ORDER : 1. These applications are preferred by the petitioners-original claimants challenging the order dated 01.03.2012 passed below Exhibit 1 in Special Execution Petition by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Godal, Rajkot, whereby the petitioners were not granted interest at the rate of 15% on the amount deposited by the respondent-State of Gujarat. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 2.1 The Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1981. Section 6 notification was passed on 24.04.1984. Land Acquisition Officer passed a common award on 03.04.1986 awarding compensation at varied rates between Rs.7.50 to Rs.11 per sq. mtr. The claimants sought Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court allowed such References and awarded compensation at the rate ranging between Rs.65 to Rs.75 per sq. mtr. with deduction of 1/3rd amount. The State Government preferred bunch of appeals. The claimants filed cross-objections. These proceedings came to be disposed of by a common judgment dated 01.10.2004 by the Division Bench of the High Court. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:- “9. In view of the aforesaid settled position of law and the above discussion of facts in evidence, the appeals are required to be allowed and no substance could be found in the cross-objections of the original claimants. Basing the market value on the agreement to sale at Ex.33 in respect of the lands which are assigned highest value all throughout, the market price of the lands bearing survey Nos.112/2 and 112/3 is fixed at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr; whereas the market price of the lands of the rest of the survey numbers is fixed at Rs.27.50 per sq. mtr. after considering potentiality, vicinity of the residential societies, prevailing market prices of small residential plots in the areas and the status of the lands in question as irrigated bagayat lands with wells. The order to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- for each well in the lands bearing survey Nos.112/2, 112/3, 109/3 and 103/3 is set aside. Accordingly, the respondent claimants shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. in respect of the acquired lands of survey Nos.112/2 and 112/3 in Land Reference Cases Nos.683/88, 684/88, 685/88, 686/88, 687/88 & 688/88 and in the remaining LRC Nos.7/87, 79/87, 80/87, 81/87 and 15/87 the compensation shall be at the rate of Rs.27.50 per sq. mtr. Accordingly, the respondent claimants shall be entitled to compensation at Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. in respect of the acquired lands of survey Nos.112/2 and 112/3 in Land Reference Cases Nos.683/88, 684/88, 685/88, 686/88, 687/88 & 688/88 and in the remaining LRC Nos.7/87, 79/87, 80/87, 81/87 and 15/87 the compensation shall be at the rate of Rs.27.50 per sq. mtr. The additional amount of compensation shall be worked out after deducting the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the same lands. The claimant respondents shall be entitled to additional amounts under Sections 23 (1-A) and 23 (2) of the Act with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date possession was taken, for a period of one year, and, at the rate of 15% p.a. for the period thereafter till realization with proportionate cost. The impugned order dated 30.4.1996 shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The cross-objections are rejected with no order as to costs. 2.2 It is undisputed that pending such appeals before the High Court, Government had deposited entire compensation with attendant benefits such as soletium and 12% under Section 23(2) of the Act before the Reference Court. When therefore, the High Court reduced the compensation granted by the Reference Court, the question of computation of compensation with soletium, 12% and interest came up for consideration before the Reference Court in execution proceedings, the claimants argued that the deposit made by the Government before the Reference Court would not constitute payment to the claimants and that therefore, interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% should be paid to the claimants till the compensation was actually paid over to them. This contention was not accepted by the Executing Court in the impugned order. The Court noted that the amounts were deposited in two lots, on 30.04.1996 and on 04.12.1996. According to the Executing Court, in view of provisions contained in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants would not be entitled to interest beyond such periods. This contention was not accepted by the Executing Court in the impugned order. The Court noted that the amounts were deposited in two lots, on 30.04.1996 and on 04.12.1996. According to the Executing Court, in view of provisions contained in Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants would not be entitled to interest beyond such periods. The Court, therefore, while recalculating the principle amount of compensation and matching other benefits such as soletium and 12% under Section 23(2) of the Act, held that the claimants of Civil Revision Application No. 208 of 2012 would be entitled to total amount of Rs.14,23,420/-, out of which Rs.9,00,000/- was already paid and amount yet to be paid therefore come to Rs.5,23,420/-. Similarly it was held that the claimants of Civil Revision Application No. 209 of 2012 are entitled to Rs.3,14,999/-, and for Civil Revision Application No. 212 of 2012, claimants were held to be entitled to Rs.6,83,558/-and claimants of Civil Revision Application No. 292 of 2012 are entitled to Rs.7,37,924/-. 