GOVINDA BHAT, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Chickballapur, is directed against the award and decree dt. 29-9-1972 in LAC. 3 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Kolar, by which the compensation awarded by the LAO for the lands acquired was enhanced. ( 2 ) FOUR acres and odd of wet lands comprised in Survey Nos. 44, 45, 45/1, 46/2 and 47 of Balareddipalli Village, Bagepalli Tauk in Kolar Dist were acquired for the restoration of a tank pursuant to the preliminary notification under S. 4 (l) of the Land Acquisition Act, published in the Mysore gazette dt. 27-6-1963. EVen before the preliminary notification, possession of the lands had been taken in the year 1952 by the Public Works Dept. Before the LAO the claimants had claimed compensaion for tha lands at rs. 8,000 an acre; they had also claimed Rs. 2,000 an acre as crop compensation from the date of taking possession of the lands in 1952 till payment. The LAO, in the award made under S. 11 of the Act, fixed the compensation for the lands at Rs. 4,000 an acre on the basis of a mahazar prepared. He also Awarded Rs. 412-50 an acre as crop compensation for a period of 15 years. The claimants were dissatisfied with that award and therefore sought reference under S. 18, to the Civil Court. Before the learned Civil judge 2 witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants and they are PW. 1 and PW. 2. They stated that possession of the lands had been taken in the year 1952; that the lands are two crop wen lands on which sugar cane also could have been grown. No evidence of transactions of sale of similar lands was produced and it was stated that no such transactions had taken place. According to PW. 1, the income from the lands was Rs. 1,300 an acre. According to PW. 2, the income was 30 pallas of paddy per acre and if sugar cane was grown, it was 40 quintals of jaggary pea acre. The LAO was not examined and no other witness was examined either on his side. The learned Civil Judge awarded Rs. 4,500 an acre as the market value of the lands acquired in the year 1963. 2, the income was 30 pallas of paddy per acre and if sugar cane was grown, it was 40 quintals of jaggary pea acre. The LAO was not examined and no other witness was examined either on his side. The learned Civil Judge awarded Rs. 4,500 an acre as the market value of the lands acquired in the year 1963. ( 3 ) ON the basis of the evidence on record, which has remained unrebutted, it cannot be contended successfully that what has been awarded is excessive or unreasonable. The lands, as stated earlier, are wet lands capable of yielding 2 paddy crops in a year. It cannot at all be said that the market value of such a land was less than Es. 4,500 an acre in the year 1963. ( 4 ) THE serioua objection on behalf of the appellant is to the award of rs. 1,000 an acre as crop compensation for the period commencing from the date of taking possession in the year 1952 till payment of the compensation. The Court below has awarded in addition to crop compensation, inter rest under S. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act at 6 per cent from the date of taking possession of the lands till the date of payment. S. 34 of the Act provides that interest shall be paid at 5 per cent from the date of taking possession of the land until the amount is paid or deposited. When a land is taken possession of prior to the commencement of acquisition proceedings and the owner of the land is deprived of his possession, he is entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession. The right to receive interest from the date of taking possession takes the place of the right to retain possession. When an owner of a land is deprived of his land, he should be put in possession of the complensation immediately if not in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition, interest should be paid to him on to said amount of compensation from the date of taking possession. That is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Satinder Singh v. Umrao singh AIR. 1961 SC. 908. . This Court in Subhadra Bai v. State of Mysore 1973 (1) Mya. L. J. 175. That is the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Satinder Singh v. Umrao singh AIR. 1961 SC. 908. . This Court in Subhadra Bai v. State of Mysore 1973 (1) Mya. L. J. 175. has taken the view that in similar circumstances, the deprived owner of the land is entitled to interest from the date of taking possession till the date of payment. Therefore, under law, the claimants could have been awarded interest only at the rate provided under S. 34 from the date of taking possession until the date of payment. In the instant case the initial mistake was made by the LAO by awarding crop compensation and what has been awarded by the LAO is in excess of the interest which the claimants would have otherwise! been entitled to. Since the Court cannot interfere with what has been awarded by the LAO, that part of the award of the LAO will stand. But the Court cannot award interest from the date of taking possession, when the LAO has awarded crop compensation. ( 5 ) IN the result the appeal is allowed in part. The award and the decree of the Court below are modified as follows : the market value of the lands acquired as determined by the Court below is confirmed. The claimants are entitled to solatium under S. 23 (2) of the Act on the said amount. They will not be entitled to any interest on the compensation amount either under S. 34 or under S. 28 of the Act, since the LAO has awarded crop compensation at Rs. 412-50 an acre, from the date of taking possession till the date of payment which will stand. The enhancement of crop compensation made by the Court below is hereby set aside. The parties will bear their own costs in this appeal. --- *** --- .