Judgment : 1. The revision petitioners are the claimants in LAOP No. 99 of 1988 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Udumalpet. It is seen from the records that land acquisition proceedings were initiated by the first respondent to acquire the lands owned by the claimants and others measuring in all an extent of 7.20 acres of land in S.F. No. 160 in A.K. Puthur Village, Udumalpet Taluk at the instance of the second respondent for construction of regulated market buildings. For this purpose, the lands of the claimants were sought to be acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') and it was published in Government Gazzette on 05.03.1986. Thereafter, paper publication was effected on 06.05.1986. The enquiry under Section 5 (A) of the Act was conducted on 22.07.1986 and the declaration under Section 6 was made on 05.11.1986. After complying with the other formalities, an award was passed on 29.12.1988 and possession of the lands were taken on 11.03.1988. As regards compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land at Rs.15,192.30 per acre. The value of the trees on the land was fixed at Rs.2,100/-. The claimants were also awarded 30% towards solatium under Section 23 (2) of the Act. An additional amount at 12% from 06.05.1986, the date of notification under Section 4 (1) upto 29.02.1988, the date on which award was passed was also awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section2 3 (1-A) of the Act. Thus, a total sum of Rs.1,69,221.30 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer for having acquired an extent of 7.20 acres of land out of which the claimants were entitled for Rs.1,68,292.00 for having acquired 7.16 acres of land belonged to them. 2. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, a reference was made and it was taken on file as LAOP No. 99 of 1988. After trial, by a judgment dated 14.12.1988, the reference court fixed the market value at Rs.1,750/- per cent of land and fixed Rs.5,000/-towards value of the trees. The reference court also awarded 30% solatium and interest at 9% on the market value of the lands. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Reference Court, the Government filed A.S. No. 1101 of 1993 before this Court. The reference court also awarded 30% solatium and interest at 9% on the market value of the lands. 3. Aggrieved by the Judgment passed by the Reference Court, the Government filed A.S. No. 1101 of 1993 before this Court. The claimants have also filed Cross Objection No. 90 of 1996 seeking enhanced compensation. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 12.07.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the Government and allowed the Cross-Objection by holding that the claimants are entitled to 30% solatium, 12% additional amount and 9% interest. 4. The claimants have filed E.P. No. 32 of 2003 before the trial court for executing the decree. The Executing Court, finding that there is a difference between the amount shown in the calculation memo and the amount mentioned in the Execution Petition, refused to entertain it and ultimately the Execution Petition was dismissed on 01.12.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners have filed C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1006 of 2006 before this Court. The Civil Revision Petition was allowed on 23.11.2009 and the matter was remanded back to the Executing Court with a direction to both sides to file a fresh memo of calculation and the Executing Court was directed to dispose it of within a period of three weeks. Pursuant to such direction, the Executing Court, by the impugned order dated 31.03.2010 directed the respondents/Government/ Judgment Debtor to deposit Rs.23,92,054/- towards balance compensation amount and interest on or before 29.04.2010, failing which the properties shown in the schedule to the Execution Petition shall be attached. Aggrieved by this order dated 31.03.2010, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, earlier, Execution Petition was filed by the revision petitioners in E.P. No. 32 of 2003, which was dismissed by the court below by reason of an erroneous calculation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1006 of 2006 before this Court and it was allowed by this Court on 23.11.2009 and the matter was remanded back to the court below with a direction to dispose of E.P. No. 32 of 2003 afresh on merits taking into consideration the calculation memo to be filed by both the parties. Pursuant to the same, both sides have filed a calculation memo but the court below failed to accept the proposition that in so far as subsequent payment made is concerned, it should be adjusted only towards interest and thereafter, the balance amount, if any, has to be adjusted towards principal. Further, the court below failed to hold that payment towards solatium also carries interest and it has also to be included in the amount due and the payment towards it has to