Point of Law :
Deposit made by the State along with calculation would be according to the distinct sums mentioned therein, only when there is no shortfall at a particular stage of the award. Otherwise, the recognition of the right of DHr to appropriate according to his volition in case of shortfall at particular stage of the award becomes otiose/redundant.

ORDER :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

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 22-09-1979.

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 v. Union of India 2001 (5) ALT 51 (SC) : 2001 (2) An.W.R. 343 (SC) : 2001 ALT (Rev.) 30 (SC) : 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 respon