JUDGMENT S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - The facts and law involved in both of the appeals being identical, they are taken up together for disposal by a common judgment. 2. Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 as well as Mr. S. Saha, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The present appeals have been filed by the original claimants seeking to challenge the judgment and award dated 08.05.2019 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, South Tripura, Belonia (Learned LA Judge for short) in LA (Ref.) No.76 of 2017 and LA (Ref.) No.77 of 2017 whereby the learned LA Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the LA Collector for acquisition of their land from Rs.80,000/- to Rs.3,40,000/- per kani along with other statutory benefits. 4. Aggrieved claimants have preferred these appeals claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.80,00,000/- per kani. 5. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the claimant appellants submits that the land in question was acquired for extension of the existing playground of Hrishyamukh H.S. school in Hrishyamukh mouja. According to learned counsel, the school is situated in an ideal location having easy access to the main roads and surrounded by commercial buildings and other institutions. Moreover, considering the shape and utility of the land, it has been acquired for the purpose of extension of the playground of the H.S. school. Counsel, therefore, contends that the learned LA Judge should have considered the fact that the land is of great potential value, inasmuch as, it is situated at an ideal location having main roads on all sides and other amenities like proximity with health care centres, banks, shops etc. 6. Further contention raised by the learned counsel of the appellants is that the assessment note of the LA Collector would indicate that several sale transactions were considered for the acquired land. One of those sale transaction in Sl. No.4 of the assessment note of the LA Collector is sale deed No.1-232/09 dated 11.02.2009 which represents the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani of a land situated at a distance of only 100 meters away from the acquired land. One of those sale transaction in Sl. No.4 of the assessment note of the LA Collector is sale deed No.1-232/09 dated 11.02.2009 which represents the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani of a land situated at a distance of only 100 meters away from the acquired land. Counsel contends that since in the assessment note it is reflected that land at a distance of 100 meters from the acquired land is rated Rs.10,00,000/- per kani, the LA Collector should not have taken a different course without justifying the same. In the course of his submissions, Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has submitted that the sale instances which have been examined by the government also include sale deed No.1-1303 dated 19.09.2009 which is rated Rs.80,00,000/- per kani. Counsel contends that the government did not consider those deeds on the ground that the land of those deeds are far away from the acquired land but nowhere in the assessment note, distance between those lands and the acquired land has been mentioned. Counsel argues that the sale transaction representing the highest value at the relevant time should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. Counsel has argued that none of these parameters were taken into consideration either by the LA Collector or by the learned LA Judge and therefore, the judgment rendered by the learned LA Judge is completely erroneous which should be set aside. 7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, counsel of the appellants further submits that since the land was in proper shape and well developed, it was acquired for extension of school playground where the students would be able to play any outdoor game without any difficulty or hazard. Counsel contends that since the acquired land was a well developed land, the learned LA Judge should not have made 66% deduction to the value of the land determined by him. Counsel contends that since the acquired land is a fully developed land which has been acquired for extension of the playground of an educational institution falls within the purview of 'no deduction' and as such the deduction made by the learned LA Judge is wholly erroneous. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Trishala Jain & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Trishala Jain & Anr. vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. reported in (2011) 6 SCC 47 wherein the Apex Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 has observed as under on the point of deduction: '41. The cases where the acquired land itself is fully developed and has all essential amenities before acquisition, for the purpose for which it is acquired requiring no additional expenditure for its development, falls under the purview of cases of 'no deduction'. Furthermore, where the evidence led by the parties is of such instances where the compensation paid is comparable, i.e. exemplar lands have all the features comparable to the proposed acquired land, including that of size, is another category of cases where principle of 'no deduction' may be applied. These may be the cases where least or no deduction could be made. Such cases are exceptional and/or rare as normally the lands which are proposed to be acquired for development purposes would be agricultural lands and/or semi or haphazardly developed lands at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, which is the relevant time to be taken into consideration for all purposes and intents for determining the market value of the land in question. 42. This Court in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, [ (1991) 4 SCC 506 ], stated that it is permissible to take into account exemplars of even small developed plots for determining the value of a large tract of land acquired, if the latter is also fully developed with all the facilities requiring little or no further development. In the facts and circumstances of that case the Court felt that it was not appropriate to resort to deduction of 1/3rd value of the comparable sale instances as development charges.' 