be adjusted only after giving credit to the interest. Instead, the court below accepted the calculation memo filed by the respondent/Government and directed to pay only a lesser sum. 6. Though the respondent/Government has not filed any counter, the learned Government Advocate mainly argued that the amount has been deposited by the respondent as per the direction of this Court made in WP No. 32186 of 1993 and 20556 of 1993 dated 22.11.1993. In the order dated 22.11.1993, this Court directed the judgment debtor to deposit 25% of the enhanced compensation amount awarded and impliedly ordered to deposit another 25% of the enhanced compensation awarded subsequently. When the amount was deposited as per the orders of this Court, it can only denote that the amount deposited was towards enhanced compensation and any payment made thereof has to be deducted only on the enhanced compensation amount and not as per the calculation made by the revision petitioners. Though the court below given credit to 25% of the amount, it has erroneously deducted the balance amount towards interest, which itself is not correct and that also should have been directly given credit to the enhanced compensation amount awarded. The learned Government Advocate, relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Deputy Collector (Rev.) Karaikal vs. Angeline Devadoss and others) 2003 2 MLJ 7 would contend that the amount must be first adjusted towards the market value and then only the amount has to be given credit to amount payable under Section 23 (A) (1) of the Act. Thereafter, interest as contemplated under Section 28 has to be given credit to. In any event, when amount was deposited in the Court, interest stops running and therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 7. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. Thereafter, interest as contemplated under Section 28 has to be given credit to. In any event, when amount was deposited in the Court, interest stops running and therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition. 7. I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. The short point arise for consideration in this revision is whether the amount deposited by the respondent has to be given credit to for payment of enhanced compensation first or interest and whether the petitioners are entitled for interest on solatium. 8. First let me deal with the question of payment of interest on solatium. This issue is no longer res integra as per the decision reported in (Sundar vs. Union of India) 2002 2 Law Weekly 39. As per this decision, the claimants/petitioners are entitled for payment of interest on solatium. In fact, this Court, in the order dated 23.11.2009 in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1006 of 2006 has amended the award granting interest on solatium also. Therefore, definitely, in so far as payment of interest on solatium is concerned, the respondent/ Government is liable to pay interest on solatium and this issue is answered accordingly. 9. Now, the only question remains to be answered is whether the court below is right in ordering to deduct the amount deposited by the Government towards enhanced compensation first towards principal amount and thereafter ordering to adjust the balance amount towards interest. 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent/Government deposited Rs.5,42,172/-on 25.01.1994 and another sum of Rs.5,42,140/- was deposited on 06.06.1994. These amounts were deposited only as per the direction of this Court in the order dated 22.11.1993 passed in WP MP No. 32156 of 1993 in WP No. 20556 of 1993. In and by the order dated 22.11.1993, this Court ordered to deposit 25% of the enhanced compensation awarded and also impliedly ordered to deposit another 25% of the enhanced compensation amount awarded subsequently. 11. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that when amount is deposited, it has to be first given credit to towards payment of land cost or interest. 11. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that when amount is deposited, it has to be first given credit to towards payment of land cost or interest. When interest is admittedly payable by the respondent/Government, as per the normal prudent practice and in the light of settled principles of law, any amount deposited has to be ordered to be adjusted only towards interest and the balance amount alone has to be adjusted towards principal, or if it is specifically directed to adjust the particular amount by the depositor. On the contrary, the court below ordered to give credit to the amount deposited by the respondent first towards principal and then the balance was ordered to be given credit to towards payment of interest, which is legally not sustainable. 