3. Learned Counsel Shri Mangukiya vehemently contended that the Executing Court committed serious error in not awarding interest for the entire period till the differential compensation amount with soletium and matching 12% was actually paid over to the claimants. He submitted that the High Court had provided for such interest till actually realization. In the context of the present case, realization must mean actual payment to the claimants. He further pointed out that in any case, the amounts remained invested in the Fixed Deposits after deposit by the Government. The trial Court has not even provided for such interest to be paid over to the claimants. 4. It was submitted by learned AGP Ms. Tripathi that this Court, in similar facts, vide order dated 27.07.2015 passed in Civil Revision Application No. 397 of 2014 has interpreted the words “till realization” as per the order passed by the Division Bench while disposing of the first appeal. 5. Learned AGP Ms. Tripathi invited attention of the Court to the findings given in the said order by the Coordinate Bench of this Court which reads as under : “4… … … … … The intention of the High Court never was to provide for continued liability of interest on the acquiring body even beyond the period when such amounts were already deposited before the appropriate Court. Quite apart from Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the very directions of the High Court were itself quite clear. The term 'realization' cannot be seen synonymous with actual payment to the claimants.” 6. It was therefore submitted that in view of the above, no interference is required to be made in the impugned order passed by the Executing Court as the claimants are not entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% after the entire amount is deposited by the respondent-State Government. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the documents on record, the only question which arises for consideration before this Court is, whether the claimant is entitled to the interest @15% even after the amount is deposited by the respondent-State Government with the Court till the actual payment to the claimant? 8. In this context, the issue is already concluded by the judgement and order dated 27.07.2015 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Civil Revision Application No. 397 of 2014 wherein in case of Savjibhai Kalabhai Vadodaraia and others vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., this Court has held as under : “4. Having thus heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, simple question is were claimants entitled to interest at the statutory rate of 9% for first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% from the date of the award /taking over possession till such amount was released in their favour after the High Court disposed of the Government appeals? Such question must be answered in the context of the facts noted above. As noted, the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, which along with all attendant benefits was deposited by the Government before the said Court, was reduced by the judgment of the High Court when the said appeal was allowed in part. The Government had made such deposits in two installments, on 30.04.1996 and 04.12.1996. Once the Government made such deposits, it was rid-off carrying any further burden of interest at the rate of 9% for first year and at 15% thereafter. Even the High Court in the judgment, never provided for such interest on the principle compensation. The Government had made such deposits in two installments, on 30.04.1996 and 04.12.1996. Once the Government made such deposits, it was rid-off carrying any further burden of interest at the rate of 9% for first year and at 15% thereafter. Even the High Court in the judgment, never provided for such interest on the principle compensation. Later portion of the judgment, when it referred to the additional amounts under Section 23(1A), i.e. soletium and 23(2), i.e. 12% per year between notification under Section 4 and actual award, only was by way of clarification since there was some legal debate at earlier point of time whether such amounts would be carrying statutory interest. The intention of the High Court never was to provide for continued liability of interest on the acquiring body even beyond the period when such amounts were already deposited before the appropriate Court. Quite apart from Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the very directions of the High Court were itself quite clear. The term 'realization' cannot be seen synonymous with actual payment to the claimants.” 9. As the facts of the case arising in these Civil Revision Applications are identical, the aforesaid order is also applied in the facts of the present case and it is held that the claimants are not entitled to the interest at the rate of 15% beyond the period of such amount is deposited by the respondent as the term “realization” cannot be treated as synonymous with actual payment to the claimant. 10. In view of the above these applications are devoid of any merits and are accordingly dismissed.