ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up for hearing through Video-Conferencing.

These two Revisions are at the instance of the requisitioning body viz., The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, challenging the orders of the Executing Court made in EP Nos. 286 of 2014 and 79 of 2015 respectively.

2. The above proceedings stem out of Land Acquisitions for the purposes of an Housing Scheme launched by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in Ganapathi Village of Coimbatore District. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 07.09.1983 and declarations under Section 6 were made on 03.02.1986. An award came to be passed on 25.11.1988 fixing the compensation at Rs. 200/- per cent along with the statutory benefits. The land owners sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act.

3. Upon a reference being made, the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, took up the proceedings in LAOP Nos. 414 of 1994 and 244 of 1990 respectively. The Reference Court by its judgment dated 28.04.2005 and 29.04.2005 made in the above Original Petitions enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,000/- per cent and granted the statutory benefits viz., 30% solatium, 12% additional amount under Section 23(1-A) an interest at 9% for the first one year from the date of taking possession and at 15% for the subsequent period. Since the judgment of the Reference Court was rendered after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunder vs. Union of India, LNTND 2001 SC 2093 : (2001) 7 SCC 211 : AIR 2001 SC 3516, the Reference Court granted interest on the compensation i.e. the land cost plus solatium and the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act. Aggrieved by the enhancement made by the Reference Court, the petitioner herein viz., the requisitioning body filed Appeals in this Court in AS No. 963 of 2005 (against LAOP No. 244 of 1990) and AS No. 973 of 2005 (against LAOP No. 414 of 1994).

4. A Division Bench of this Court which heard the Appeals reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,000/- per cent with the attendant statutory benefits and interest. Aggrieved by the reduction, the claimants viz., the land owners preferred Civil Appeals before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 14.10.2014 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 6,000/- per cent as granted by the Reference Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also confirmed the grant of statutory benefits by the Reference Court as well as this Court. After the disposal of the Appeals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the land owners preferred Execution Petitions claiming a certain amount as payable by the respondent viz. the Housing Board. This was opposed by the Housing Board basically on two grounds.

5. The first ground being, as per the judgment in Gurpreet Singh vs. Union of India, LNIND 2006 SC 835 : (2006) 8 SCC 457, the land owners would be entitled to interest on the solatium and additional amount only with effect from the date of the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India (supra) viz. 19.09.2001 and not for the earlier period. The second contention that was raised by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board was that the monies that were paid during the pendency of the Appeals before this Court and after the disposal of the Appeals by this Court, prior to the enhancement by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, should be appropriated towards the principal payable and not towards interest alone.

6. Support was drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur and Another vs. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and Others, (1995) Supp. 5 SCR 790, wherein a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the rule of appropriation contained in Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, regarding execution of decrees stands excluded and any money paid by the acquiring body during the pendency of the proceedings in part satisfaction of the decree