12. As per the direction of this Court, the Government deposited the amount and the court below ordered to deduct the amount first towards principal and the excess amount thereof was ordered to be adjusted towards interest. The argument of the petitioner is that the entire amount has to be given credit to towards payment of interest. To this effect, the petitioner also filed a calculation memo indicating that the interest has to be deducted in accordance with the dates on which the amount has been deposited. The petitioner would argue that the respondent/government, while depositing the amount, did not clearly indicate in accordance with the provision of Civil Procedure Code as to how the amount has to be adjusted. In other words, the respondent have never stated that the amount has to be adjusted first towards principal and therefore, the court below is not justified in passing the impugned order. 13. There is no agreement between the parties with respect to adjustment of the deposited amount. This Court also did not issue any direction as to the manner in which the deposited amount has to be given credit to. If there is no specific indication by the respondent/Government as to the manner in which the amount has to be adjusted, at the time of depositing the amount, then it has to be construed that the petitioner is at liberty to seek for deduction of the amount first towards payment of interest and then principal. If there is no specific indication by the respondent/Government as to the manner in which the amount has to be adjusted, at the time of depositing the amount, then it has to be construed that the petitioner is at liberty to seek for deduction of the amount first towards payment of interest and then principal. However, in this case, the amount was deposited pursuant to the direction issued by this Court and it cannot be said to be an equivalent payment in terms of Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code. This was also discussed by this Court in the order dated 23.11.2009 in C.R.P. (NPD) No. 1006 of 2006 while remitting the matter back to the trial court for fresh disposal. 14. The learned senior counsel for the revision petitioners relied on the Constitutional Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India) 2006 8 SCC 457 wherein in para No. 52 to 54, it was held as follows:- 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. 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. 53. Thus, on the whole, we are satisfied that the essential ratio in the Prem Nath Kapur (supra) 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 indicated 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 (supra) on the aspect of appropriation. 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 counsel to address us on that question. That question is whether in the light of the decision in Sunder (supra), 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. 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 Sunder (supra) on the ground that the execution court cannot go behind the decree. 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 is awarded, then it would be open to the execution court to apply the ratio of Sunder (supra) 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. 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 Sunder (September 19, 2001) and not for any prior period. We also clarify that this will not entail any re-appropriation 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." 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of the Honurable Supreme Court reported in (Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. R.S. Avtar Singh and Company) (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 243 in which the constitutional bench decision was relied on. In this decision, in para Nos. 24 and 25, it was held thus:- "25. Before venturing to find out the answer to the said question having regard to the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Gurpreet Singh (supra), wherein the implication of Order XXI Rule 1 has been elaborately dealt with we deem it appropriate to note the rationale laid therein on this aspect. Though, the question posed for consideration before the Constitution Bench was whether the rule called “different stages of appropriation” set out in Prem Nath Kapur and another Vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and others - (1996) 2 SCC 71 , is correct or whether the rule requires to be restated on the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act understood in the context of the general rules relating to appropriation and the rules relating to appropriation in execution of money decrees and mortgage decrees as a concomitant to the said exercise, the Constitution Bench specifically dealt with Order XXI Rules 1, 2, 4 and 5 and has rendered a definite conclusion on the application of the abovesaid provision after a detailed discussion in its elaborate judgment. Since, the issue has been dealt with in extenso in the said decision and the issue has been succinctly clarified by the Constitution Bench, we wish to refer to those relevant portions of the said decision in order to apply the ratio laid down therein to the facts of this case and test the correctness of the judgment impugned in this appeal. 