in Ex. Case No. 1379/00 came to be deducted and the Court arrived at Rs. 29,769/- as the balance amount due by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant - Decree-Holder as on 25. 10. 2000. It could be further seen that the Execution Court calculated interest on the said amount of Rs. 29,769/- from 26.10.2002 to 25.2.2005 at Rs. 19,350/-and thus arrived at a total sum of Rs. 49,190/- as the amount due by judgment-Debtor to the claimant Decree Holder as on 25.2.2005 on which date, the Judgment-Debtor deposited in the Execution Court, a sum of rs. 53,371/-. It could be further seen from the records in the said case that after making payment of Rs. 49,190/- from the said amount of Rs. 53,371/-deposited by the Judgment-Debtor, the excess amount of Rs. 4,102/- was ordered to be refunded to the Judgment-Debtor - BDA. ( 24. 53,371/-. It could be further seen from the records in the said case that after making payment of Rs. 49,190/- from the said amount of Rs. 53,371/-deposited by the Judgment-Debtor, the excess amount of Rs. 4,102/- was ordered to be refunded to the Judgment-Debtor - BDA. ( 24. ) THUS, it clear from the above details in the memo of calculation prepared by the office of the Execution Court, that as on the date of deposit of Rs. 1,00,628/- in Ex. Case No. 1379/2000 i. e., as on 25.10.2002, a sum of rs. 44,913/- was due by the Judgment-Debtor towards principle amount of enhanced compensation and Rs. 85,484/- was due towards interest on the said principal amount. Therefore, applying the principles as to appropriation of the amount deposited by the Judgment-Debtor the execution Court has rightly appropriated, from out of the said amount of rs. 1,00,628/-, a sum of Rs. 85,484/- first towards interest and the balance of Rs. 15,144/- towards the principal amount of Rs. 44,913/- and has correctly arrived at the figure of Rs. 29,769/- as the balance principal amount of compensation due by the Judgment-Debtor to the Decree Holder and it calculated interest for the further period i.e., from 26.10.2002 the date on which previous deposit of Rs. 1,00,628/- was made till 25.2.2005, on which date, the Judgment-Debtor deposited the last amount of Rs. 53,271/- the said balance principal amount of compensation (i.e., Rs. 29,769/-) only. Therefore, it is crystal-clear that the Execution Court did not commit any error in computing the net amount of compensation due by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant decree-holder as on the date of the depositing of last amount of Rs. 53,271/- by the Judgment-Debtor Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 15. 9. 2005 passed in the Ex. Case No. 1324/2004, which is impugned in this CRP No. 831/- 2005 does not call for any interference. In CRP No. 1059/2005 Sri Vijayakumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner - claimant Decree-Holder, vehemently contended that the execution Court committed error in not accepting memo of calculation prepared by the learned Advocate for the Decree Holder in Ex. Case No. 2490/04 by passing the impugned order dated 28. 10. 2005. As against this, sri Marigowda, learned Counsel for the respondent - Judgment-Debtor contended that earlier Ex. Case No. 2490/04 by passing the impugned order dated 28. 10. 2005. As against this, sri Marigowda, learned Counsel for the respondent - Judgment-Debtor contended that earlier Ex. Case No. 193/98 that was filed by the petitioner- claimant-Decree-Holder was closed on 2. 9. 1999 as 'fully satisfied', the subsequent Ex. Case No. 2490/2004, filed by this Decree-Holder could not be maintained. As already observed by me supra, since the said previous ex. Case No. 193/1998 was closed subject to the results in CRP No. 83/97 that was pending before this Court, the claimant - Decree-Holder was entitled to file the said subsequent Ex. Case No. 2490/2004 and therefore, this contention of Sri Marigowda, learned Counsel for the Judgment -Debtor - BDA cannot be accepted. ( 25. ) ON perusal of the records in Ex. Case No. 2490/2004, it could be seen that the learned Advocate for the Decree-Holder and also the learned advocate for Judgment-Debtor both had filed their respective memo of calculation. As per the memo of calculation filed by the learned Counsel for the Decree-Holder if the Judgment-Debtor was due to the Decree-Holder a total sum of Rs. 1,39,039/-, the Execution Court computed the said amount at Rs. 50,285/- paid the same from out of the amount deposited by the judgment-Debtor therein and ordered refund of the remaining sum of rs. 88,755/- to the Judgment-Debtor. On careful perusal of the calculations made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties therein, and also the calculations made by the office of the Execution Court, I am of the opinion that the matter requires re-consideration by the Execution Court. Therefore, the order dated 28. 10. 2005 passed in Ex. Case No. 2490/04 which is impugned in CRP No. 1059/05 deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded for reconsideration by the Execution Court. ( 26. ) IN CRP No. 809/2005: Sri Marigowda, the learned Counsel for the petitioner - BDA, contended that in view of the fact that the earlier ex. Case No. 779/98 came to be closed as 'fully satisfied', though subject to results in CRP No. 83/97, the respondent-claimant could not maintain the subsequent Ex. Case No. 361/03. As rightly submitted by Sri P. V. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the respondent - claimant-Decree-Holder, since the said earlier Ex. Case No. 779/98 came to be closed as 'fully satisfied', though subject to results in CRP No. 83/97, the respondent-claimant could not maintain the subsequent Ex. Case No. 361/03. As rightly submitted by Sri P. V. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel for the respondent - claimant-Decree-Holder, since the said earlier Ex. Case No. 779/1998 came to be closed subject to the results in the said CRP No. 83/1997, for the reasons recorded supra. I hold that the claimant-Decree-Holder could maintain his subsequent Ex. Case No. 361/03. Therefore, the contention of Sri marigowda, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said Execution petition was not maintainable cannot be accepted. On careful perusal of the respective memos of calculation prepared by the learned Advocates for the Decree-Holder and the Judgment-Debtor therein and for the reasons stated supra, while considering CRP Nos. 831/2005 and 1059/2005, I am of the considered view that the order dated 16. 9. 