B.K. Rathi, J.
1. The compensation was awarded to the opposite party No. 1 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 60/70/94 by order dated 27.7.1999 passed by IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar. The revisionist was dissatisfied with the amount awarded and therefore, preferred First Appeal No. 1000 of 1999. It was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court and on the stay application, the following order was passed on 17.11.1999 :
The operation of the award dated 27.7.1999 passed by the IVth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar in L.A.R. No. 60/70 of 1994 shall remain stayed provided the appellant deposit 50% of the decreetal amount within three months. 50% of the amount deposited by the appellant shall be given to the respondent without furnishing any security and the remaining 50% shall be given to the respondents on their furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Tribunal.”
2. The submission of the revisionist is that the amount was deposited in accordance with this order. However, the opposite party No. 1 filed an application for execution alleging that full amount according to order has not been deposited and the condition of the stay order has not been complied with and therefore, the opposite party No. 2 is entitled to recover the entire amount awarded. Against the same, the revisionist filed objections under Section 47 CPC alleging that he has complied with the order and therefore, the execution proceedings should remain stayed. The objections of the revisionist were rejected by order dated 3.5.2002 by the Executing Court and it has been ordered that the execution shall proceed. Aggrieved by it, the present revision has been preferred.
3. I have heard Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Sri L.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
4. I have already extracted the stay order. The decree is payment of compensation @ Rs. 55/- per square yards and 12% additional amount on the above market value and 30% solatium on the above market value. It is further mentioned in the decree that the opposite party No. 1 shall be entitled to 9% per annum as interest on the above market value which have been awarded by the Court and has not been paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
5. It is alleged by the revisionist that 50% of the amount computed in accordance with this order has been deposited by the revisionist in terms of the stay order. However, it was contended by the opposite party No. 1 that the amount ; comes to Rs. 74,81,829.08p and J.D. has deposited only Rs. 14.89,144.61p. That he should have been deposited Rs. 37,44,914.54p. and therefore, there is short deposit of Rs. 22,769.93p.
6. The dispute between the parties is that the interest is also payable on the solatium and additional amount. The Executing Court has held that interest is also payable by the revisionist on the solatium and additional amount, and therefore, the 50% amount has not been deposited.
7. As against this it has been argued by Sri Pankaj Mithal, learned Counsel for the revisionist that the trial Court has awarded 9% interest on the above market value “which have been awarded by this Court and has not been paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.”
8. It is further contended that the 50% of the amount awarded in the decree has already been deposited and the applicant is not bound to deposit interest on solatium and additional amount.
9. The learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 took shelter to the decision of the Apex Court in Sunder v. Union of India, 2002(1) CRC 72. In this case, also there is dispute regarding the payment of the interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. It was observed that:
“That proviso to Section 34 of the Act makes the position further clear. The proviso says that “if such compensation” is not paid within one year from the date of taking possession of the land, interest shall stand escalated to 15% per annum from the date of expiry of the said period of one year “on the amount of compensation or part thereof, which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.” It is inconceivable that the solatium amount would attract only the escalated rate of interest from the expiry of one year and that there would be no interest on solatium during the producing period. What the Legislature intended was to make the aggregate amount under Section 23 of the Act to reach the hands of the person as and when the award is passed, at any rate as soon as he is deprived of the possession of his land. Any delay in making payment of the said sum should enable the party to have interest on the said sum until he receives the payment. Splitting up the compensation into different components for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 34 was not in the compensation of the legislature when the that section was framed or enacted.”
10. The Apex Court has also approved the observation of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Smt. Kailashwati and Ors., AIR 1980 P & H 117. The above decision of the Apex Court does not leave any reason for doubt that the interest @ 15% is payable on the amount of solatium and additional amount also. However, on behalf of the revisionist it has been argued that the decree has not provided the same and the Executing Court not go behind the decree.
11. Learned Counsel in support the argument has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Bai Shakriben v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., JT 1996(5) SC 597. It has held in this case that the Executing Court can not travel behind the award and the awarded benefits.
12. Therefore, the result is that the trial Court has erred in finding that the interest on the solatium and additional amount awarded should also have been deposited. The order of the trial Court can be corrected by the First Appellate Court to make it in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court. As already said the Court has only awarded interest @ 9% on the market value. Therefore, the revisionist rightly calculated the amount in accordance with the decree and deposited the same as required by the order of this Court on 17.11.1999 and there is no breach of the condition imposed by the High Court.
13. In view of the above, the Executing Court has erred in rejecting the objections of the revisionist. The amount having been deposited in accordance with the above conditions imposed by the Court, the execution cannot be proceeded.
14. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Executing Court is set aside and the objections of the revisionist and Section 47, CPC are allowed. The trial Court is accordingly directed to pass proper order in the execution case.