16. 16. Thus, it is evident from the Constitutional Bench decision of the Honurable Supreme Court and the decision rendered in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited case mentioned supra, whenever amount is deposited interest has to be first adjusted and only thereafter, the balance amount has to be given credit to towards the principal amount. 17. Contra, the learned Government Advocate relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Deputy Collector (Rev.) Karaikal vs. Angeline Devadoss and others) 2003 2 MLJ 7 wherein in para Nos. 24 and 25, it was held as under:- "24. In Prem N. Kapur and another etc. vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & others J.T. (1995) 9 SC 23, a three Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court framed for consideration, the following questions:- The question, therefore, is when does the liability of the State to pay interest ceases? Whether the owner of the land is entitled to appropriate from the amount deposited towards costs and then towards interest and then principal amount and again interest on total amount? The Supreme Court, after considering the matter in detail, came to the conclusion that the ratio in Meghraj case (supra) is equally inapplicable to the appropriation of debt under the Act and that in view of the fact section 53 of the Act lays down that if a provision is inconsistent with the express provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, then that provision of C.P.C. shall stand excluded. The Court further held that the ratio laid therein is applicable only to a debtor and creditor in an ordinary civil suit governed by the provisions of the CPC. The Court ruled that Order 21 Rule 1 is inconsistent with the express provisions contained in Section 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, and hence, it cannot stand extended to the cases covered by the Act. The Court clearly laid down that Muthunni Mathai case (supra) cannot be taken to have laid down the correct law. It would be only proper for us to quote hereunder the relevant portions from the said Judgment. "It is clear from the scheme of the Act and the express language used in Sections 23(1) & (2) 34 and 28 and now Section 23(1-A) of the Act that each component is a distinct and separate one. It would be only proper for us to quote hereunder the relevant portions from the said Judgment. "It is clear from the scheme of the Act and the express language used in Sections 23(1) & (2) 34 and 28 and now Section 23(1-A) of the Act that each component is a distinct and separate one. When compensation is determined under Section 23(1), its quantification, though made at different levels, the liability to pay interest thereon arises from the date on which the quantification was so made but, as stated earlier, it relates back to the date of taking possession of the land till the date of deposit of interest on such excess compensation into the court. Equally, when the appellate court under Section 54 further enhances the compensation, interest is payable on such excess amount determined under Section 23(1). In other words, the liability to pay interest arises as and when the compensation is further enhanced and liability to pay interest would be co-terminus with the payment of the amount under Section 34 from the date of taking possession till date of payment or deposit or under Section 28 or Section 54 from the date of taking possession till the date of deposit of such excess amount into the court. The liability to pay interest is only on the excess amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) and not on the amount already determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 and paid to the party or deposited into the court or determined under Section 26 or Section 54 and deposited into the court or on solatium under Section 23(2) and additional amount under Section 23(1-A). Thus, we hold that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation determined under Section 23(1) continues to subsist until it is paid to the owner or interested person or deposited into court under Section 34 read with Section 31. Equally, the liability to pay interest on the excess amount of compensation determined by the Civil Court under Section 26 over and above the compensation determined by the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 subsists until it is deposited into Court. Proprio vigore in case of further enhancement of the compensation on appeal under section 54 to the extent of the said enhanced excess amount or part thereof, the liability subsists until it is deposited into court. Proprio vigore in case of further enhancement of the compensation on appeal under section 54 to the extent of the said enhanced excess amount or part thereof, the liability subsists