2005 passed in Ex. Case No. 361/2003 which is impugned in CRP No. 809/05 also deserves to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded for reconsideration by the Execution Court. ( 27. ) IN CRP No. 58/2005 - also, Sri Marigowda, learned Counsel for the BDA, took the same contention as in CRP Nos. 1059 and 809/2005. Therefore, for the same reasons stated supra, while considering the said revision petitions, I am of the same opinion that the order dated 26.11.2004 passed in Ex. Case No. 294/1991, which came to be closed by order dated 26.11.2004 with the same rider as 'subject to the results in CRP No. 83/1997' deserves to be set aside and the matter in this CRP No. 58/04 requires to be remanded for fresh consideration by the Execution Court. ( 28. ) SO far as the claim of the respondent-claimant, who is now dead and is being represented by his L. Rs., in CRP No. 538/05 is concerned, it is not in dispute that the respondent-claimant filed his previous three execution petitions in Ex. Case Nos. 280/1986, 1061/1991 and 621/1993 and they came to be closed respectively by orders dated 10.9.1986, 5.4.1993 and 13. 10. 1995. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the said claimant-Decree-Holder filed their last Ex. Case Nos. 280/1986, 1061/1991 and 621/1993 and they came to be closed respectively by orders dated 10.9.1986, 5.4.1993 and 13. 10. 1995. It is also not in dispute that thereafter the said claimant-Decree-Holder filed their last Ex. Case No. 699/2002 wherein the impugned order dated 11.3.2005 came to be passed by the Execution Court accepting the Memo of Calculation prepared by its Office to the effect that the claimant-Decree-Holder is entitled to the balance amount of compensation of rs. 2,42,253/- as on 31.1.2005 payable by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA. Sri Marigowda, learned Counsel for the Judgment-Debtor-BDA strongly contended that in Ex. Case No. 621/1993 which was filed by decree-Holder earlier to the present Ex. Case No. 699/2002 claiming total arrears of compensation at Rs. 73,913. 50 ps. and the said amount was paid fully by the Judgment-Debtor on dated 18. 9. 1993 and that, even after making payment of the said amount, Execution Court held that another sum of Rs. 4065. 48 ps. was yet to be paid by the Judgment-Debtor-BDA to the Decree-Holder and accordingly the Judgment-Debtor paid the said amount also on dated 21. 10. 1995 and consequently the said Ex. Case no. 621/1993 came to be closed by order of the Execution Court dated 13. 10. 1995 as "efs," i.e., "execution fully satisfied" without any rider as was done in other Ex. cases and therefore the subsequent Ex. Case No. 699/2002 filed by the petitioner recalculating the amount of compensation again from the very first stage without considering the respective amounts claimed by him in his earlier Ex. Case Nos. 280/-1986, 1061/1991 and 621/1993 could not be maintained and hence the impugned order dated 13. 10. 1995 passed in Ex. Case No. 699/02 by the Execution Court accepting the fresh Memo of Calculation prepared its office cannot be sustained in law. ( 29. ) AS against the above contentions of the learned Counsel for the Judgment-Debtor-BDA, Sri T. Krishnappa, the learned Counsel for the claimant-Decree-Holder strongly contended that the calculations in all the earlier execution petitions were made erroneously and therefore the Execution Court was quite justified in recalculating the compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant-Decree-Holder as per memo of Calculation prepared its Office and hence the impugned order accepting the said Memo of Calculation does not call for any interference in this revision petition. Sri T. Krishnappa further contended that in any given Ex. Sri T. Krishnappa further contended that in any given Ex. Case, if the claimant-Decree-Holder claims in his Execution petition a lesser amount than the one to which he is entitled, and accordingly the Execution Petition is closed as 'efs' on the ground that the said lesser amount is paid to the Decree-Holder by the Judgment-Debtor it cannot be said that the Decree-Holder would be estopped from claiming the correct amount of compensation to which he is entitled in terms of the award sought to be executed in that Ex. Case. While contending so, he further urged that the claimant-Decree-Holder will have, in such a situation, every right to claim the correct amount of compensation to which he is entitled, by demonstrating the Court that he erroneously calculated the compensation amount and arrived at a lesser amount than what he is entitled to, in terms of the award, and therefore he would be entitled to claim the balance amount of compensation due to him by the Judgment-Debtor in terms of the Award. ( 30. ) THOUGH the original records in Ex. Case Nos. 699/2002 and 621/1993 are obtained, the records in previous Ex. Case Nos. 280/1986 and 101/1991 which were filed by the claimant-Decree-Holder and which came to be disposed of respectively on dated 10. 9. 1986 and 5. 4. 1993 are not available. Besides this, the copies of the respective petitions, Memos of counsel for the Judgment-Debtor-BDA or with sri Krishnappa, the learned counsel for the claimant-Decree-Holders. However, on careful perusal of the records in Ex. No. calculation, the order sheet in those first two Ex. Cases are not available eithre Sri Marigowda the learned 621/1933 it could be seen that as rightly submitted by Sri Marigowda, the learned Counsel for the judgment-Debtor-the claimant-Decree-Holders had claimed in the said petition a total amount of Rs. 73,913-50 ps. after deducting a sum of rs. 42,087/- and another sum of Rs. 66,420/- that were paid to him by the judgment - Debtor-BDA respectively in Ex. Case Nos. 280/1986 and 1061/91. It could be seen further that the said amount of Rs. 73,913-50 ps. and another sum of Rs. 4065/- which was held to be due by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant-Decree-Holders were paid to the claimant-Decree-Holders in the said Ex. Case. No. 621/93 and it came to be closed on 13. 10. 1995 as "efs". Case Nos. 280/1986 and 1061/91. It could be seen further that the said amount of Rs. 73,913-50 ps. and another sum of Rs. 4065/- which was held to be due by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant-Decree-Holders were paid to the claimant-Decree-Holders in the said Ex. Case. No. 621/93 and it came to be closed on 13. 10. 1995 as "efs". On careful reading of the Memo of Calculation prepared by the office of the Execution Court in Ex. Case No. 699/2002, it could be seen that the said amounts of Rs. 42,087/- and Rs. 66,420/- which were paid by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant respectively in Ex. Case Nos. 280/1986 and 1061/1991 and also a sum of Rs. 73,914/- and another sum of rs. 4065/- which were paid by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant-Decree-Holders are given deduction in the said Memo of Calculation. It could also be seen further from the said memo of calculation that the sum of rs. l,05,085/- paid by the judgment debtor on dated 8. 