The common question which surfaces for consideration in these Revision Petitions is as follows:

Whether the appellant in a Land Acquisition Appeal -carried from a reference answered in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 -is entitled to specify the manner of appropriation in respect of a payment made pursuant to an interim order passed in the Land Acquisition Appeal for staying the Award passed by the reference court?

2. In the orders impugned in these Revision Petitions, the learned Additional Sub Judge found that the petitioner herein (second respondent before the Sub Court) has no right to claim appropriation.

3. It requires to be mentioned at the outset that the Land Acquisition Appeals were ultimately dismissed. There is no quarrel before this Court amongst the parties that, if the appropriation as indicated by the judgment debtor in the statement of accounts dated 11.03.2015 is permissible in law, the entire Award amount stands wiped of; whereas, if such appropriation is impermissible, the decree holders are entitled to get the E.P reopened, so as to claim the balance amount due.

4. Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Vinod Bhat, l