until it is deposited into court. The liability to pay interest ceases on the date on which the deposit into court is made with the amount of compensation so deposited. As held earlier, the computation of the interest should be calculated from the date of taking possession till date of payment or deposit in terms of Section 34 or deposit into court in terms of Section 28, as the case may be. Equally, the right to make appropriation is indicated by necessary implication, by the award itself as the award or decree clearly mentions each of the items. When the deposit is made towards the specified amounts, the claimant/owner is not entitled to deduct from the amount of compensation towards costs, interest, additional amount under Section 23(1-A) with interest and then to claim the total balance amount with further interest. The ratio of Joginder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr : has no application to the facts of this case. Right to compensation and the quantification thereof are two distinct concepts. The right to compensation arises when the land vests in the state while its quantification may be concluded at a later stage through several hierarchical stages referred to hereinbefore. ... The ratio in Megharaj case [supra] is equally inapplicable to the appropriation of debt under the Act. It is seen that by operation of Section 53 of the Act, Order 21, Rule 1 being inconsistent with the express provisions contained in Sections 34 and 28, stands excluded. The ratio therein, therefore, is applicable only to a debtor and creditor in an ordinary civil suit governed by the provisions of the CPC. Order 21 Rule 1 being inconsistent with the express provisions contained in Section 34 and 28 of the Act, it cannot stand extended to the cases covered by the Act. It is unfortunate that these provisions were not brought to the attention of this Court when it decided Mathunni Mathai case [supra], which make all the difference. With due respect to our learned brethren who decided that case, we are, therefore, constrained to observe that Mathunni Mathai case cannot be taken to have laid down the correct law. ' 25. It is unfortunate that these provisions were not brought to the attention of this Court when it decided Mathunni Mathai case [supra], which make all the difference. With due respect to our learned brethren who decided that case, we are, therefore, constrained to observe that Mathunni Mathai case cannot be taken to have laid down the correct law. ' 25. Hence, the latest ruling of the Supreme Court (the Bench consisting of three Judges) is to the effect that the amount deposited is to be first adjusted towards the amount due towards the market value, solatium and then towards the amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and thereafter, the interest payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The further principle laid down is, once the amount is paid or deposited in court, the interest will stop running." 18. This decision of the Division Bench cannot be made applicable especially when the Division Bench rendered it's decision before the Constitutional Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court decided the issue. The Division Bench of this Court has therefore no occasion to refer to the Constitution Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court and therefore, the decision relied on by the learned Government Advocate cannot be made applicable to this case. 19. The only argument required to be considered now is whether the deposit made by the respondents as per the directions of this Court would entitle them to adjust the principal amount and thereafter the balance amount shall be given credit to payment towards interest. A perusal of the order passed by this Court in CRP (NPD) No. 1006 of 2006 dated 25.11.2006 would indicate that there is no specific direction issued regarding the manner in which the amount, which was directed to be deposited, shall be adjusted. Therefore, the interpretation given by the Court below to adjust the principal amount first is contrary to the Constitutional Bench decision of the Honurable Supreme Court mentioned above. This aspect of the matter was clarified in para-52 of the judgment of the constitutional bench of the Honurable Supreme Court extracted supra. In para-52, it was specifically held that 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. In para-52, it was specifically held that 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. In the absence of any such direction and if amount is deposited into the Court, then, on the basis of the outcome of the appeal in favour of the claimants/ revision petitioners herein, the amount has to be apportioned only towards principal first and thereafter towards interest. Thus, the issue involved in this case is governed by the Constitutional Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and in such event, the interpretation given by the court below, especially towards adjusting the amount deposited by the respondents, is not sustainable. 