4. 2003 in Ex. Case no. 699/2002 is also given deduction and interest at the rate of 15 percent p. a. has been calculated on the same principal amount of compensation of rs. 1,24,969/- which admittedly, included the amounts of solatium and additional market value on the enhanced market value only and it did not include any amount of interest thereon for any period. Further, it is not in dispute that the said amount (Rs. 1,24,969/-) was due by the judgment-Debtor-BDA to the claimant-Decree-Holders as on 27. 8. 1996 on which date the first payment of Rs. 42,087/- was made by the BDA in ex. Case No. 280/1986. It could also be seen further from the said Memo of calculation that interest at the rate of 15 percent pre annum has been calculated on the same principal amount of compensation of Rs. 1,24,969/-for further different periods, each ending with the date on which the subsequent payment was made by the Judgment-Debtor in Ex. Case Nos. 1061/1991, 621/1993 and 699/2002. Thus, it is clear from this memo of calculation in Ex. Case No. 699/2002 that at no point of time interest has been calculated either on any amount of interest due by the Judgment-Debtor or on any amount of principal paid by the Judgment-Debtor. On the other hand, the same principal amount of Rs. Case Nos. 1061/1991, 621/1993 and 699/2002. Thus, it is clear from this memo of calculation in Ex. Case No. 699/2002 that at no point of time interest has been calculated either on any amount of interest due by the Judgment-Debtor or on any amount of principal paid by the Judgment-Debtor. On the other hand, the same principal amount of Rs. 1,24,969/- had remained due by the Judgment-Debtor right from the date of filing of the first Ex. Case No. 280/86 till the payment of the last sum of Rs. 1,05,085/- on 8. 4. 2003 in Ex. Case No. 699/02. Thus it is clear from the above that no portion of any of the amounts deposited by the Judgment-Debtor had been appropriated towards the said principal amount. ( 31. ) FURTHER, it is pertinent to note that though the Execution Case no. 621/1993 was closed during the year 1985, as 'efs', the Judgment-Debtor made payment of Rs. 1,05,085/- on 8. 4. 2003 in subsequent execution Case No. 699/2002 only that much was due by it (BDA) to the decree-Holders. Therefore, this itself goes to show that while making payment of the said amount, despite Ex. Case No. 621/1993 being closed in the year 1995 as 'fully satisfied', the judgment-debtor impliedly, by conduct, accepted the case of the Decree-Holders that there was some error in calculating the balance compensation amount due to him by the Judgment-Debtor while filing each of the previous Execution Petitions. Further, on careful reading of the various calculations made in the Memo, I have not been able to notice, and, Sri Marigowda, the learned Counsel for the judgment-Debtor has also not been able to point out, from the said calculation memo, that there had been calculation of interest on any amount to interest for any period or, calculation of interest on any portion of principal amount of Rs. 1,24,969/- which was due by the Judgment-Debtor as on the date of last of the deposits made by the Judgment-Debtor in Ex. Case No. 699/02. 1,24,969/- which was due by the Judgment-Debtor as on the date of last of the deposits made by the Judgment-Debtor in Ex. Case No. 699/02. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that only on the ground that the deceased claimant - Decree-Holder claimed in all his said previous execution petitions lesser amount than the one to which he was entitled, he cannot be deprived of his right to claim the correct amount of compensation which he is entitled to receive, in terms of the award. ( 32. ) FURTHER, if an Execution case is closed as 'fully satisfied', it would only mean that the amount claimed in that particular Execution Petition has been fully paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree holder, and therefore the case came to be closed as 'fully satisfied', but it cannot be taken to mean that the entire decree award which was sought to be executed therein had been fully satisfied. If the decree holder erroneously claims a lesser amount than what he is entitled in terms of the decree or award which he sought to be executed in that execution case and the said lesser amount was paid by the judgment-debtor and consequently the Court closed the said Execution Case with endorsement as "execution Fully Closed (EFS). " It cannot be held that the decree/award which was sought to be executed in the said Execution Case itself was fully satisfied and, by reason of the closure of the said Execution Case the decree holder would be estopped from claiming the correct amount due to him by the Judgment Debtor. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that even though the Execution Case No. 621/93 had been closed as "execution fully satisfied," without any rider, it cannot be held that the said Execution case came to be closed on the ground that "the award sought to be executed therein was fully satisfied. Therefore the claimant - Decree holder therein who had claimed erroneously a lesser amount than the one to which he is entitled in accordance with the award sought to be executed by him, was entitled to file his subsequent Execution Case No. 699/02 and claim the correct amount due to him by the Judgment-Debtor-BDA. ( 33. Therefore the claimant - Decree holder therein who had claimed erroneously a lesser amount than the one to which he is entitled in accordance with the award sought to be executed by him, was entitled to file his subsequent Execution Case No. 699/02 and claim the correct amount due to him by the Judgment-Debtor-BDA. ( 33. ) HENCE, I hold that the respondent-claimant in CRP No. 538/2005 deserves an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Execution court that he had claimed in all the previous Executions by making erroneous calculation a lesser amount than the one to which he is entitled in terms of the Award. Therefore, the matter in Execution Case No. 699/2002 in respect whereof CRP No. 538/05 is filed by the Judgment-Debtor- BDA requires to be reconsidered by the Execution Court insofar as it relates to the proper calculation of the amount of compensation due by the judgment-Debtor-BDA to the claimant-Decree Holder. ( 34. ) SRI S. G. Hegde and Sri Marigowda, the learned Advocates appearing for the Judgment-Debtor - BDA in all these revisions strongly contended that as clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurupreet singh's Case (paragraph No. 54 supra), the calculations made by the office of the Execution Court in all the Ex. Cases, if accepted, would amount to reopening of the appropriation of the various amounts paid by the judgment-Debtor-BDA to the respective Decree-Holders and it also amounts to re-appropriation of the said amounts which were already appropriated towards the principal amounts of solatium and additional market value and therefore there cannot be any recalculation of the compensation amount in the respective Ex. Cases. As against the above, Sri Vijaya Kumar, Sri T. Krishnappa and Sri Chandrashekar, the learned Advocates appearing for the respective claimant-Decree-Holders strongly contended that the amount deposited by the Judgment-Debtor on the date of first deposit made in the first of the execution cases filed by the respective claimant Decree-Holders seeking execution of their respective Awards, was short of even the interest accrued on the principal amounts of enhanced compensation which included the enhanced market value, solatium and additional market value thereon and all the further deposits made by the Judgment-Debtor in each of the previous and the last Ex. Cases also fell short of the interest accrued on only the principal compensation amount due as on the date of each deposit in the respective Ex. Cases also fell short of the interest accrued on only the principal compensation amount due as on the date of each deposit in the respective Ex. Cases till the date of closure of the last of the ex. Cases subject to results in CRP No. 83/1997 and thus, the amounts that were deposited by the Judgment-Debtor in the respective Execution cases were not sufficient to appropriate towards the interest accrued on the principal amounts of compensation during the period between the dates of two successive deposits. They further contended that in all the said Execution Cases interest accrued on the principal amount of solatium and additional market value was not calculated but the Execution Cases came to be closed with a rider as 'subject to results in the said CRP No. 83/97' and therefore it cannot be held that proper calculation of the amount of interest on the said amounts of solatium and additional market value would amount to either re-opening of appropriation or fresh appropriation of the respective amounts deposited by the Judgment-Debtor in the respective Execution Cases. ( 35. ) AS to what exactly is to be meant by "appropriation" and what amounts to "re-appropriation" and "reopening of appropriation". Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in its judgment in Gurpreet Singh's case reported in (2006) 8 SCC 427 at paragraph Nos. 5, 26, 27, 32 to 36, 49, 52 and 53, the said paragraphs are extracted as under:- "para 5. Appropriation is the act of setting apart or assigning a thing or substance to a particular use or person to the exclusion of others; application to a special use or purpose. There are three specialized meaning of the term: (i) In company accounting, it is the division of pre-tax profits between corporation tax, company tax, company reserves and dividends to shareholders. The term works in the same sense in a partnership situation. (ii) In the shipping of produce, the appropriation is the document by which the seller identifies to the buyer the relevant unit in shipment. (iii) If a debtor makes a payment to a creditor an does not specify which debt the payment is in settlement of, the creditor may appropriate it to any of the debts outstanding on the debtor's account. This is often known as appropriation of payments. Sub-para (iii) of Para 5 above applied to the facts of the present case. Para 26. This is often known as appropriation of payments. Sub-para (iii) of Para 5 above applied to the facts of the present case. Para 26. Thus, in cases of execution of money decrees or award-decrees, or rather, decrees other than mortgage decrees, interest ceases to run on the amount deposited, to the extent of the deposit. It is true that if the amount falls short, the decree-holder may be entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards the interest, then towards the costs and then towards the principal amount due under the decree. But the fact remains that to the extent of the deposit, no further interest is payable thereon to the decree-holder and there is no question of the decree-holder claiming a reappropriation when it is found that more amounts are due to him and the same is also deposited by the judgment-debtor. In other words, the scheme does not contemplate a reopening of the satisfaction to the extent it has occurred by the deposit. No further interest would run on the sum appropriated towards the principal. Para 27. As an illustration, we can take the following situation. Suppose, a decree is passed for a sum of Rs. 5000 by the trial Court along with interest and costs and the judgment-debtor deposits the same and gives notice to the decree-holder either by approaching the executing Court under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code or by making the deposit in the execution taken out by the decree-holder under Order 21, Rule 1 of the Code. The decree-holder is not satisfied with the decree of the trial Court. He goes up in appeal and the Appellate Court enhances the decree amount to Rs. 10,000 with interest and costs. The rule in terms of order 21, Rule 1, as it now stands, in the background of Order 24 would clearly be, that the further obligation of the judgment-debtor is only to deposit the additional amount of Rs. 5000 decreed by the Appellate Court with interest thereon from the date the interest is held due and the costs of the appeal. The decree-holder would not be entitled to say that he can get further interest even on the sum of Rs. 5000 decreed by the Appellate Court with interest thereon from the date the interest is held due and the costs of the appeal. The decree-holder would not be entitled to say that he can get further interest even on the sum of Rs. 5000 decreed by the trial Court and deposited by the judgment-debtor even before the enhancement of the amount by the Appellate Court or that he can reopen the transaction and make a reappropriation of interest first on rs. 10,000, costs and then the principal and claim interest on the whole of the balance sum again. Certainly, at both stages, if there is shortfall in deposit, the decree-holder may be entitled to apply the deposit first towards interest, then towards costs and the balance towards the principal. But that is different from saying that inspite of his deposit of the amounts decreed by the trial court, the judgment-debtor would still be liable for interest on the whole of the principal amount in case the Appellate Court enhances the same and awards interest on the enhanced amount. This position regarding execution of money decrees has now become clear in the light of amendments to Order 21, Rule 1 by act 104 of 1976. The argument that what is awarded by the