Sunita Agarwal, J.— Heard Sri Shri Kant, learned counsel for the revisionist and Shri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1. The present revision has been filed against the order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no. 3, Gorakhpur, in Misc. case no. 19 of 2000 under section 47 C.P.C. arising from Execution case no. 6 of 2000. The brief facts of the case are that land of the opposite party no.1 was acquired taking recourse of the provision of Land Acquisition Act( hereinafter called the 'Act') and proceedings were culminated by the award dated 30.6.1982 made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the meantime amendment came in the Land Acquisition Act. The amendment came in the year 1984 would be applicable in the present case and awarded amount, solatium etc. would be available to the claimant on reference made under section 18 of the Act. The amount of market value was enhanced and thereafter finally fixed by this court is Rs. 5.50 per sq. ft. with deduction @40%, which comes to Rs. 3.30 per sq. ft. Learned counsel for the revisionist challenged the order passed by the executing court on the sole ground that in the operative part of the order findings are such that the calculation of compensation to be paid by the claimant i.e. decree holder is without deduction of the amount already deposited before the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the judgement debtor under the award dated 30.6.1982.The submission is that Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the market value @ 1.75 per sq. ft. along with solatium and interest as per the Act. After the award was passed, judgment debtor i.e. revisionist deposited certain amount towards the award and the market value of the land was enhanced by the reference court and further by this court. The submission is that executing court has erred in determining the market value for the purposes of computation of compensation @ Rs. 3.30 per square feet. Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that executing court for the purposes of compensation could have considered only enhanced amount of compensation. The interest and solatium etc. could be calculated only on the enhanced amount of market value by the appellate court after deducting the market value determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.The market value of Rs. 3.30 per sq. ft. The interest and solatium etc. could be calculated only on the enhanced amount of market value by the appellate court after deducting the market value determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.The market value of Rs. 3.30 per sq. ft. cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of computation of interest and solatium etc. as the deposits have already been made under award dated 30.6.1982. Shri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that execution court has not erred in determining the market value @ Rs. 3.30 per sq. ft. for the purposes of calculation for the reason that revisionist-judgment debtor did not deposit the entire amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He further submits that whatever amount deposited can only be adjusted first towards interest and then against the principal amount. Learned counsel for the parties, however, are not in a position to give a clear picture of the amount deposited by the judgement debtor and also not in a position to show as to what is the amount due towards principal amount of awarded compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Sri Shri Kant, learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (8) SCC 457 to submit that executing court cannot reopen the issue and claimant can not thereafter claim any interest on that part of the compensation already deposited for payment to him. Once the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is deposited by the judgement debtor, it is not open for the claimant to claim interest on the same. The deposited amount of compensation is to be deducted from the calculation made for payment of compensation on the enhanced value awarded by the reference court or High Court. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the executing court is directed to proceed in the following manner:- (1) The judgement debtor will submit its computation of compensation before the executing court along with details of deposits made by it after award dated 30.6.82 as per awarded amount on market value, solatium, interest etc. by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. (2) The Decree holder will also submit his computation of compensation before the executing court. by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. (2) The Decree holder will also submit his computation of compensation before the executing court. (3) The executing court after going through the deposits made by the judgement debtor will look into the fact as to whether the amount of compensation deposited is to be adjusted towards the principal amount also after adjustment against interest and in case, deposits are made towards the principal amount, the said amount is to be deducted from the calculation to be made by it. The executing court shall also consider the objection of both the parties, if any, and also consider the ratio laid down in the judgement of Apex Court, Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India(Supra), while making computation of compensation. In the event, the executing court comes to the conclusion that the entire amount awarded under the award dated 30.6.1982 has been deposited by the judgment debtor then in that case, calculation of market value is to be made on the enhanced value only. In view of the observations made above, the revision is partly allowed. The order dated 29.10.2003 passed by the District Judge, Court No.3, Gorakhpur is modified to the extent of observations made above. The parties shall file the copy of this order before the executing court within a period of two weeks from today. It is further directed that the judgement debtor and decree holder shall also file their computation of compensation and objection within a period of one month from today and the executing court shall decide the matter within six weeks thereafter. ___________