JUDGMENT Mr. L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : - Land owners have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 13.02.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad. 2. Land of the petitioners was acquired by respondent – State of Haryana. Land owners-petitioners filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short – the Act) for enhancement of the compensation and also filed Regular First Appeal in this Court. This Court, vide judgment dated 16.05.1979, enhanced the compensation of Rs.10/- per square yard, but restricted the enhanced amount to the amount of court fee paid by the land owners. Subsequently, the land owners paid further amount of court fee and they were awarded compensation of Rs.10/- per square yard vide order dated 11.05.1989 (Annexure P-1). 3. In execution petition, the petitioners claimed interest @ 9% per annum for one year and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent period on the enhanced amount of compensation in accordance with amended provisions of the Act, as amended w.e.f. 24.09.1984, but applicable w.e.f. 30.04.1982. Learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned order, held the land owners to be entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, as applicable before 30.04.1982 and also adjusted the amount paid in previous execution petitions towards principal amount of enhanced compensation. Feeling aggrieved, land owners have filed this revision petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised two fold contention. In the first instance, counsel for the petitioners, relying on Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kewal Ram vs. State of Haryana reported as 1987 P. L. J. 325 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Chuni Lal and others vs. State of Haryana reported as 1987 R. R. R. 538, contended that petitioners are entitled to interest at enhanced rate of 9% per annum for one year and 15% per annum for the subsequent period, as per amended provisions of the Act because the compensation amount remained unpaid on 30.04.1982 since when the amended provision regarding enhanced rate of interest came into effect. Second contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the amounts paid in previous executions, as detailed in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the order, had to be adjusted first towards interest and not towards principal amount, as erroneously done by the Executing Court. 6. Counsel for the respondent-State, on the other hand, relying on Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hindustan Sanitaryware and Industries Ltd., Bahadurgarh and another vs. State of Haryana and others reported as AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 289, contended that petitioners have been rightly held entitled to interest @ 6% per annum in accordance with unamended provisions of the Act because the compensation stood finally determined by this Court vide judgment dated 16.05.1979 i.e. before amended provisions of the Act relating to enhanced rate of interest came into force. It was also contended that amounts paid in the previous execution petition have been rightly adjusted towards principal amount of enhanced compensation because the same were specifically paid towards principal amount. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. 8. Judgments in the cases of Kewal Ram (supra) and Chuni Lal (supra) pertain to amended provision of Section 34 of the Act, which relates to payment of interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, if the same remained unpaid. However, on enhanced amount of compensation, as awarded by Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act or awarded by this Court in appeal under Section 54 of the Act, interest is payable under Section 28 of the Act. Enhanced rate of interest, as per amended Section 28 of the Act, is payable when the Award by the Reference Court or judgment in the first appeal was passed on or before 30.04.1982. In the instant case, however, judgment in first appeal by this Court had been passed on 16.05.1979, and therefore, petitioners are entitled to interest on enhanced compensation @ 6% per annum, as was payable at that time. Order Annexure P-1 regarding taking of additional amount of court fee would not entitle the petitioners to enhanced rate of interest because the compensation amount finally stood determined vide judgment dated 16.05.1979 and even order Annexure P-1 would relate back to the same date. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, as rightly held by the Executing Court. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to interest @ 6% per annum, as rightly held by the Executing Court. This view finds support from Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hindustan Sanitaryware (supra), wherein it has been categorically laid down that interest is payable at the rate prevalent at the time compensation comes to be finally determined in regard to such entire amount that had not been paid on or before date of delivery of possession. In view of this categorical Full Bench judgment of this Court, it is manifest that in the instant case, the petitioners are entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on enhanced amount of compensation, which was the rate applicable when the enhanced compensation amount came to be finally determined by this Court vide judgment dated 16.05.1979. 9. As regards second contention of counsel for the petitioners, it has been observed by the Executing Court that the amounts deposited in the previous execution petitions were deposited towards principal amount and were adjusted towards principal amount in the previous execution petitions. Consequently, the same could not be re-opened in the present execution petition. Even otherwise, when the amount had been specifically deposited towards principal amount, the same has to be appropriated accordingly. Counsel for the petitioners contended that this observation of the Executing Court is factually incorrect that the aforesaid amounts were deposited towards principal amount. However, counsel for the petitioners could not refer to any ground of revision in the instant revision petition to this effect nor he could refer to any material on record to depict that the aforesaid observation of the Executing Court is factually incorrect. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition. Impugned order of learned Executing Court does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------