The court clarified that interim deposits in land acquisition cases must typically be applied to interest unless expressly directed otherwise.

COMMON ORDER

These revisions arise under land acquisition proceedings initiated by the National Highways Authority of India.

2. I have heard Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, National Highways Authority of India and Mr.NSubramaniyan, learned counsel for the respondents/landowners.

3. The short point involved in this revision petition is as to whether a deposit made pursuant to an interim order granted at the time of admission of the appeal, challenging the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court would have to be adjusted towards the principal award compensation or towards interest.

4. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel on either side in this regard.

5. Mr. Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, appearing for the petitioner would straightaway take me through to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in AS.No.386 and 387 of 2000, in and whereby the Hon'ble Division Bench modified the award by fixing the market land value at Rs.67/- per sq.ft. While disposing of the batch of First Appeals, the Division Bench of this Court, taking note of A.S.No.386 and 387 of 2000, where this Hon'ble Court recording the order passed in CMP.Nos.16759 and 16760 of 2020 by order dated 14.11.2000 had directed deposit of 25% of the enhanced compensation amount to the credit of LAOP.Nos.7 and 8 of 1996 and such deposited compensation amount was directed to remain in fixed deposit on reinvestment plan. Finally, the Hon'ble Division Bench remitted the matter to the Reference Court, giving liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence and thereafter, for the Reference Court was to decide the compensation amount.

6. It is an admitted fact that after remand and again challenge before this Court in A.S.No.517 of 2015 batch, the market value was reduced from Rs.80/- to Rs.67/- per sq.ft. The revision petitioner has adjusted the 25% of the enhanced compensation amount deposited towards the principal award of compensation and on that basis, has proceeded to make calculations and contend that the entire amount has been deposited on 22.01.2021 and no further amount was required to be paid at the end of the petitioner. However, the landowners have disputed the calculation arrived at by the petitioner, contending that the compliance of the interim order granted by Division Bench by deposit of 25% of the enhanced compensation amount can only be adjusted towards interest first and not from the principal. Therefore, according to the landowners, the calculation adopted by the petitioner was fallacious.

7. The Executing Court, on enquiry, accepted the stand of the landowners and found the petitioner to be further liable to pay amounts to the respondents and proceeded to direct the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.72,27,816/- as of July 2025, failing which, directed attachment of the properties mentioned in the Execution Petition to be effected. Therefore, the only point on which the entire case hinges is the interpretation of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench directing deposit of 25% of the enhanced compensation amount.

8. According to Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Standing Counsel, since the Hon'ble Division Bench has specifically stated that the 25% of the enhanced compensation amount has to be deposited, it can only be treated as a deposit or adjustment towards the principal award amount and therefore, this would be a case of an exception to the normal rule that any payment would be first adjusted towards interest and not towards principal.

9. However, countering the said interpretation of Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Ms.N.Subramaniyan, learned counsel for the landowners would contend that the Hon'b