20. Before concluding, it has to be mentioned that due to the delay on the part of the respondents in depositing the compensation amount then and there, huge amount is made to be paid by the exchequer than the actual compensation amount payable to the claimants/revision petitioners herein. As far as the quantum of compensation so far paid by the respondents is concerned, it is tabulated hereunder. (i) Originally, a sum of Rs.1,10,874/- was awarded in favour of the claimants by the Land Acquisition Officer for having acquired their lands by passing an award on 29.12.1988. By adding interest and solatium, it comes to Rs.1,68,292/-. (ii) This compensation amount was enhanced by the Reference Court to the tune of Rs.12,53,000/- plus Rs.5,000/-towards value of the trees. By adding Rs.3,77,400/-towards solatium and Rs.2,74,106.00 towards interest, the total enhanced compensation amount worked out to Rs.19,09,506.00/- (iii) As regards deposit of amount, the first deposit of Rs.5,42,172/-was deposited only on 25.01.1994. Thereafter, Rs.5,42,140/- was deposited on 06.06.1994. For the third time, a sum of Rs.10,84,345/- was deposited on 07.02.1997. A sum of Rs.5,96,657/- was deposited on 04.07.2002 and lastly, a sum of Rs.25,07,069/-was deposited on 13.02.2010. Thus, a total sum of Rs.52,72,383/-has been deposited so far as against the original compensation amount of Rs.1,10,874/- which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.12,58,000/-. As per the calculation memo filed on behalf of the revision petitioners, still a sum of Rs.27,62,498.53 is due and payable by the respondents. Thus, a total sum of Rs.52,72,383/-has been deposited so far as against the original compensation amount of Rs.1,10,874/- which was enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs.12,58,000/-. As per the calculation memo filed on behalf of the revision petitioners, still a sum of Rs.27,62,498.53 is due and payable by the respondents. As discussed above, as per the constitutional bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India 2006 8 SCC 457 if there is no specific direction given by the Court, interest alone has to be adjusted towards the amount deposited. With this basis, when we analyse the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner, there is a minor error committed in arriving at the amount. Firstly, interest on solatium has to be charged only from 19.09.2001 and not prior to that date as per the decision rendered in Gurpreet Singh case.. However, in the calculation memo filed by the petitioner, petitioner has calculated interest payable by the respondent on solatium from the date of decree. Therefore, if this portion of the memo of calculation filed by the petitioner is altered, the amount payable to the petitioners will be worked out as under:- REVISED MEMO OF CALCULATION Compensation amount awarded by LAO at Rs.15,192/- per acre for 7.16 acres Rs. 1,08,774.00 Value of trees Rs. 2,100.00 Total market value Rs. 1,10,874.00 Additional amount U/sec. 23 (1-A) at 12% on Rs.1,10,874/- from 06.05.1986, the date of Sec.4 (1) notification to 29.02.1988, the date of passing of award for 1 year 9 months and 24 days Rs. 24,156.00 Solatium U/sec. 23 (2) at 30% on Rs.1,10,874/- Rs. 33,262.00 Total compensation awarded by L.A.O. Rs. 1,68,292.00 Enhanced compensation as awarded by Sub-Court, Udumalpet at Rs.1,75,000/- per acre for 7.16 acres Rs.12,53,000.00 Value of trees, as enhanced Rs. 5,000.00 Total market value Rs.12,58,000.00 Addl. Amount u/sec.23 (1-A) at 12% on Rs.12,58,000/- from 06.05.1986, the date of Sec. 4 (1) notification upto 29.02.1988, the date of passing of award by L.A.O. for 1 year, 9 months and 24 days Rs. 2,74,106.00 Total Rs.15,32,106.00 Balance Compensation to be paid Enhanced compensation 12,58,000.00 2,74,106.00 3,74,400.00 Less amount awarded and deposited by LAO in Sub-Court on 4.9.88 1,10,874.00 24,156.00 33,262.00 Total enhanced compensation Amount to be paid i) market value ii) 12% addl. Amount Rs.11,47,126.00 Rs. 2,74,106.00 Total Rs.15,32,106.00 Balance Compensation to be paid Enhanced compensation 12,58,000.00 2,74,106.00 3,74,400.00 Less amount awarded and deposited by LAO in Sub-Court on 4.9.88 1,10,874.00 24,156.00 33,262.00 Total enhanced compensation Amount to be paid i) market value ii) 12% addl. Amount Rs.11,47,126.00 Rs. 2,49,950.00 Rs.13,97,096.00 Principal amount for interest calculation upto 19.09.2001 without solatium as per the decision rendered in Gurpreet Singh case. Interest Calculation:- i) Interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.1,68,292/- (amount awarded by LAO) from 11.03.88, the date of taking possession till 04.09.1988, the date of deposit by LAO (178 days) as per Sec. 34 Rs. 7,386.00 ii) Interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.13,97,096.00 (enhanced compensation amount awarded by Sub Court) from 11.03.88, the date