8. Counsel has also contended that the learned LA Judge did not appreciate the fact that the LA Collector examined various bonafide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition for determination of value of the acquired land. In the assessment note, it has been clearly indicated that among the several exemplars examined by the LA Collector, the highest of the exemplars is deed No.1-1301 which is rated at Rs.1,00,00,000/- per kani. In the assessment note, it has been clearly indicated that among the several exemplars examined by the LA Collector, the highest of the exemplars is deed No.1-1301 which is rated at Rs.1,00,00,000/- per kani. Counsel contends that since it was bonafide transaction, the LA Collector should have considered the same. In support of his contention, counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot & Ors.vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: '16. This Court in Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa, (2010) 13 SCC 710 , after relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC) and Hans Raj (1994) 5 SCC 734 held in para 20 as under: [Anjani Molu Desai case (2010) 13 SCC 710 ] '20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered.' Again, in para 23, it was held that 'the averaging of the prices under the two sale deeds was not justified.' 17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.' 9. On the issue of reduction of the market value of the acquired land by the learned LA Judge on the ground of development charges, Mr. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.' 9. On the issue of reduction of the market value of the acquired land by the learned LA Judge on the ground of development charges, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel of the appellant submits that deduction of 66% of the value of the land for development charges made by the learned LA Judge is not sustainable since the learned LA Judge did not consider the parameters laid down in various judicial decisions for such deduction. Counsel has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Reddy Veerana vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2225 to nourish his contention that a land which is fully developed, 66% deduction of the market value is not justifiable under any circumstances. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has held as under: '28. Be as it may, it is uncontroverted from the material available on record that, the scheduled piece of land was allotted by NOIDA to respondent No. 7 in absence of formal acquisition, whereafter, the said scheduled land was developed in the line of commercial hub and even a mall was constructed on it. Hence, in our considered opinion, the quantum of deduction of development charges should have been evaluated by High Court from the contextual perspective of all the relevant factors, which clearly has not been done in the instant case. Nevertheless, to cure the anomaly, it is trite at this juncture to refer to the doctrine enunciated by this Court in case of Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, (1991) 4 SCC 506 : ( AIR 1992 SC 2298 )?, wherein while dealing with the question of principle of deduction in the land value, this Court held as follows - '11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle, it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. In applying the principle, it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. 12. .....The land involved in these cases is of even level and fit for construction without the necessity of levelling or reclamation. The High Court has itself concluded on the evidence that the lands covered by the acquisition are located by the side of the National Highway and the Southern Railway Staff Quarters with the town planning trust road on the north. The neighbouring areas are already developed ones and houses have been constructed, and the land has potential value for being used as building sites. Having found that the land is to be valued only as building sites and having stated the advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area, the High Court should not have applied the principles of deduction. It is not in every case that such deduction is to be allowed. Where the acquired land is in the midst of already developed land with amenities of roads, electricity etc., the deduction in the value of the comparable land is not warranted. 13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involved in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances, it is possible to utilize the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available, and it did not require any further development. We, are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs 10 per sq. yard to Rs 6.50 per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The appellants, therefore, succeed.' 29. Further, this Court in "Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, (2011) 6 SCC 47 : ( AIR 2011 SC 2458 ) ?, while dealing with determination of compensation and deduction of development charges held as under - '44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction. Similarly, the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilization, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits. Further, this Court in "Kasturi and Ors. Similarly, the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilization, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits. Further, this Court in "Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 : ( AIR 2003 SC 202 ) ?, while dealing with various factual factors to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges held as under - 7.........However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.' The aforesaid judgments postulate general factors that are to be taken into consideration for deciding the quantum of deduction of development charges. As iterated above, such factors majorly include the nature of land to be acquired, the extent of area to be acquired, the extent of development in the adjoining land as well as land proposed to be acquired, the commercial potentiality and so on. Therefore, deduction of development charge in the instant case should have been made while considering the said factors. However, it is made clear that this observation is being made in peculiar facts of the present case and not in general.' 10. Mr. Therefore, deduction of development charge in the instant case should have been made while considering the said factors. However, it is made clear that this observation is being made in peculiar facts of the present case and not in general.' 10. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel of the appellants, therefore, urges the Court to set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned LA Judge and enhance the amount of compensation payable to the appellants for acquisition of their land in terms of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited to supra. 