appellate Court is the amount that should have been awarded by the trial Court and so looked at, until the entire principal is paid, the decree-holder would be entitled to interest on the amount awarded by the Appellate Court and therefore he can seek to make a re-appropriation by first crediting the amount deposited by the judgment-debtor pursuant to the decree of the trial Court towards the cost in both the Courts, towards the interest due on the entire amount and only thereafter towards the principal, is not justified on the scheme of Order 21, Rule 1 understood in the context of Order 24, Rules 1 to 4 of the Code. The principle appears to be that if a part of the principal has been paid along with interest due thereon, as on the date of issuance of notice of deposit, interest on that part of the principal sum will cease to run thereafter. In other words, there is no obligation on the judgment-debtor to pay interest on that part of the principal which he has already paid or deposited. Para 32. In other words, there is no obligation on the judgment-debtor to pay interest on that part of the principal which he has already paid or deposited. Para 32. In the scheme of the Act, it is seen that the award of compensation is at different stages. The first stage occurs when the award is passed. Obviously, the award takes in all the amounts contemplated by Section 23 (1), Section 23 (1-A), section 23 (2) and the interest contemplated by Section 34 of the act. The whole of that amount is paid or deposited by the Collector in terms of Section 31 of the Act. At this stage, no shortfall in deposit is contemplated, since the Collector has to pay or deposit the amount awarded by him. If a shortfall is pointed out, it may have to be made up at that stage and the principle of appropriation may apply, though it is difficult to contemplate a partial deposit at that stage. On the deposit by the Collector under Section 31 of the Act, the first stage comes to an end subject to the right of the claimant to notice of the deposit and withdrawal or acceptance of the amount with or without protest. Para 33. The second stage occurs on a reference under section 18 of the Act, when the Reference Court awards enhanced compensation, it has necessarily to take note of the enhanced amounts payable under Section 23 (1), Section 23 (1-A), Section 23 (2) and interest on the enhanced amount as provided in Section 28 of the Act and costs in terms of Section 27. The Collector has the duty to deposit these amount pursuant to the deemed decree thus passed. This has nothing to do with the earlier deposit made or to be made under and after the award. If he deposit made, falls short of the enhancement decreed, there can arise the question of appropriation at that stage, in relation to the amount enhanced on the reference. Para 34. The third occurs, when in appeal, the High court enhances the compensation as indicated already. That enhanced compensation would also bear interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation, when Section 28 is applied. The enhanced amount thus calculated will have to be deposited in additional to the amount awarded by the Reference Court if it had not already been deposited. Para 35. That enhanced compensation would also bear interest on the enhanced portion of the compensation, when Section 28 is applied. The enhanced amount thus calculated will have to be deposited in additional to the amount awarded by the Reference Court if it had not already been deposited. Para 35. The fourth stage may be when the Supreme court enhances the compensation and at that stage too, the same rule would apply. Para 36. Can a claimant or decree-holder who has received the entire amount awarded by the Reference Court or who had notice of the deposit of the entire amount so awarded, claim interest on the amount he has already received merely because the Appellate Court has enhanced the compensation and has made payable additional compensation? We have already referred to Order 21 and Order 24 of the Code to point out that such a blanket reopening of the transaction is not warranted even in respect of a money decree. Section 28 of the Act indicates that the award of interest is confined to the excess compensation awarded and it is to be paid from the date of dispossession. This is in consonance with, the position that a fresh re-appropriation is not contemplated or warranted by the scheme of the Act. But if there is any shortfall at any stage, the claimant or decree-holder can seek to apply the rule of appropriation in respect of that amount, first towards interest and costs and then towards the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs. (Emphasis supplied) Para 49. Though, a decree-holder may have the right to appropriate the payments made by the judgment-debtor, it could only be as provided in the decree if there is provision in that behalf in the decree or, as contemplated by Order 21, Rule 1 of the Code as explained by us above. The Code or the general rules do not contemplate payment of further interest by a judgment-debtor on the portion of the principal he has already paid. His obligation is only to pay interest on the balance principal remaining unpaid as adjudged either by the Court of first instance or in the Court of appeal. On the pretext that the amount adjudged by the Appellate Court is the real amount due, the decree-holder cannot claim interest on that part of the principal already paid to him. His obligation is only to pay interest on the balance principal remaining unpaid as adjudged either by the Court of first instance or in the Court of appeal. On the pretext that the amount adjudged by the Appellate Court is the real amount due, the decree-holder cannot claim interest on that part of the principal already paid to him. Of course, as indicated, out of what is paid he can adjust the interest and costs first and the balance towards the principal, if there is a shortfall in deposit. But, beyond that, the decree-holder cannot seek to re-open the entire transaction and proceed to recalculate the interest on the whole amount and seek a re-appropriation as a whole in the light of the appellate decree. (Emphasis supplied) Para 52. What is to happen when a part of the amount awarded by the reference Court or by the Appellate Court is deposited pursuant to an interim order of the Appellate Court or of the further appellate Court and the awardee is given the liberty to withdraw that amount? In such a case, the amount would be received by the decree-holder on the strength of the interim order and the appropriation will be subject to the decision in the appeal or the further appeal and the direction, if any, contained therein. In such a case, if the appeal is disposed of in his favour, the decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the amount already received by him pursuant to the interim order first towards interest then towards costs and the balance towards principal as on date of the withdrawal of the amount and claim interest on the balance amount of enhanced compensation by levying execution. But on that part appropriated towards the principal, the interest would cease from the date on which the amount is received by the awardee. Of course, if while passing the interim order, the Court had indicated as to how the deposited amount is to be appropriated, that direction will prevail and the appropriation could only be done on the basis of that direction. Para 53. Of course, if while passing the interim order, the Court had indicated as to how the deposited amount is to be appropriated, that direction will prevail and the appropriation could only be done on the basis of that direction. Para 53. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential ratio in Prem Nath Kapur on appropriation being at different stages is justified though if at a particular stage there is a shortfall, the awardee-decree-holder would be entitled to appropriate the same on the general principle of appropriation, first towards interest, then towards costs and then towards the principal, unless, of course, the deposit is indicted to be towards specified heads by the judgment-debtor while making the deposit intimating the decree-holder of his intention. We, thus, approve the ratio of prem Nath Kapur on the aspect of appropriation (Emphasis supplied ). ( 36. ) FROM the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the following would emerge. (i) Sub-rule (2) of Rule 1 of Order XXI provides that where a payment is made by depositing into the Court or otherwise, or as directed in the decree and the judgment-debtor has given notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by RPAD of any amount paid by way of depositing into the Court or as directed in the decree, interest if any, shall cease to run from the date of service of notice referred to in sub-rule (2) (Para 15 ). (ii) whenever a deposit is made by the judgment-debtor in the Court, if there is shortfall in deposit, the decree-holder may be entitled to apply the deposit first towards interest and then towards cost and the balance towards principal amount. (Para 26) (iii) Where the claimant or decree holder receives the entire amount awarded by the Reference Court or the claimant had notice of deposit of the entire amount so awarded, he cannot claim interest on the amount of award received by him, merely because the Appellate Court enhanced the compensation and has made payable additional compensation. (iv) If there is any shortfall at any stage, the claimant or decree holder can seek the rule of appropriation in respect of that amount first towards interest and cost and then towards principal, unless the decree otherwise directs. (iv) If there is any shortfall at any stage, the claimant or decree holder can seek the rule of appropriation in respect of that amount first towards interest and cost and then towards principal, unless the decree otherwise directs. (Para 26) (v) When an award - decree is passed specifying the amounts under different heads like the amount under Section 23 (1), the amount under Section 23 (2), the amount under Section 23 (1-A) and the interest under Section 28 and the judgment-debtor makes a deposit of specified sums under these different heads, it will amount to the judgment-debtor intimating the decree holder as to how the same deposited is to be applied in discharge of the obligation of the judgment-debtor. Once a decree holder receives the payment of the sums thus deposited, he would be accepting the appropriation made by the judgment-debtor under the award in the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act. (vi) When the said judgment-debtor makes a deposit along with calculation appropriating distinct sums towards various heads of compensation as awarded by the reference Court or by the Appellate Court in the appellate decree and the amount is received by the decree-holder, the decree holder must be taken to be not entitled to seek an appropriation as if the judgment-debtor has not made any intimation and then he is entitled to appropriation at his volition. (vii) Re-appropriation by seeking to reopen the said award rendered might result in interest being made payable even on that part of principal amount that has already been deposited and received by the decree-holder and that would be in the realm unjust to enrichment. If the facts in each of the Ex. (vii) Re-appropriation by seeking to reopen the said award rendered might result in interest being made payable even on that part of principal amount that has already been deposited and received by the decree-holder and that would be in the realm unjust to enrichment. If the facts in each of the Ex. Cases herein are examined in the light of the above propositions as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at the relevant paragraphs as extracted supra, it could be seen that undisputedly, at the time of making deposit on each occasion, in the respective execution cases, the judgment-debtor - BDA did not specify, by filing a detailed memo of calculation, as to how the amount deposited should be appropriated towards specified sums under different heads as contained in the award and therefore, whenever the said amounts were deposited, the decree-holder was at liberty to appropriate the said amounts first towards interest then towards cost and the balance, if any, towards principal amount of compensation as enhanced by the reference Court which was inclusive of the amounts of solatium and market value. ( 37. ) IT could be seen further from the calculation memos in the said cases prepared by the Executing Court that the interest has been calculated, as on the dates of respective deposits made by the judgment-debtor in the respective cases, only on the principal amount of compensation which had remained unpaid as on that date and no interest has been calculated on any part of principal amount of compensation, which was paid by the judgment-debtor. In fact, as the date of every successive deposit made by the judgment-debtor, interest has been calculated on the principal amount only and the said deposit fell short of the said interest. For instance, as could be seen from the memos of calculation prepared by the office of execution Court in Ex. Case Nos. 621/93 and 699/02, the interest has been calculated, as on the different dates on which different sums of money came to be deposited by the Judgment-Debtor only on the principal amount of Rs. 1,24,969/- which was inclusive of solatium and additional market value and no interest has been calculated on any portion of the interest that had remained unpaid. 