Judgment V. M. SAHAI, J. ( 1. ) WE have heard Mr. Y. N. Ravani, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 7621 of 2011 and Mr. J. M. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 in Special | Civil Application No. 7621 of 2011, who is appearing for petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 8598 of 2011 wherein Mr. Ravani, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1. ( 2. ) WE do not propose to issue Notice to respondent No. 1. ( 3. ) SINCE, the controversy involved in both the writ petitions is against the same judgment, we have taken up writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 7621 of 2011 to be the leading writ petition. Both the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. ( 4. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that Notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was issued on 30-8-1973. The land was acquired for the purpose of Housing Board for construction of Railway Colonies. The award was made by the Collector on 19-2-1986 and compensation @ 0-85 paise per sq.ft. was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vadodara. 4.1. The respondents-claimants preferred Reference under Sec. 18 of the Act being Reference Case Nos. 78 to 107 of 1998 before the District Court at Vadodara. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara decided the Reference on 18-3-1995 and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 5-50 per sq.ft. as additional amount of compensation. 4.2. Against the judgment of learned Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara the First Appeals were filed before this Hon'ble Court and Division Bench of this Court decided appeals as well .as Cross Appeals on 25-4-2006 and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 8-15 per sq.ft. 4.3. Against the judgment of Division Bench, the present petitioners i.e. Gujarat Housing Board filed Special Leave to Appeal on 9-2-2007. The claimants also filed S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Apex Court but subsequently withdrew their S.L.P. The Apex Court by its order dated 9-2-2007 directed the Gujarat Housing Board to deposit entire amount in the High Court, and thereafter, another order was passed on 29-3-2007 by which the Registry was directed to deposit the amount in term deposit so that it may earn interest. 4.4. 4.4. In compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3-4-2007 passed an order directing an amount of Rs. 12,80,54,066/- to be deposited in Fixed Deposit in a Nationalized Bank. Amount was deposited in Nationalized Bank. On 8-10- 2007, the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted each of the claimant to withdraw Rs. 1 lac without furnishing any security, but only 18 claimants withdrew the amount of Rs. 1 lac. However, S.L.P. was finally dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 1-12-2010. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been filed as Annexure-H to this writ petition. ( 5. ) MR. Ravani, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that the compensation amount of the land acquired by Special Land Acquisition Officer was erroneously calculated by Gujarat Housing Board and excessive calculation was made by Gujarat Housing Board which is ought required to be reduced, and therefore, compensation proportionately was reduced and interest liability was also reduced. To that effect the Execution Court has allowed the application of the Gujarat Housing Board. In another petition, Counsel for the claimant has challenged the reduction of area of the land in execution proceedings as well as amount of compensation and interest on the ground that since the award has become final upto the stage of Apex Court, it is not open to Execution Court to reopen the award and reduce the amount or amount of compensation or the interest. ( 6. ) MR. Ravani, has urged that the Gujarat Housing Board has deposited total amount of Rs. 14,80,87,933-94 ps. and total principal amount of compensation of Rs. 6,37,56,286/- and the Board has deposited interest upto 15th March, @ 9% which is Rs. 6,42,97,780/- total of which comes to Rs. 12,80,54,066/- which has been deposited pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court which is now deposited in Nationalized Bank earning further interest. He urged that now since the S.L.P. has been dismissed on 1-12-2010, claimants would only be entitled for interest on the principal amount and not the amount of interest on interest in view of Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and he further urged that if land size which has been reduced is taken into account then the amount of compensation would be Rs. 62,93,938-05 ps. 62,93,938-05 ps. and if 9% is calculated on this amount upto 15th January, 2011 it will come to Rs. 14,80,87,933-94 ps. Therefore, the amount which is in Bank i.e. Rs. 16,90,40,352/- (minus) Rs. 14,80,87,934/- = Rs. 2,27,52,418-06 ps. are liable to be refunded to the appellant. ( 7. ) ON the other hand, Mr. J. M. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent has urged that if the compensation would have been timely be paid then the claimants would have deposited this amount in the Bank and this would have also earned same amount on the interest and they would be entitled for interest on interest and no amount is liable to be refunded. ( 8. ) SECTION 28 of the Act reads as under : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation :- If the sum, which in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of (nine per centum) per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court : [Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of (fifteen per centum) per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry]. ( 9. ) WE have gone through the Sec. 28 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that in view of Sec. 28 of the Act, the amount of interest on interest could not be awarded to the petitioner. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. After the award was made, it was the amount which was required to be paid along with 9% interest to the claimants. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. After the award was made, it was the amount which was required to be paid along with 9% interest to the claimants. When the appellant deposited the amount, it was not paid to the claimants and it was directed to be deposited in the Bank. The intention of the Court in such cases is that whosoever wins in the case the amount has to be paid to him on which interest has accrued in the Bank also. There is no bar in the Act that interest on interest cannot be paid. Further Sec. 28 does not provide that if an amount along with interest is deposited in a Bank and on that amount interest accrued, it would not be paid to the claimant nor does it provide that it may be paid to the acquiring body. ( 10. ) WE are of the considered opinion that amount of interest accrued on the claimed amount would go to the claimants and not to the acquiring body. Therefore, in our view, the Executing Court had taken correct view of law which is not required to be interfered with by this Court. ( 11. ) SO far as the writ petition filed by the claimant is concerned, learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. J. M. Patel has urged that Executing Court could not have reduced the area or the amount of compensation or interest. ( 12. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has urged that since the matter has become final upto the Apex Court the amount of compensation could not, be reduced. The Executing Court in its findings recorded dated 13-5- 2011 has held that as per the calculation made by the Board in respect of the award passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the total amount which was to be paid along with interest was Rs. 12,63,42,128-73 ps. but the Board had deposited excess amount that is to say Rs. 12,80,56,065-50 ps. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 17,11,937/- had been deposited in excess. ( 13. ) LEARNED Counsel for the claimants could not demonstrate that the calculation made by the Board was in any manner incorrect. 12,63,42,128-73 ps. but the Board had deposited excess amount that is to say Rs. 12,80,56,065-50 ps. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 17,11,937/- had been deposited in excess. ( 13. ) LEARNED Counsel for the claimants could not demonstrate that the calculation made by the Board was in any manner incorrect. A glaring mistake could be corrected, and in our opinion, the Executing Court did not commit any error in correcting the clerical error for this reason, we do not find any merits in the petition filed by the claimants which is devoid of merits. ( 14. ) IN the result, both these writ petitions fail and accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. ( 15. ) IN case execution application is filed for disbursement of the amount that shall be decided by the Executing Court expeditiously. Petitions dismissed.