11. Counsel appearing for the LA Collector (respondent No.1) and the State counsel representing respondent No.2 have supported the judgment and award rendered by the learned LA Judge. According to learned counsel, learned LA Judge having relied on the sale transaction representing the highest value has determined the compensation payable to the claimant appellants at the rate of Rs.10,00,000/- per kani and following the established principles of deduction, made appropriate deductions on development charges of the acquired land. Counsel contends that the impugned judgment is well founded and there is no ground to interfere with the said judgment. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court for dismissing the appeals. 12. Considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties and perused the entire record. 13. Claimant Smt. Nantu Rani Majumder who is the appellant in LA App. No.01 of 2021 has examined herself as PW-1 before the trial court in LA (Ref.) No.76 of 2017. It has been stated by her that 0.11 acres Nal class of land from CS plot No.4143/6816 in Hrishyamukh mouja, Belonia sub-division has been acquired from her for the purpose of extension of the playground of Hrishyamukh H.S. school. She has further stated that in the course of hearing before the LA Collector, she submitted several sale instances to show that at the relevant time, value of the acquired land was much higher than the rate proposed by the LA Collector. She claimed that the acquired land was inseparable from the existing playground of the school and as per the valuation chart prepared by the District Administration, value of the land at that time was Rs.70,00,000/- per kani. According to her, for 0.11 acres of land, she was entitled to Rs.19,25,000/- at the rate of Rs.70,00,000/- per kani. She claimed that the acquired land was inseparable from the existing playground of the school and as per the valuation chart prepared by the District Administration, value of the land at that time was Rs.70,00,000/- per kani. According to her, for 0.11 acres of land, she was entitled to Rs.19,25,000/- at the rate of Rs.70,00,000/- per kani. During her cross-examination, she produced the certified copy of the maps of sheet No.6 and 4 which was marked as Exbt.1 and 2 respectively. The valuation chart produced by her was marked as Exbt.3. The cross-examiner suggested to her that compensation assessed by the LA Collector was adequate which was denied by her. 14. In the said LA(Ref.) No.76 of 2017 which has culminated into LA App. No.01 of 2021, the respondents adduced the evidence of only 1 (one) DW who is a Revenue Inspector in the office of the LA Collector. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that pursuant to the requisition received from the Directorate of School Education, land measuring 0.11 acres was acquired from the appellant for extension of existing playground of Hrishyamukh H.S. school. Appellant claimed Rs.80,00,000/- per kani but the LA Collector determined compensation at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kani. 15. In LA (Ref.) No.77 of 2017 which has culminated into LA App. No.02 of 2021, appellant Debabrata Majumder gave almost same evidence as PW-1. He stated that 0.43 acres of land classified as Nal from CS plot No.4144/3096 was acquired from him for the same purpose viz. for extension of the playground of the Hrishyamukh H.S. school for which he was given compensation by the LA Collector at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kani. He claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.70,00,000/- per kani and according to him, he would be entitled to Rs.75,25,000/- for 0.43 acres of land. During his cross-examination, he got the same documents admitted into evidence as Exbt.1, Exbt.2 and Exbt.3. 16. On behalf of the respondents, the same person appeared as DW-1 and gave verbatim evidence. 17. The learned LA Judge took up 5 (five) references together including LA (Ref.) No.76 of 2017 and LA (Ref.) No.77 of 2017 from which the present appeals have arisen and by a common judgment and award dated 08.05.2019, decided those appeals. Learned LA Judge relied on sale deed No.1-232/09 dated 11.02.2009 appearing in Sl. 17. The learned LA Judge took up 5 (five) references together including LA (Ref.) No.76 of 2017 and LA (Ref.) No.77 of 2017 from which the present appeals have arisen and by a common judgment and award dated 08.05.2019, decided those appeals. Learned LA Judge relied on sale deed No.1-232/09 dated 11.02.2009 appearing in Sl. No.4 of the assessment note of the LA Collector and held that land of the said sale instance was proximate to the acquired land and the said sale transaction represented the highest value. But, the learned LA Judge deducted 66% from the price of the land towards development charges of the acquired land and thereby reduced the amount to Rs.3,40,000/- per kani for the acquired land and awarded compensation to the claimant appellants accordingly along with other statutory benefits. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment of learned LA Judge which reads as under: '12. The purpose of acquisition in this case is, however, quite different from the above noted case law and in the instant case, land was acquired for extension of existing play ground of Hrishyamukh H.S. School. So, definitely the acquired land being Nal land as well as not far away from the main road has got its own potentiality. From the evidence on record, I find that the deed as mentioned in Sl.No.4 of the assessment note was consulted by the L.A. Collector while determining the compensation and the value of the lands in the deed was Rs.10,00,000/- per kani. But finally the L.A. Collector assessed the value of the Nal class of land as Rs.80,000/- per kani and @ Rs.1,12,000/- per kani. So, relying the decision in Chandrashekar (D) by Lrs. And Ors. v. Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbargo & Anr., 2012 AIR SCW 73 for the first component under the head of development I consider deduction of 33% should be made. Likewise for the second component under the head of development a further deduction of 33% can additionally be made. So total deduction of (33 + 33) = 66% is taken up here to calculate the compensation as the just and reasonable one. In this case the deed No.1-232 dated 11-02-2009 as mentioned in Sl. No.4, shows that the class of land is Nal and the rate per kani is Rs.10,00,000/- and it is within 200 meters from the acquired land. In this case the deed No.1-232 dated 11-02-2009 as mentioned in Sl. No.4, shows that the class of land is Nal and the rate per kani is Rs.10,00,000/- and it is within 200 meters from the acquired land. The acquired land is also of Nal class. So, the deed No.1-232 dated 11-02-2009 as mentioned in Sl. No.4 being the highest exemplar and executed prior to the notification cannot be ignored. Thus, I accept the deed. 13. The lands of Deed No.1-232 as mentioned in Sl. No.4 of the assessment note bear a value @ Rs.10,00,000/- per kani and it is the highest exemplar deed of this case. So, if I deduct 66% thereof as deduction then rate is reduced to Rs.3,40,000/- per kani which is thus taken to be the value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition. The claimants of these five cases are thus entitled to get compensation @ Rs.3,40,000/- per kani. The referring claimants are thus entitled to get all other statutory benefits and accordingly all the issues are decided in favour of the referring claimants. ORDER 14. Now, therefore, the references are allowed. The referring claimants in all these cases are entitled to get enhanced compensation @ Rs.3,40,000/- (Rupees three lakhs forty thousand) only per kani for the acquired land. In addition the referring claimant are also entitled to get 30% Solatium, and 12% further enhanced amount of compensation upon the said land value computing from the date of notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act, 1894 upto the date of award by Collector or the date of taking possession of land whichever is earlier, upon the excess amount of land value as per section 23(2) and section 23(1-A) of the Act respectively. The claimants shall further get interest @9% per annum from the date of taking over possession for one year and thereafter @15% per annum after expiry of said one year till payment upon said excess amount of compensation as per section 28 of the Act. As per law laid down by Hon?ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008 AIR SCW 5947, the interest will also be counted on additional amount as awarded under section 23(1A) above and upon the solatium awarded under section 23(2) of the Act. As per law laid down by Hon?ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008 AIR SCW 5947, the interest will also be counted on additional amount as awarded under section 23(1A) above and upon the solatium awarded under section 23(2) of the Act. Each of the claimant will also get Rs.1000/- as cost under section 27 of the Act. The Opposite Party is liable to make the payment to the referring claimants.' 18. It is true that even though the claimant appellants have claimed that they produced several sale instances during the trial of the case, but none of such sale instances has been admitted into evidence. But undisputedly, 9 (nine) sale instances have been examined by the LA Collector for determining the compensation of the acquired land. Those sale deeds represent the different value ranging from Rs.16,000/- per kani to Rs.1,00,00,000/- per kani. Admittedly, land of sale deed No.1-232/09 dated 11.02.2009 appearing in Sl. No.4 in the assessment note is within 100 meters from the acquired land. The distance between the land of the other sale instances and the acquired land is not known because there is no reflection on this point in the assessment note. Neither the appellants nor the respondents have adduced any evidence in this regard. Therefore, the sale deed No.1-232 of 2009 dated 11.02.2009 is the most reliable sale exemplar in terms of its proximity to the acquired land. The said deed is also representing the highest value. Therefore, there is no wrong in the judgment of the learned LA Judge, inasmuch as, the learned LA Judge relied on the said sale exemplar. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshrnamrna Rao Bahadur, Ranee of Vuyyur vs. the Collector of Madras reported in (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC) held as under: '.......where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have taken in this case.' 19. But, insofar as the deductions made by the learned LA Judge towards development charges of the acquired land is concerned, the learned LA Judge erred in deducting 66% from the value of the land towards development charge. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have taken in this case.' 19. But, insofar as the deductions made by the learned LA Judge towards development charges of the acquired land is concerned, the learned LA Judge erred in deducting 66% from the value of the land towards development charge. 20. Uncontrovertedly, the land of the claimant appellants has been acquired for extension of the playground of the H.S. school. Level of the land is equal to the level of the existing playground and the shape of the acquired land is also same with the shape of the existing playground. It is not a case of either of the parties that the acquired land has to be developed to bring it into shape in order to make it suitable as a playground of the school. The land does not require any levelling. It does not also require any expenditure for any other purpose like creation of civic amenities such as electricity, water etc. Deduction can be applied only on account of carrying out these development activities. Since, the acquired land does not involve any expenditure for such development activities, it was improper to deduct 66% from the value of the acquired land. Even then, some expenditure is likely to be incurred to integrate the acquired land with the school playground. Therefore, the deduction towards development charges of the acquired land is reduced from 66% to 10%. 21. Thus, the award passed by the learned LA Judge by the impugned judgment is enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- per kani from which 10% deduction shall be made towards development charges of the acquired land. The claimant appellants shall be entitled to all other benefits awarded by the learned LA Judge. 22. In terms of the above, the appeals stand disposed of. The respondents are directed to deposit the entire decretal amount in terms of this judgment with the Registry of this Court within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today after deduction of the amount already paid by them, if any. On deposit of the award, the Registry shall disburse the same to the appellants by transferring the amount to their individual bank accounts on verification of their identity. Interim order(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.