JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned Central Government counsel and Mr. Bishwanath Majumder, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. De and Mr. D. C. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the Decree Holder-respondents respectively in CRP No.03 of 2018 and CRP No.02 of 2018 and CRP No.12 of 2018. 2. All these petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the controversies raised in these petitions are common and the determination of the liability to pay finally would depend upon the decision of those common issues which are as under: (i) Whether the interest on the solatium would be uniformly calculated w.e.f. 19.09.2001 (the date when the judgment in Sunder Vs. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 was pronounced)? (ii) Whether at the time of deposit of money if in the calculation sheet it is shown that under what head what money has been deposited would it be binding on the parties or in other words, the court would be governed by such division of deposit? 3. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned counsel who has appeared for the petitioners in CRP No.02 of 2018 (Union of India and Anr. vs. Sri Sunil Ch. Saha and Anr.) where the order dated 22.07.2016 delivered in Ex.(M) No.04 of 2005 by the executing court (the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, No.4) has been challenged, CRP No.03 of 2018 (Union of India vs. Sri Tripurendra Mohan Ganguly and Anr.) where the order dated 14.09.2017 delivered in Ex.(M) 10 of 2009 by the executing court (the Court of the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, No.2) has been challenged and CRP No.13 of 2017 (Union of India vs. Kalpana Sutradhar and Anr.) where the order dated 25.08.2015 delivered in Ex.(M) No.01 of 2005 by the executing court (the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, No.2) has been challenged. 4. Mr. 4. Mr. Biswanath Majumder, learned CGC has appeared in CRP No.12 of 2018 (Union of India vs. Sukhai Debbarma and Anr.) where the orders dated 17.11.2014, 12.06.2017, 25.08.2017 and 27.11.2017 passed in Ex.(M) No.09 of 2009 by the executing court (the Court of the Land Acquisition Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, No.2) relating to the attachment of the properties on the basis of the calculation sheet prepared by the awardee (the decree holder) have been challenged. 5. The controversy in all these cases hover around on two aspects as stated above. While preparing the calculation sheet, the interest on the solatium has been charged by the awardee (the decree holder) under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and the deposit that has been made by the petitioners against the specific head which is indicated in their calculation sheet was not accepted or taken into cognizance. The calculation has been made on adjusting the deposit first against the interest and thereafter the remainder of deposit with the principal award. The petitioners have emphatically submitted that the procedure that has been followed by the executing court is wholly erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. It has also been asserted that all consequential action, such as the order for attaching the properties of the petitioners requires to be interfered with and set aside. 6. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the petitioners has taken this court firstly to a decision of this court delivered in Union of India & Anr. vs. Sukhai Debbarma & Anr. (judgment and order dated 16.09.2014 delivered in CRP No.53 of 2014). Almost a closely related issue was addressed by the said judgment. While deciding the controversy it was observed that Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457 is an unambiguous guidance. Having referred to the passage, as extracted there, from Gurprit Singh (supra), it has been observed as under: “(1) Since the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree if the land reference Judge has rightly or wrongly specifically rejected the prayer for grant of interest on solatium then the Executing Court cannot grant such interest. (2) If the Land Acquisition Judge has specifically granted interest on solatium then it is payable from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, 1894. (2) If the Land Acquisition Judge has specifically granted interest on solatium then it is payable from the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the L. A. Act, 1894. (3) The Apex Court further held that there were a large number of cases where there is no specific reference to interest payable on solatium. There may also be cases where claim for interest on solatium had not been made and, therefore, there was no question of accepting or rejecting such a claim. In these cases the Apex Court held that the executing Court was free to follow the judgment of Sunder(supra) and grant interest on solatium but with the caveat that in such cases the interest would be awarded only from 19.09.2001 i.e. the date when Sunder’s case was decided. (4) The Apex Court also made it clear that the executing Court could award interest on solatium only in pending executions and where the execution proceedings had been disposed of, the matter could not be re-opened.” “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.” 7. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC has referred another passage from Gurpreet Singh in order to nourish his submission that if at the time of making deposit the money is shown to be adjusted against a particular head intimating the decree holder his intention the said money cannot be otherwise adjusted. The passage that has been relied by Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC from Gurpreet Singh (supra) reads as under: “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.” 8. Mr. We, thus, approve the ratio of Prem Nath Kapur (supra) on the aspect of appropriation.” 8. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC has shown the calculation sheet, the petitioners had submitted before the executing court at the time of making deposit and contended that since they had calculated in a particular way showing what amount of money they had deposited against what head, that has to be recognized and be followed by the execution court. The awardee (the decree holder) cannot proceed with his demand in the course of the execution of the award beyond that. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC while summing up his submission has stated that in the award no interest has been provided specifically against the solatium. Therefore, it has to be understood that no interest has been made against the solatium. Thus, the solatium may carry only interest from 19.09.2001, the date of pronouncement of Sunder’s case, not before that. According to Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC Gurpreet’s case has not left any space for doubting that principle and accordingly, the calculation sheet as submitted by the petitioners in the executing court has to be considered as accurate and in terms of law. Non-acceptance would be instrumental to inappropriate liability. 9. Mr. Bishwanath Majumder, learned CGC appearing in the CRP No.12 of 2018 has adopted the said submission as advanced by Mr. Bidyut Majumder, learned CGC. 10. In reply, Mr. A. De, learned counsel who has appeared in CRP No.03 of 2018 has submitted that the innovative submission made by Mr. Majumder may in the first blush appear very attractive, but in substance it does not carry any weight as these issues are no more res integra. The apex court, even by a subsequent decision has laid down the principles of appropriation. According to Mr. De, learned counsel who has been supported by Mr. D. C. Saha, learned counsel on all those aspects, while forming the award, all the components viz. (i) the land value (ii) the additional compensation under Section 23(1)(A) of the L. A. Act and (iii) Solatium under Section 23(2) of the L. A. Act have been qualified by a general statement that the enhanced amount shall carry interest. According to Mr. De, learned counsel in all the three components as a result of enhancement in the land rate, had been substantially enhanced. According to Mr. De, learned counsel in all the three components as a result of enhancement in the land rate, had been substantially enhanced. When the declaration as to the rate of interest has generally qualified all the components there cannot be any alternative interpretation that the solatium has not been provided with interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. De, learned counsel has further submitted that after Sunder’s case, there cannot be any doubt. Solatium shall carry interest in terms of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act meaning the interest shall be calculated from the date of the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. It will be calculated like any other components and not separately because in Sunder’s case the proposition has been well consolidated by stating that all the three components forming the compensation shall carry interest in the manner as provided under Section 34 of the L. A. Act. 11. Mr. De, learned counsel has referred two decisions of the apex court viz. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. R. S. Avtar Singh and Company reported in AIR 2013 SC 252 and V. Kala Bharathi and Ors. vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Chitoor reported in (2014) 5 SCC 577 . Mr. De, learned counsel has submitted that mere for submission of the calculation sheet along with the deposit, the requiring department, the petitioner herein, cannot claim as a matter of right that their calculation sheet has to be followed and no other calculation sheet should be followed. It is the sole discretion of the execution court to determine whether the award has been fully satisfied or not. Even the calculation sheet as submitted by the awardee (the decree holder) may not be relied by the executing court. In these cases, the executing court after examining the calculation sheet of the awardee (the decree holder) would ascertain the liability. In that exercise, the main plank would be whether the well-entrenched principles of appropriation have followed or not. Mr. De, learned counsel has further submitted that the submission as advanced by the petitioners is wholly without substance. To buttress his contention further, he has referred to the following passages from Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) where the apex court having appreciated the precedents including the Gurpreet Singh (supra) has enunciated the law in the following manner: “24. Mr. De, learned counsel has further submitted that the submission as advanced by the petitioners is wholly without substance. To buttress his contention further, he has referred to the following passages from Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) where the apex court having appreciated the precedents including the Gurpreet Singh (supra) has enunciated the law in the following manner: “24. 