THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3942 of 1992 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/ judgment- debtor against the order dated 27.11.1990 in E.P.No.34 of 1987 in O.P.No.20 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Siddipet. The claimant/decree holder has filed the execution petition for realization of the decreetal amount towards the compensation granted in O.P.No.20 of 1985 after enhancement. As can be seen from the order of the lower Court, the total amount due by 19.03.1987 including the solatium, additional amount and interest came to Rs.8,78,220.40s paise and thereafter a sum of Rs.5,83,352/- was deposited by the Government and consequently, there was a balance of Rs.2,94,868.40 paise. As this amount was not paid, the execution proceedings continued and after calculation of the interest at 15%, a sum of Rs.4,27,558.60 paise was found due by 31.03.1990, and on 31.03.1990 Rs.2,94,868.40 paise was deposited and the lower Court found that by the date of its order dated 27.11.1990 a further sum of Rs.1,44,642.20 paise is due. The contention of the Government appears to be that the amount paid, should have been appropriated to the principal amount and not towards the total amount of the interest and the principal amount and consequently the whole decree has been satisfied and that there is no liability. It was sought to be canvassed that it is a case of granting of interest over interest. In this connection, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India[1], which clearly lays down that even in the execution proceedings in land acquisition, the amount paid need not be first appropriated to the principal amount and it can be appropriated towards the interest. Therefore, in view of the above proposition of law, the calculation adopted by the learned Judge cannot be found to be faulty and it is not a case where the Government is contending that any other payments were made except those that were referred in the lower Court. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that in pursuance of the orders of the lower Court, the amount has been deposited and the decree holder has withdrawn the amount. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I find no merits in the revision. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 17.08.2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No. 3942 of 1992 DATE: 17-08-2011 MR [1] (2006) 8 SCC 457