The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principles of appropriation of payments towards a decretal amount under Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to decrees passed under the Land Acquisition Act. The Court clarified the liability to deduct Income Tax from the compensation and interest amounts and the proper method of adjustment of the amount deposited by the State.

State, the judgment debtor in E.P.242 of 1994 in L.A.R.No.120 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is the revision petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging an order passed by the executing Court proclaiming 50 cents of property comprised in survey No.874/B of Thycaud Village, wherein the Government Rest House situate for sale in public auction. 1 hectare and 11.28 Ares of dry land comprised in Survey No.303/25 of Kazhakkuttam Menamkulam Villalge was acquired for a public purpose by the appellant. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 14.5.1985. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 31.3.1986. The Land was taken possession on 4.2.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the land value at Rs.2340/- per Are. On a request made by the decree holder, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the subordinate Judge’s Court, Thiruvananthapuram for considering the claim put forward by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. The case was numbered as L.A.R.No.120 of 1993. the learned sub Judge passed a judgment and decree on 9.3.1994 fixing the land value at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per Are. The total land value was fixed as Rs.11,12,800/-. From that amount, an amount of Rs.2,60,395,20 already paid by the Land Acquisition Officer in terms of the award was deducted. The enhanced land value awarded was fixed as Rs.8,52,404.80. The learned Sub Judge found that the decree holder is entitled to get 30% solatium. It was also found that the decree holder is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount from 14.5.1985 till 31.3.1986. It was further found that for one year from the date of taking possession, i.e. on 4.2.1986, the decree holder is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% and from 4.2.1987, the decree holder is entitled to get interest at the rate of 15% per annum and also proportionate cost. The State filed an appeal before this Court as L.A.A. 196 of 1995 challenging the judgment of the Subordinate Court. This court by judgment dated 24.8.1998 dismissed the appeal confirming the enhancement of land value awarded by the Subordinate Judge’s Court. The Cross Objection filed by the claimant was also dismissed.

3. While the Land Acquisition Appeal was pending, the State deposited an amount of Rs.13,64,228/- on 17.1.1996 as per cheque No.3155 before the Sub Court. The State also remitted an amount of Rs.84,783/- towards Income Tax on 16.1.1996. According to the State, the balance to be deposited was Rs.9,71,562/-. Subsequently the State deposited an amount of Rs.9,68,905/- on 15.2.2000. An amount of Rs.1,08,854/- was also remitted on the same day towards Income Tax. On 1.12.2001, the decree holder filed a statement to the effect that she is entitled to get an additional amount of Rs.16,37,806/-. The judgment debtor filed objections contending that the entire amounts due to the decree holder was already deposited. The executing court found that the amount of Rs.5,88,747/- was still due to the decree holder and directed the State to deposit that amount. The judgment debtor filed E.A.572 of 2003 to review the order fixing the balance amount. It was contended that the judgment debtor had deposited more amount than due to the decree holder. It was further contended that no further amounts were due to the decree holder and an excess of Rs.1,06,197/- was deposited. That review petition is still pending. The decree holder filed a petition for attachment and sale of 50 cents of land. That prayer was allowed and the property was attached and proclaimed for sale. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging those orders.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent – decree holder raised a preliminary objection that the Civil Revision Petition challenging an order of sale alone is not maintainable. It is argued that the executing Court by order dated 19.10.2002