621/93 and 699/02, the interest has been calculated, as on the different dates on which different sums of money came to be deposited by the Judgment-Debtor only on the principal amount of Rs. 1,24,969/- which was inclusive of solatium and additional market value and no interest has been calculated on any portion of the interest that had remained unpaid. Therefore, it is clear that no interest was calculated in the said memo of calculation on any amount of interest that had remained unpaid or on any part of the principal amount of compensation, which was paid by the judgment-debtor to the decree-holder. On the other hand, the entire calculation memos in the said Ex. Cases reveal that Rs. 1,24,969/- which was undisputedly the principal amount of compensation (inclusive of solatium and additional market value) that had remained unpaid as on the date of first payment of Rs. 42,087/- made on 27. 8. 1986 continued to be same throughout all the Ex. Cases till the last amount of Rs. 1,05,085/- came to be deposited in Ex. Case No. 699/02 for the reason that the amount deposited by the Judgment-Debtor on each date in the respective Ex. Cases fell short of the interest accrued on the said principle amount of Rs. 1,24,969/- during the period between the date of two consecutive deposits. ( 38. ) FURTHER, it is very much clear from all the memos of calculation made by the Ex. Court in the respective Ex. Cases that the same method, as in Ex. Case Nos. 621/93 and 699/2002 has been adopted in all the other execution cases with regard to appropriation of amount deposited by the judgment-Debtor on each date in the respective execution cases. However, if there could be found any deviation from this mode of calculation, the judgment-debtor - BDA would be at liberty to point out the same to the execution Court and arrive at correct amount of compensation due by the judgment-Debtor to the claimant-decree-holder by adopting proper method of calculation. Since the memos of calculation in the said cases do not disclose that the interest was calculated on. Since the memos of calculation in the said cases do not disclose that the interest was calculated on. any unpaid portion of interest or on any portion of the principal amount of compensation paid by the Judgment-Debtor in the respective execution cases, it cannot be said that the appropriation of various amount deposited by the Judgment-Debtor in the respective Execution Cases would amount to, either reopening of the appropriation of the various amounts deposited by the Judgment-Debtor-BDA on various dates in the respective execution cases. ( 39. ) IT is not in dispute that after the previous Execution case No. 621/93 came to be closed in the year 1995, the claimant-Decree-Holder did not chose to file any execution case till the year 2002 seeking recovery of balance amount of compensation and the matter is pending till to this date. As such, the Decree-Holder cannot be permitted to take benefit of his own delay and laches. Further, the Award dated 31.7.1985 passed in LAC No. 665/1983 has been sought to be executed in Ex. Case No. 699/02 which was filed 12 years after the passing of the said Award. However, it is not in dispute that the Judgment-Debtor-BDA had preferred MFA No. 381/1986 aggrieved by the said award and the said appeal came to be dismissed on dated 21.6.1991 and the said award came to be confirmed in appeal. Therefore, undisputedly the said Ex. Case No. 699/02 was filed within the limitation from the date of disposal of the said appeal. Therefore, I feel that ends of justice would be met with, if it is ordered that the Decree-Holder in the said Ex. Case No. 699/2002 who is claimant in LAC no. 665/1983 (now being represented by his LRs.) shall be entitled to interest on the unpaid principal amount of compensation only till the date of deposit of Rs. 1,05,085/- made by the Judgment - Debtor - BDA in the said execution case i. e., till 8/4/2003 only and he shall not be entitled to interest from and after the said date. ( 40. ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, while answering both the point Nos. 1 and 2 in the 'affirmative', except in respect of the order impugned in Civil revision Petition No. 831/2005, I proceed to pass the following : order in view of my findings recorded at para No. 35 above, that the order dated 15.9.2005 passed in Ex. ( 40. ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, while answering both the point Nos. 1 and 2 in the 'affirmative', except in respect of the order impugned in Civil revision Petition No. 831/2005, I proceed to pass the following : order in view of my findings recorded at para No. 35 above, that the order dated 15.9.2005 passed in Ex. Case No. 1324/2004 which is impugned in crp No. 831/2005, does not call for any interference, CRP No. 831/2005 is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merits. All other CRP Nos. 809, 58, 538 and 1059 of 2005, are hereby allowed in terms of the observations made in the body of this order. The impugned orders dated 16. 9. 2004, 26.11.2004, 11.3.2005 and 28.10.2005 passed by the Court of the learned Additional City Civil Judge (CCH No. 17), Bangalore respectively in Execution Case Nos. 361/03, 294/1991, 699/02 and 2490/04 are hereby set aside. The said respective Execution cases are hereby remitted back to the said Execution Court with a direction that they shall be proceeded with and disposed of in the light of the observations made in this order and by adopting the method suggested hereunder, as expeditiously as possible after giving a reasonable opportunity to both the sides to put forth their respective contentions as to the calculation of the exact balance amount of compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor- BDA to the respective claimant - Decree-Holders therein. The decree holder in the said Execution Case No. 699/2002 who is claimant in LAC no. 665/1983 (now being represented by his LRs.) shall be entitled to interest on the unpaid principal amount of compensation, only till the date of deposit of Rs. 1,05,085/- made by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA in the said execution case i.e., till 8.4.2003 only and he shall not be entitled to the interest from and after the said date. ( 41. ) IN the light of the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Gurpreet Singh's case reported in (2006) 8 SCC 427, as referred to above, the following method is hereby suggested to the Execution Court which shall be adopted for arriving at the correct balance amount of compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA to the respective claimant - Decree-Holders in the respective execution cases. (1) The market value shall be computed