JUDGMENT : S.K. Ray, A.C.J. 1. This is the Collector?s appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack dated 10-1-1968 passed -in Misc. Case No. 9 of 1968 (L.A.) in a reference u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act determining the amount of compensation payable for the land acquired by the State at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month, a rate which is higher than the rate fixed by the Collector in his award. 2. Plot No. 169 of mouza Gandartmr having on area of Ac. Order 215 d. belonging to the Petitioner was acquired by the Collector for construction of National Highway No. 5 First Reach Approach Road to Mahanadi Bridge. Section 4(1) notification was published on 22-2-1962, possession was taken by the Collector on 12-4-1962 and thereafter the Collector passed his award on 4-2-1963. The Collector granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and at that rate the total amount of compensation comes to Rs. 1, 075/-. Solarium at 15 percent comes to Rs. 161.25. Thus in aggregate on award for Rs. 1,236.25 was passed by the Collector. The Subordinate Judge in the reference determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month plus solatium at 15 percent of the compensation. The aggregate market value comes to Rs. 16,125/- to which the solatium is to be added. 3. From the aforesaid decision of the Subordinate Judge the Collector has carried the appeal to this Court. His only contention is that the determination of compensation by the Subordinate Judge is not warranted by evidence on record. The claimants have preferred a cross appeal in which claim for interest has been made, since the Subordinate Judge did not grant interest on the amount of compensation determined by him. 4. The claimants have examined three witnesses and have exhibited seven documents which chronologically are Ex. 4, a registered sale deed dated 21-2-1964 in respect of Ac. Order 060 d. of land for a consideration of Rs. 6,000/-; Ex. 3, a registered sale deed dated 7-9-1964 in respect of Ac. 0.035 d. of land for a consideration of Rs. 3,2001-; Ex. 2, a registered sale deed dated 3-2-1965 in respect of Ac. 0.074 d. of land for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/-; Ext. 1, registered sale deed dated 8-6-1966 if, respect of Ac. 0.040 d. of land for Rs. 8, 000/-; Ex. 0.035 d. of land for a consideration of Rs. 3,2001-; Ex. 2, a registered sale deed dated 3-2-1965 in respect of Ac. 0.074 d. of land for a consideration of Rs. 9,000/-; Ext. 1, registered sale deed dated 8-6-1966 if, respect of Ac. 0.040 d. of land for Rs. 8, 000/-; Ex. 5, award of Sub-Judge, Cuttack dated 12-3-1965 in respect of plot No. 481 acquired for the very project in question in which valuation was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per gunth; Ex. 7, award of Sub-Judge, Cuttack dated 19-7-1967 in respect of plot Nos. 23, 31, 102 and 105 acquired for the very project in question in which valuation was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per gunth; and Ex. 6, award of the Sub-Judge, Cuttack dated 29-7-1967 in respect of plot Nos. 160 and 162 and other plots acquired for this very project in which valuation was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per gunth. On behalf of the Collector one witness was examined and two documents were exhibited, viz., Ex. A which is a classification statement dated 20-11-1961 and Ex. B, a registered sale deed dated 25-8-1961 in respect of Ac. 0.047 d. of land in plot No. 489 in which the rate was Rs. 200/- per gunth. 5. It is well-known that the I market value of a land is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for it, having regard to its existing conditions with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner. Excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purpose for which the property has been acquired. Evidence of a witness who made a voluntary offer to purchase the land under acquisitions would be not only a relevant piece of evidence, but also be acceptable. Such evidence has been held in some cases to be a better type of evidence than the evidence of net yield of the disputed land on the capitalisation of which the valuation is reduced because the latter I method of determination of valuation does not always include consideration of its potential value. In this case Petitioner No. 1 has examined himself as p.w. 1. In this case Petitioner No. 1 has examined himself as p.w. 1. He has stated that though the land was recorded as Sarad, yet he had raised its level and was growing vegetables thereon utilising it as a Bari land, and though it is not contiguous to his homestead, it lies 50 feet away. The acquired land is situated in Ward No. 25 of Cuttack Municipality and prior to acquisition there was water pipe connection and electricity facility in that Ward. As to its location, it is situated about 50 feet from Cuttack Malgodown towards west and the O.M.P. Chak where Cuttack-Paradip Road intersects National Highway is at a distance of about 250 feet from the acquired plot. Naya Bazar is about half a mile from the acquired plot and also the Industrial Estate. The Cuttack city is developing towards its eastern side where the acquired land is situated. This development has been continuing since 1957-58 after Greater Cuttack Improvement Trust plan was drawn up. In pursuance of the housing scheme of the Government promulgated in 1957-58 Government have in fact acquired 3.50 acres of land for construction of houses. There is also a public road running by the side of the acquired land. This evidence is not controverted. In the aforesaid background; the existing advantages of the acquired land is vast and its potential possibilities are Immense. The possibility of converting this land into a homestead in that rapidly developing locality and the normal expectations of the owner of utilising this land for greater profit are all foreseeable. He has given evidence of willing purchasers having offered a price of Rs. 5, 000/- per gunth for this acquired land, In the year 1961-62. He has disclosed the names of persons who made that offer. p.w. 2 is one of such willing purchasers who offered Rs. 5, 000/- per gunth to buy this acquired land. He is a retired railway servant who wanted to purchase a house site for construction of a house where he would stay in his retired life. There is nothing to discredit this witness who corroborates p.w. 1 fully. p.w. 1 has said and he is also corroborated by p.w. 2 that even this offer of Rs. He is a retired railway servant who wanted to purchase a house site for construction of a house where he would stay in his retired life. There is nothing to discredit this witness who corroborates p.w. 1 fully. p.w. 1 has said and he is also corroborated by p.w. 2 that even this offer of Rs. 5,000/- per gunth was not acceptable to him at that time because of the rapid growth of the town and industrialisation of that locality whereby the land prices were reasonably expected to shoot up. p.w. 3 is another witness of village Gandarpur where the acquired land lies. He speaks of the market price of homestead lands in the locality to be Rs. 4,500/- to Rs. 5, 000/- in 1962 which had shot up to Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 12,000/- by 1968 when he was deposing before the Sub-Judge. He also corroborates p.w. 1 that the acquired land was being used as a Bari land in which vegetables were grown and that it was fit for being used as a homestead. 