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. 25. 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. 26. In Gurpreet Singh (supra) at paragraph 14, the implication of Order 21 Rule 1 vis-à-vis the related provisions under Order 24 and Order 34 have been set out which is to the following effect: “14. Now, we may consider the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) that have relevance to the issue. In Gurpreet Singh (supra) at paragraph 14, the implication of Order 21 Rule 1 vis-à-vis the related provisions under Order 24 and Order 34 have been set out which is to the following effect: “14. Now, we may consider the provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) that have relevance to the issue. The rule of appropriation in respect of amounts deposited in court or in respect of payment into court, is contained in Order 24 of the Code at the pre-decretal stage and in Order 21 Rule 1 at the post-decretal stage. Though, we are not directly concerned with it, we may notice that special provisions relating to mortgages are found in Order 34 of the Code. Under Order 24 Rule 1, a defendant in a suit for recovery of a debt may at any stage of the suit deposit in court such sum of money as he considers a satisfaction in full of the claim in the plaint. Rule 2 thereof provides for issue of notice of deposit to the plaintiff through the court and for payment out of the amounts to the plaintiff if he applies for the same. Rule 3 specifically states that no interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on any sum deposited by the defendant from the date of such deposit, whether the sum deposited is in full discharge of the claim or it falls short thereof. Rule 4 enables the plaintiff to accept the deposit as satisfaction in part and allows him to pursue his suit for what he claims to be the balance due, subject to the consequences provided for therein regarding costs. It also deals with the procedure when the plaintiff accepts the payment in full satisfaction of his claim.” 12. Mr. De, learned counsel has further referred a passage from V. Kala Bharathi (supra) where the apex court having considered the ratio of the Constitutional Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh (supra) where an identical question in respect of Order 21 Rule 1, CPC was considered, has held that if the amount deposited by the judgment debtor falls short of their decreetal amount, the decree holder is entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards interest then towards cost and subsequently towards the principal amount due under the decree. It has been held by the supreme court succinctly in the manner that – “We are of the opinion that the appellants herein are entitled to get the amount awarded by the executing court as the amount deposited by the judgment debtor fell short of the decreetal amount”. After such appropriation, the decree holder is entitled to interest only to the extent of the unpaid principal amount. Hence, after appropriation, further interest be calculated on the unpaid principal amount only. 13. Mr. D. C. Saha, learned counsel has added that when the petitioners failed to make good of the short fall, then the executing court has in one execution proceeding (subject matter of CRP No.12 of 2018) issued the warrant for attachment for appropriating the short-fall. 14. Having regard to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that the proposition of the petitioner is wholly erratic inasmuch as on reading of the award, this court does not find any riddle to decipher whether the interest has been granted on the solatium or not. Following the syntax or the pattern, in terms of English grammar, the sentence since qualified the previous sentences it becomes amply clear that the enhanced amount including solatium shall carry interest. Further the apex court decision has not left any stone unturned to declare that the general principle of appropriation that the first when the deposit is made for satisfying a decree has to be adjusted against the interest, thereafter against the cost and finally against the principal amount. It is found in the same process that if any amount has not been paid by the judgment debtor (the requiring department here) through the Land Acquisition Collector then the execution court can resort to the coercive measure for realizing the same amount. Therefore, this court does not find any infirmity in the process as challenged in this batch of revision-petitions. 15. Notwithstanding what has been observed above, this court is of the view that three months time shall be granted to the petitioners for make good of their shortfall and the coercive action as has been set in motion by the executing court shall be kept in abeyance during that three months. 15. Notwithstanding what has been observed above, this court is of the view that three months time shall be granted to the petitioners for make good of their shortfall and the coercive action as has been set in motion by the executing court shall be kept in abeyance during that three months. In the meanwhile, meaning within the three months from the day when the executing court shall receive a copy of this order, the petitioners (the judgment debtors) shall be at liberty to make up the short fall by making deposit in the executing court. Subject to what has been observed above, all these petitions stand dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.