JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J. :

1. Leave granted.

2. Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, "the Act"] acquiring large track of land including the land belonging to the appellants, was published on February 5,1973. On October 9, 1975, the Collector made his award determining compensation @Rs. 10,080/- per acre. On reference under Section 18, the Civil Court, by award and decree dated January 2, 1979, confirmed the award of the Collector. In another reference of the co-sharers, the District Judge by his award and decree dated January 24, 1980 enhanced the compensation. On further revision, the High Court by order dated May 23, 1983 determined the compensation @ Rs.24,000/- per acre while dismissing the appeal of the respondent-Corporation. On January 9, 1975, after the award was made, the Collector paid the compensation including solatium and interest determined thereon. After the High Court enhanced the compensation in revision, the same was deposited on January 14,1984. It is not necessary to dilate but suffice it to mention that the appellants by way of revision claimed compensation for damages for severance of other lands from acquired land as provided under clause thirdly of Section 23 (1). In another revision, the appellants claimed solatium and interest on damages for severance of the lands which was also granted by the High Court. In yet another revision, the High Court enhanced solatium and interest and additional amount under Sections 23 (2), 28 and 23 (1 -A) as amended by Act 68 of 1984. The appellants laid execution, firstly, after appropriating the amount received towards costs, then towards interest on the total compensation and solatium and then for compensation in respect of the lands. Executing Court granted the relief, but the High Court in revision set aside the order dated March 11, 1987 in Civil Revision No.3814 of 1986 and directed the Executing Court to dispose of the matter in the light of the law laid down therein. Thus these appeals by special leave. Another Bench of this Court issued notice suo motu on the amounts awarded towards severance charges, interest and solatium thereon and additional benefits under the Amendment Act.

3. Shri Pankaj Kalra, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the present controversy having been concluded by a recent judgment of this Court in Mathunni Mathaiv. Hindustan Organic Chemicals [JT 1995 (4) SC 233], is no longer res integra. He further contended that the appellants are entitled to appropriate the costs from the principal amount of compensation, then towards interest on total amount of compensation from the date of taking possession till date of payment as determined by the Collector as well as the High Court. The hierarchy of courts would determine the compensation after considerable delay and the owner or interested person is entitled to be compensated for loss in value of their land. On determination thereof, the State as judgment-debtor is liable to restitute the owner with just compensation by way of principal amount and interest accrued thereon. The owner of the land as judgment-creditor is entitled to appropriate the principal amount deposited by the Collector, in the first instance, towards costs, then towards interest on total amount and the balance amount and interest accrued thereon is entitled to be recovered in execution. Therefore, the High Court was not right in holding that the appellants were entitled to the interest only from the respective dates of the award of the Collector or the orders of the court. The direction not to appropriate the amount deposited by the Collector first towards costs and then interest is clearly illegal. In support thereof, Shri Kalra placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in Meghraj & Ors. v. Bayabai & Ors. [AIR 1970 SC 161].

4. The question, therefore, is when does the liability of the State to pay interest ceases? Whether the owner of the land is entitled to appropr