JUDGMENT : T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners challenging Ext. P2 order passed by the execution court in I.A. No. 3347/2009 in L.A.R. No. 4/1999. The view taken is that in the light of the Judgment of this Court in R.D.O., Fort Kochi v. Kurian the claimant is not entitled for interest for the amount deposited in the Treasury. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a Division Bench of this Court by Ext. P1 order dated 09/01/2003 directed deposit of balance amount by the appellant in the appeal, namely, Corporation of Thrissur in fixed deposit in the District Treasury Savings Bank, Thrissur. It is a case where the claimants were allowed to withdraw 50% of the amount awarded by the Sub Court Thrissur. It is further submitted that the entire amount was deposited by the Corporation before the Sub Court and it is in that context the petitioners approached this Court for withdrawing the amount deposited for which Ext. P1 order was passed. It is also submitted that thereafter the appeal itself ended in their favour by Ext. P4 Judgment. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the situation which came up for consideration before this Court in R.D.O. Vs. Kurian, is totally different and, therefore, the view taken is not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Yashwant Waman Patil and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, : Yashwant Waman Patil and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others, ]. 3. Heard both sides. 4. First, I will refer to the Judgment of the Division Bench in Kurian's case [supra]. The facts of the case therein will show that the Government of India, the requisitioning authority, during the pendency of those appeals, released money to the State Government in order to meet generally the demands for compensation and other expenses. The State Government thereafter felt that in order to meet a portion of the interest that is likely to accrue during the pendency of the appeal and also for other purposes, rather than keeping the money in the locker in the Treasury, the amount can be put in a nationalised bank. The State Government thereafter felt that in order to meet a portion of the interest that is likely to accrue during the pendency of the appeal and also for other purposes, rather than keeping the money in the locker in the Treasury, the amount can be put in a nationalised bank. C.M.P. No. 2425/1995 in LAA No. 833/1994 was filed by the Government before this Court seeking permission to deposit the amount in a nationalised bank which was permitted by this Court. The amount was deposited in the Union Bank of India so as to accrue maximum interest. LAA No. 833/1994 was partly allowed reducing the land value awarded by the Sub Court, Ernakulam. Later, an application was filed by the claimants for releasing the amounts including the interest accrued in the Bank. It was contended by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the State has paid the entire amount due to the claimant calculating 30% solatium and the legitimate interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, the claim raised for interest over and above the interest prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act cannot be justified. The above plea was accepted by this Court and this Court took the view that the claimant is not entitled to get any amount over and above the amount due to him under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Herein, the situation is different. Evidently, it is a case where the entire compensation amount awarded by the Sub Court was deposited by the Corporation before the Sub Court and, this Court by Ext. P1 order permitted release of 50% of the amount awarded, to the claimant and directed deposit of the balance amount in the Treasury Savings Bank. Therefore, part of the award amount was deposited in the Treasury. The claimants will not get any further interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act since the deposit is already made. Therefore, it is not a case where they were entitled for grant of further interest as provided u/s 28 of the Act. What is contained is only the interest accrued to the award amount deposited before the Bank in terms of the directions issued by this Court. Even as on the date of the interim order passed by this Court, the entire amount represented the award amount allowed as compensation by the Sub Court. What is contained is only the interest accrued to the award amount deposited before the Bank in terms of the directions issued by this Court. Even as on the date of the interim order passed by this Court, the entire amount represented the award amount allowed as compensation by the Sub Court. Definitely, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for claiming the said interest portion as the respondent-Corporation also cannot have any claim over the said portion of the interest accrued on the account of fixed deposit which was made in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Ext. P1 order. The dictum laid down in Kurian's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable on the special facts of this case. In the light of the above, Ext. P2 series of orders are quashed. There will be a direction to the court below to pass appropriate orders for releasing the interest accrued in the said fixed deposit account to the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Disposed Off.