Point of Law :
Can a claimant or decree-holder who has received the entire amount awarded by the Reference Court or who had notice of the deposit of the entire amount so awarded, claim interest on the amount he has already received merely because the appellate court has enhanced the compensation and has made payable additional compensation? We have already referred to Order 21 and Order 24 of the Code to point out that such a blanket reopening of the transaction is not warranted even in respect of a money decree. Section 28 of the Act indicates that the award of interest is confined to the excess compensation awarded and it is to be paid from the date of dispossession. This is in consonance with the position that a fresh re-appropriation is not contemplated or warranted by the scheme of the Act. But if there is any shortfall at any stage, the claimant or decree-holder can seek to apply the rule of appropriation in respect of that amount, first towards interest and costs and then towards the principal, unless the decree otherwise directs

ORDER :

1. These two Revisions arise between the same parties out of the same O.P.No.34 of 1983, a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’) disposed of by this common order.

2. The respondent was the owner of Ac.26.39 gts of agricultural land at Gollaguda village, Nalgonda Town.

3. For laying new broad gauge line from Bibinagar to Nadikudi, this land was acquired by issuing on 10-01-1979, a notification under Section 4(1) of the said Act, but possession was taken on 03-08-1977.

4. An award was passed on 20-03-1982 by the Land Acquisition Officer fixing market value of Rs.4,000/- per acre.

5. Not satisfied with the said amount, the respondent sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court. Reference was accordingly made and it was numbered as O.P.No.34 of 1983 by the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda.

6. The respondent filed a claim petition claiming Rs.75/- per sq. yard as compensation on the ground that the lands were situated within the Municipal area of Nalgonda town and they have high potential value as house sites.

7. By order dt.14-12-1988, the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda awarded compensation at Rs.5/- per sq. yard for the acquired land together with solatium at 30% on the compensation, additional amount @ 12% p.a. on the market value from the publication of notification under Section 4(1) i.e. 11-01-1979 to the date of award or date of taking possession whichever is earlier. He also held that the claimant is entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession i.e. 22-07-1979 to 21-07-1980 on the compensation amount along with solatium; and interest @ 15% p.a. on the compensation amount along with solatium after one year from the date of taking possession i.e. from 22-07-1980 till the amount is deposited to the Court.

8. The respondent filed A.S.No.1561 of 1989 before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dt.14-12-1988 in O.P.No.34 of 1983 of the Subordinate Judge, Nalgonda.

9. The State filed A.S.No.2074 of 1991 against the said judgment and decree.

10. By a common judgment dt.16-08-1999, this Court in A.S.No.1561 of 1989, enhanced the compensation for the land from Rs.5/- per sq. yard to Rs.10/- per sq. yard and also awarded Rs.1,67,200/- for banana plants, structures like office room and cattle shed etc. which were not granted by the reference Court. It also held that the respondent would be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It dismissed A.S.No.2074 of 1991 filed by the State.

11. E.P.No.37 of 2000 was filed by the respondent for execution of the judgment of the Division Bench in A.S.No.1561 of 1989. The State opposed the same stating that the amount claimed by the respondent is excessive. An order dt.25-07-2006 was passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda in E.P.No.37 of 2000 holding that amount of additional market value under Section 23(1A) of the Act cannot be treated as part of compensation and that it is similar to interest and no interest on additional market value can be awarded.

12. During this time, amounts were being deposited by the State to the credit of the EP from time to time.

13. Respondent questioned it in C.R.P.No.4652 of 2006 before this Court.

14. The said C.R.P. was allowed on 14-11-2006 and this Court set aside the order in E.P.No.37 of 2000 passed by the Executing Court. It held that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunder Vs. Union of India, 2001 (5) ALD 136(SC), the term ‘compensation’ takes in its fold, the market value, solatium and additional market value payable under Section 23(1A) of the Act and interest must be paid on such a compendious sum. It held that the Executing Court rightly repelled the contention of the respondent that amounts deposited from time to time by the State should be appropriated first to interest and thereafter against the compensa