Interest on solatium is not payable under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the State Government is exempted from furnishing security under Order XXVII, Rule 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.

While admitting the appeal on an application for stay of execu tion of judgment and decree dated 7-2- 1992 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 19 of 1990, this Court on 8th January, 1993 passed an order that the appellant may deposit the entire decretal amount in the executing court within three months. In case such amount is deposited, it will be open to the respondents to withdraw half of the amount without furnishing security and remaining half of the amount upon furnish ing security to the satisfaction of the execut ing court.

2. A Special Leave Petition was moved before the Honble Supreme Court against the said order, in which the Apex Court was pleased to stay the operation of that part of the order by which 50% was to be withdrawn without furnishing security, to the extent that the appellant need not deposit the said half of the amount. But ultimately while disposing of the Special Leave Petition, the Apex Court directed the deposit of the balance 50% amounting to Rs. 12,52,202. 15 which may be withdrawn by the respondent upon furnishing bank guarantee. Admitted ly the entire sum has been deposited. Learned counsel for the respondent admits that the respondent has withdrawn the en tire sum in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court, namely by furnishing security he has withdrawn 50% and by furnishing bank guarantee he has withdrawn 50%. The entire amount deposited has been withdrawn. The respondents on the other hand claim that the said amount should include interest solatium amounting to Rs. 4,34,601. 17 and had accordingly ap proached the executing court for direction to the appellant to deposit the said amount. By an order dated 9-8-1996, the executing court directed the appellant to deposit the said amount. Against the said order dated 9th August 1996, the appellant had preferred an appeal being First Appeal No. 430 of 1994. By order dated 21-3-1996, the said appeal was dismissed as incompetent by this Court on the ground that the said order was an order of interpretation of the award and not an award itself, therefore, no appeal is maintainable under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the said order. In the said order, liberty was granted to the appellant to approach this Court during pendency of the appeal against the award itself. Accordingly the present application has filed in the appeal for stay of the opera tion of the said order dated 9-8-1996.

3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the amount is payable to the respondents by the appellant, which is a part of the State. It cannot be said that the amount at the hands of the defendant appel lant is insecured, so far as the respondents are concerned. It cannot be said that in case the appeal fails the respondents cannot recover the amount from the defendant ap pellant. The responsibility of payment of the appellant is also supported by the State. The provision of Order XLI, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure was incor porated to secure and safeguard the interest of the decree holder, having regard to safeguard the interest of the judgment debt or as well, as has been laid down in the case of Central Bank of India v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1987 SC 2320. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case it can not be said that the money payable by the appellant is insecured so far as the respondent is concerned.

4. The question of calculation of inter est would be the final decision for execution of the award. Deposit of security while granting the order of stay is ensured only for the purpose that the execution may not be avoided and it does not operate as execution of the whole of the decree itself. Since the appeal against the order dated 8-1-1993 has not recorded any order staying execution upon deposit of the amount as directed. The appellant has shown his bona fide by depositing an amount above Rs. 25,00,000 which has already been withdrawn by the respondent.

5. The learned