of taking possession till 10.03.1989 (for 1 year) as per Sec. 28 Rs. 1,25,736.84 iii) Interest at 15% p.a. on Rs.13,97,096/- from 11.3.89 to 25.01.1994, the date of 1st deposit of Rs.5,42,172/- for 4 years 10 months and 14 days as per Sec. 28 Rs.10,21,025.00 Total (i + ii + iii) Rs.11,46,761.84 Less Rs.5,42,172/- deposited on 25.01.1994 (1st deposit) Rs. 5,42,172.00 Balance Rs. 6,04,589.84 iv) Interest @ 15% p.a. on Rs.13,97,096.00 from26.01.1994 to 06.06.1994, the date of 2nd deposit of Rs.5,42,140/- for 4 months and 10 days as per Sec. 28 Rs. 75,675.80 Total (Rs.6,04,589.84 + Rs.75,675.80) Rs. 6,80,265.64 Less Rs.5,42,140/- deposited on 6.6.94(2nd deposit) Rs. 5,42,140.00 Balance Rs. 1,38,125.00 v) Interest at 15% p.a. on Rs.13,97,096.00 from 7.6.94 to 7.2.97, the date of 3rd deposit of Rs.10,84,345/- for 2 years, 8 months, as per Sec. 28 Rs. 5,58,837.09 Total Rs. 6,96,962.09 Less :Rs.10,84,345/- deposited on 7.2.97 (3rd deposit) Rs.10,84,345.00 (-) Rs. 3,87,382.91 Since the amount deposited is more than the interest payable, it has to be adjusted towards the principal i.e., Rs.17,41,214.00 Rs.17,41,214 – Rs.3,87,382.91 Rs.13,53,831.09 As per the decision of (Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India) 2006 8 SCC 457 interest on solatium commences only on 19.09.2001. Therefore the interest on principal now to be calculated upto 19.09.l2001 is by reducing the solatium amount already added i.e., Rs.13,53,831.09 – Rs.3,44,138/- Rs.10,09,693.00 vi) Interest payable on Rs.10,09,693/- from 08.02.1997 to 19.09.2001 @ 15% p.a. for 4 years, 7 months and 11 days Rs. 6,94,169.00 vii) Interest on Rs.13,53,831/- @ 15% p.a. from19.09.2001 to the next date of deposit i.e., Rs.5,96,657/- deposited on 04.07.2002 for 9 months and 15 days Rs. 1,60,745.00 Total Rs. 6,94,169.00 vii) Interest on Rs.13,53,831/- @ 15% p.a. from19.09.2001 to the next date of deposit i.e., Rs.5,96,657/- deposited on 04.07.2002 for 9 months and 15 days Rs. 1,60,745.00 Total Rs. 8,54,914.00 Less the amount of Rs.5,96,657/- (4th deposit) deposited on 04.07.2002 Rs. 5,96,657.00 Balance Rs. 2,58,257.00 viii) Interest on Rs.13,53,831/- @ 15% p.a. from04.07.2002 to 27.05.2010, the date of 5th deposit for 7 years, 10 months and 23 days Rs.15,79,480.00 Balance interest due upto 27.05.2010 Rs.18,47,737.00 Since the amount deposited i.e., Rs.25,07,069.00is more than the interest, amount should be deducted from Principal (Rs.25,07,069.00 – Rs.18,47,737.00) Rs. 6,59,332.00 This amount of Rs.6,59,332/- is to be deducted from the balance principal viz., Rs.13,53,831/- (Rs.13,53,831 – Rs.6,59,332.00) Rs. 6,94,500.00 ix) Interest from 27.05.2010 to till date i.e., 27.04.2014 for 3 years and 11 months and 15% per annum on Rs.6,94,500.00 Rs. 4,13,734.00 Balance amount of compensation payable to the petitioners as on the date of this judgment Rs.11,08,234.00 21. As the case is pending for quite long time, this Court feels that instead of remanding the matter to the Court below, the calculation itself has been worked out by this Court to avoid any further delay and to give a quietus to this case. 22. As mentioned above, due to the delay on the part of the respondents in depositing the compensation amount in time, huge amount was made to be paid by the exchequer than the actual compensation amount. This court is unhappy in the manner in which the officials of the respondents have dealt with this case especially in the matter of depositing the compensation amount. This only shows that the officials of the respondents are not familiar with the nuances of law, atleast in the matter of calculating and depositing the compensation amount in time. With the result, the lands which were sought to be acquired by issuing the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act during 1986 and acquired subsequently is dragging on till this date relating to payment of compensation amount. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to deposit/pay the sum of Rs.11,08,234/- mentioned above towards compensation payable to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without any further delay and to avoid any further payment of interest. 23. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents to deposit/pay the sum of Rs.11,08,234/- mentioned above towards compensation payable to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order without any further delay and to avoid any further payment of interest. 23. In the light of the calculation arrived at by this Court, mentioned supra, the Civil Revision Petition is partly allowed. No costs. The respondents are directed to deposit/pay the sum of Rs.11,08,234.00 before the court below without any further interest, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the amount is not deposited within four weeks, as ordered above, then the respondents have to pay/deposit the amount of Rs.11,08,234.00 with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum, which the respondents shall avoid.