in respect of entire extent of land under acquisition at the rate mentioned in the award passed by the Reference Court. (2) From the above said market value, the amount of market value (excluding solatium, Additional market value etc.,) awarded by the LAO shall be deducted. Thus the enhanced market value of the land under acquisition as per the award of the Reference court shall be arrived at. Then, solatium calculated on this enhanced market value at the rate applicable as on the relevant date, in terms of Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, shall be added to this enhanced market value. Thereafter the additional market value in terms of the Award shall also be added to the said amount of enhanced market value calculating the same at the rate applicable as on the relevant date, in terms of Section (1-A) of the said Act. The same total of the enhanced market value, solatium thereon and additional market value thereon shall be treated as the principal amount of compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA to the respective claimant-decree holders in terms of the respective Awards. (3) Interest at the relevant rate applicable as on the relevant date shall be calculated on the said principal amount of compensation in terms of Section 28 of the Act, till the date of first deposit made by the judgment-debtor in the respective first of the execution cases. (4) If the amount so deposited by the Judgment-Debtor exceeds the interest accrued on the said principal amount of compensation as on the date of deposit, the said amount shall be appropriated first towards interest, then towards costs and then the balance if any, shall be appropriated towards the principal amount of compensation and the balance principal amount of compensation due is to be arrived at. (5) If the amount so deposited falls short of the interest itself, the entire amount shall be appropriated towards interest and then the balance of interest, costs and the principal amount of compensation that remains unpaid after such appropriation of the amount deposited, shall be arrived at respectively and the same shall be carried forward. (5) If the amount so deposited falls short of the interest itself, the entire amount shall be appropriated towards interest and then the balance of interest, costs and the principal amount of compensation that remains unpaid after such appropriation of the amount deposited, shall be arrived at respectively and the same shall be carried forward. (6) Interest, only on the unpaid principal amount of compensation shall be calculated from the date of previous deposit till the date of next immediate deposit and then the amount deposited shall be appropriated first towards the unpaid amounts of interest and cost and then the remaining amount of deposit shall be appropriated towards the principal amount of compensation remained unpaid as on the date of previous deposit. If the amount deposited falls short of the amount of interest itself, the entire deposit shall be appropriated towards interest only and the interest remaining still unpaid, if any, cost and the unpaid principal amount of compensation both shall be carried forward. (7) The above procedure shall be followed in respect of appropriation of each subsequent deposit made by the Judgment-Debtor in the respective execution cases till the entire amount of compensation with interest thereon in terms of the award is fully paid by the Judgment-Debtor. (8) Before proceeding to determine the net amount of compensation payable to the claimant - Decree-Holder in the respective Ex. Cases, fullest opportunity shall be given to the judgment-Debtor - BDA and also to the claimant - Decree-Holders to submit their respective calculation memos and the court shall also get a calculation memo prepared by its office. (9) After hearing both the parties in detail on all the three calculation memos and, after applying its mind to each and every item of calculation in the said memos, the Execution Court shall determine the net amount of compensation due by the Judgment-Debtor to the claimant - Decree-Holder, after giving deduction as to all the amounts deposited by the Judgment-Debtor in all the Execution Cases filed by the respective claimant - Decree-Holder, by adopting the aforesaid method of calculation. (10) Thereafter, the Execution Court shall direct the judgment-Debtor - BDA to deposit into the Court within three months, the balance of principle amount of compensation with interest thereon found still payable to the respective claimant -Decree-Holder. (10) Thereafter, the Execution Court shall direct the judgment-Debtor - BDA to deposit into the Court within three months, the balance of principle amount of compensation with interest thereon found still payable to the respective claimant -Decree-Holder. (11) After the Execution Court issues such direction to the judgment-Debtor - BDA to deposit the amount so determined towards full settlement of the claim of the respective claimant -Decree-Holder in terms of the award, if the Judgment-Debtor makes payment of the full amount of compensation as directed by the Execution Court, the Execution Case be closed after making payment of the same to the claimant - Decree-Holder. (12) It is made clear that if any defects are found in the execution proceedings prejudicial to the claimant - Decree-Holder or to the Judgment-Debtor - BDA, the learned Counsel appearing for the Decree-Holders/judgment-Debtor shall be at liberty to bring the same to the notice of the Execution Court and it shall consider the same while determining the net amount of compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor - BDA to the respective claimant - Decree-Holder. (13) Since the judgment-debtor - BDA has already deposited certain amount in some of the Execution Cases and there have been deposits with the Bank, as per orders of the execution Court in such cases, the respective claimant - Decree-Holder shall not be entitled to statutory interest on the amounts so deposited, from the date of such deposit. (14) If ultimately the net amount of compensation payable by the Judgment-Debtor to the respective claimant Decree-Holder is found less than such amount of deposit made by the Judgment-Debtor into the Court, the excess amount of deposit shall be refunded to the Judgment-Debtor - BDA, after making payment to the Decree-Holder, the said amount of compensation. ( 42. ) BOTH the parties shall appear before the Execution Court in the respective Execution Cases on 18. 12. 2008 without any further notice. No order as to costs in these revisions. All the records that are obtained from the Execution Court shall be returned to it forthwith along with a copy of this order so as to reach it on or before 15/12/2008 without fail.