6. Exts. 4, 3, 2 and 1 are registered sale-deeds in respect of small pieces of land in village Gandarpur wherefrom it appears that the valuation per gunth varied from Rs. 3,656/- to Rs. 8,000/- between 21-2-1964 to 8-6-1966. This shows on upward trend of the market price of the land in the locality where the acquired land is situated; This gives the ratio of rise of the price of land at Rs. 1,000/- per gunth per year or a little more. These sale deeds evidence transactions in respect of small plots of land and afford a substantial? guidance for the determination of the value of the acquired land in question which is also a small piece of land. Exts. 5, 7 and 6 are the decisions of the Subordinate Judge in three reference cases u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of lands acquired for the very project of construction of National Highway No. 5 First Reach Approach Road to Mahanadi Bridge which were also notified along with the acquired land in the same notification u/s 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act dated 22-2-1962. The valuations determined in Exts. 5, 7 and 6 are Rs. 3,000/- per gunth. The decision of the Subordinate Judge in Ex. 7 has been confirmed by this Court in A.H.O. No. 11 of 1974. The valuations determined in Exts. 5, 7 and 6 are Rs. 3,000/- per gunth. The decision of the Subordinate Judge in Ex. 7 has been confirmed by this Court in A.H.O. No. 11 of 1974. That will indicate that this Court has accepted the rate of Rs 3,000/- per gunth as the reasonable market price of lands within the locality where the acquired land lies on consideration of the existing advantages and future potentialities in view of the rapid expanding industrialization of that area of the city. On behalf of the Appellant a registered sale deed dated 25-8-1961 in respect of Ac. 0.047d. of land for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- has been admitted as Ex. B. This was proved to substantiate the Collector?s award which accepted the market value to be Rs. 200/- per gunth. The plot under Ex: B was also acquired for the very construction of National Highway No. 5 First Reach Approach Road to Mahanadi Bridge. When the matter came before the Subordinate Judge in, a reference u/s 18, he determined the valuation to be Rs. 3,000/- per gunth and this valuation has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 250 of 1967. Thus, it will be seen that in two cases of acquisition made under the very same notification u/s 4(1) of the land Acquisition Act which also includes the plot in question in the present case, valuations have been made at Rs. 3,000/- per gunth arid such valuations have been confirmed by this Court. On a consideration of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, I see no ground to reduce the amount of compensation fixed by the Subordinate Judge at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per gunth for the acquired land. Accordingly, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal which must fail and is dismissed with costs. 7. The cross appeal relates to claim of interest. 3,000/- per gunth for the acquired land. Accordingly, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal which must fail and is dismissed with costs. 7. The cross appeal relates to claim of interest. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that if the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as Compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. It is true that under this section it is discretionary with the Court to direct payment of interest on such excess sum adjudicated as payable by the Court over the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector from the date on which the Collector took possession till the date of payment. Section 34 of die Land Acquisition Act, however, provides that when the amount of compensation determined by the Collector is not accepted by the claimant the same must be deposited in Court before acquisition of the land; otherwise Collector shall pay interest on the said amount at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. This is a mandatory provision which compels payment of interest on the amount of compensation awarded if it was not paid or deposited in the Court before the Collector took possession. This embodies a rule of equity. What is a rule of equity u/s 34 should be followed when the Court is to exercise the discretion in the matter of granting interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Therefore, in my opinion where the Court finds that the Collector has already taken possession of the land, the amount of compensation determined by it; which is to be deemed to be the actual amount payable in respect of the land, must earn interest from the date of taking possession of the land by the Collector. Therefore, in my opinion where the Court finds that the Collector has already taken possession of the land, the amount of compensation determined by it; which is to be deemed to be the actual amount payable in respect of the land, must earn interest from the date of taking possession of the land by the Collector. In the present case as already stated, the Collector took possession on 12-4.1962 and the excess amount adjudicated by the Subordinate Judge over the compensation awarded by the Collector was payable to the claimant on 12-4-1962, when possession of the land was taken, though the Sub-Judge?s award was passed on 10-4-1968. The claimants have been, therefore, deprived of this excess amount with effect from 12-4 1962 till February, 1969 when this Court directed the difference to be deposited in the Court giving leave to the claimants-Respondents to withdraw the same on furnishing, security. Therefore, interest is payable on the excess amount as determined by the Court from 12-4-1962 to 4-2-1969. In the result, the cross appeal is allowed and the Respondents are entitled to interest on the difference between the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector and as awarded by the Court from 12-4-1962 to 4-2-1969 at the rate of six percent per annum. The decree of the learned Subordinate Judge is, accordingly, varied so as to incorporate a direction as to payment of interest as aforesaid. 8. In the result, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs and the cross appeal is allowed also with costs. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed