GOVINDA BHAT, CJ. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Harbour, Mangalore) and the memorandum of cross-objections by the claimant are directed againsd, the award and decree d/30-8-1973 made in LAC. 692/70 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore. ( 2 ) THE land bearing Sy No. 65/1 of Bykampady village measuring 1 acre 37 cents and classified in -the revenue records as dry, was acquired for the Mangalore Harbour Project, pursuant to the preliminary notification under S. 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter called the principal Act) published in the Mysore Gazette d/20-11-1964. Before the lao, the claimant put forward a claim for compensation at Rs. 30,000 an acre; the LAO awarded Rs. 8,000 an acre. On a reference undar S. 18 of the Principal Act, the market value of the land acquired was enhanced to Rs. 18,000 an acre by the learned Civil Judge, Mangalore. The claimant had claimed interest under sub-sec (3) of Sec. 3 of the Land Acquisition (Mysore Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, hereinafter called 'the amendment Act' on the market value of the land as determined under s. 23 of the Principal Act from 21-11-1967 to 10-4-1970. The Civil Judge allowed that claim for the period from 16-7-1969 till the date of deposit of tha amount in Court. Interest under Sec. 28 of the Principal Act on the enhanced amount of compensation was denied as the claimant had been allowed interest under S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act. ( 3 ) IN the appeal preferred by the LAO the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court below in excess of Rs. 8. 000 has been challenged. There is no specific ground taken in the memo of appeal in regard to the award of interest u S. 3 (3) of Amendment Act though in the valuation of. tha appeal the entire enhancement is included. In the memorandum of cross-objections, the claimant has claimed further enhancement of compensation by Rs. 1,000 an acre. He has also claimed that interest under s. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act should have been allowed from 20-11-1967 and further, that interest under Sec. 28 of the Principal Act. should have been allowed. On the arguments presented before us the points that arise for determination are : (1) What is the market value, of the land acquired? He has also claimed that interest under s. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act should have been allowed from 20-11-1967 and further, that interest under Sec. 28 of the Principal Act. should have been allowed. On the arguments presented before us the points that arise for determination are : (1) What is the market value, of the land acquired? (2) Whether the Court below was right in not allowing interest under S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act from 20-11-1967? (3) Whether the Court below was right in disallowing interest under S. 28 of the Principal Act? ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the, evidence on record, the acquired land abuts the west-coast road and is in the Bykampady Bazar area. It has potential value as land suitable for building sites is undisputed, The claimant, in support of his claim produced the registration copies of two sale deeds as evidence of transactions of sale of similar lands. They are Exts p1 and P2. Ext. P1 is a registration copy of the sale deed d/. 27-7-1964 conveying 51 cents of dry land of Kulai village for a sum of Rs. 10,000 executed by Venkamma in favour of Seetharam Hebbar (PW. 3 ). Ext. F2 is the registration copy of the sale deed d/5-3-1964 conveying 50 cents of dry land in Panambur village for a sum of Rs. 10,000 executed by Hasan byari (PW. 4) in favour of one Abdul Khader. The evidence of PW 3 is to the effect that the land conveyed under Ext. P1 is within a distance of about a furlong from the land acquired. The evidence of PW. 4 is to the effect that the land conveyed under Extp2 is at a distance of about 5 furlongs from thr acquired land. The evidence, of the claimant is that the acquired land is beltter situated than the lands cojiveyed under Exts. P1 and P2. Extp6 is the certified copy of the award of the Court of the Civil Judge, Mangalore, in LACs. 181/71 and 155/72 where the market value of the lands comprised in Sy Nos. 65/6cl, 65/66c3 and 66/c acquired for the Harbour Project pursuant to the preliminary notification published on 20-11-1964 has been fixed at Rs. 18,000 an acre. The claimants in the said cases had relied on exts. 181/71 and 155/72 where the market value of the lands comprised in Sy Nos. 65/6cl, 65/66c3 and 66/c acquired for the Harbour Project pursuant to the preliminary notification published on 20-11-1964 has been fixed at Rs. 18,000 an acre. The claimants in the said cases had relied on exts. P1 and P2 and relying on the said document the Court had determined the market value of the lands acquired at Rs. 18,000 an acre It is to be noted that two out of the three lands concerned in Ext. P6 were subdivisions of Sy No. 65 of Bykampady village. The land acquired in the instant case is sub-division No 1 of Sy No. 65. The preliminary notification pursuant to which the lands wefei acquired was published on 20-11-1964. The State has not preferred any appeal against the award under Ext. P6 therefore, it is not open to the LAO to contend that the Court below should not have relied on the award under Ext. P6. ( 5 ) THE argument of Sri T, Krishna Rao, learned Counsel for the claimant was that on the basis of Ext. P1 the Court below should have fixed the market value of the land acquired at Rs. 19,000 an acre and that there are no valid grounds to reject that evidence. It is to be noted that Ext P1 was relied on in the cases which resulted in the award as per Ext. P6. The fact is that both parties had accepted the award under Ext. P6 as reliable evidence of the market value of the land acquired. In our judgment, the market value fixed by the learned Civil Judge at Rs. 18,000 an acre relying on the award made under Ext. P6 is just and fair and does not call for interference. P6. The fact is that both parties had accepted the award under Ext. P6 as reliable evidence of the market value of the land acquired. In our judgment, the market value fixed by the learned Civil Judge at Rs. 18,000 an acre relying on the award made under Ext. P6 is just and fair and does not call for interference. ( 6 ) SUB-SEC (3) of S. 3 of the Amendment reads :" Where acquisition of any particular land covered by a notification under sub-sec (1) of S. 4 of the Principal Act, or the Amended Act before the commencement of the Act is or has been made in pursuance of any declaration under S. 6 of the Principal Act or the Amended Act, whether made before or after such commencement and such declaration is or has been made after the expiry of three years from the, date of publication of such notification, tnere shall be paid simple interest, calculated at six percentum per annum on the market value of such land, as determined under s. 23 of the Principal Act or the Amended Act, from the date of expiry of the said period of three years to the date of tender of payment of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commr for the acquisition of such land. Provided that no such interest shall be payable for any period during which the proceedings for the acquisition of any land were held up on account of stay or injunction by order of a Court. " ( 7 ) THE above provision corresponds to sub-sec (3) of Sec. 4 of the Land acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967, (Central Act 13 of 1967 ). When the declaration under S. 6 of the said Act has been made after the expiry of three years from the date of publication of notification under sec. 4, then interest at the rate of six per cent per annum on the market value of the land acquired as determined under S. 23 of the Principal Act shall be paid from the date of expiry of the said period of three years to the date of tender of payment of compensation; but no, such interest shall be payable for any period during which the proceedings for the acquisition of any land were held up on account of stay or injunction by order of Court. S. 3 (3) aforesaid makes provision for the period for which interest shall be payable and the amount on which such interest shall be payable. The proviso thereto provides that no such interest shall be payable for the whole or for any part of that period during which proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of stay or injunction by order of Court. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the preliminary notification was published on 20-11-1964. The declaration under S. 6 (1) of the Principal Act was published on 7/14-7-1966 in the Mysore Gazette In WP. 41 of 1967 that declaration was challenged by the claimant before this Court and this Court made an interim order on 14-10-1966 that pending disposal of the said writ petition, possession of the claimant shall not be, disturbed in pursuance of the impugned Govt Notification. This Court allowed the writ petition by its order d. /16-7-1969 and quashed the declaration under S. 6 and that order became final. Thereafter, after hearing the affected land owners, the Govt made a fresh declaration under S. 6 which was published on 12-2-1970. The LAO made his award under S. 11 on 31-3-1970. He tendared the amount of compensation as per the said award to the claimant on 10-4-1970. Possession of the land was taken on 17-4-1970. From the above dates it will be seen that the declaration under S. 6 of the Principal act published on 12-2-1970 is beyond the period of three years from the date of publication of S. 4 (1) notification. Therefore, the LAO was under the statutory obligation to pay interest at six per cent per annum for the period from 20-11-1967 to the date of tender of payment of compensation, viz. , 10-4-1970. ( 9 ) THE next question is whether the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of the order of stay made by this Court? we asked the learned High Court Govt Advocate whether the proceedings for acquisition could have been concluded earlier than 10-4-1970 by making tender of compensation awarded had this Court not made an interim order in the writ petition. we asked the learned High Court Govt Advocate whether the proceedings for acquisition could have been concluded earlier than 10-4-1970 by making tender of compensation awarded had this Court not made an interim order in the writ petition. He conceded, and in our opinion rightly, that even if no interim order had been made, a fresh declaration had to be published after disposal of the petition as the earlier declaration had been quashed and proceedings for the acquisition had to be taken pursuant to such fresh declaration and tha,t it cannot be said the proceedings for acquisition of the land were held up on account of the interim order made by this Court. ( 10 ) WHERE the owner of a land sought to be acquired challenges the notification under S. 4 (1) and/or the declaration under S. 6 (1), and there is an order of stay of further proceedings for the acquisition of the land, but the challenge fails and on that account the proceedings for acquisition of the land are held up the proviso is clearly attracted. Those will be cases where the proceedings for acquisition of any land were held up on account of stay. But where the challenge to the S. 6 (1) declaration succeeds and the declaration is quashed and consequently the" State can- proceed with the acquisition only after making a fresh declaration, it cannot be said that the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of the stay order made by this Court. ( 11 ) IT is difficult to understand the reasoning of the Court below for denying interest under S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act from 20-11-1967 up to, the date Off disposal of the writ petition. When the declaration under 9. 6 has been quashed by this Court and no acquisition proceedings could have been procueded with before making a fresh declaration after the disposal of the petition, it cannot be contended that the proceedings for the acquisition of the land in question were held up for the period prior to 16-7-1969 on account of the interim order made in WP. 41 of 1967. 41 of 1967. ( 12 ) IT was contended by the learned High Court Govt Advocate that although the claimants are entitled to interest und,er S. 3 (3) of the Amendment act, such interest has to be calculated only on the market value of the land as provided in the award made by the LAO and not on the market value of the land as determined by the Court under S. 23 of the Principal act He also contended that such interest cannot be awarded by the court on a reference under S 23, in which cases, the Court can award compensation only in accordance with the provisions of S. 23 of the Principal act These contentions have to be stated only to be rejected. The LAO has not raised any specific ground in the appeal against the award of interest made by the Court below under S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act for the period commencing from 16-7-1969. The only question that arises for decision in the appeal and the memorandum of cross-objections is as to for that period the interest is payable We have held that interest under 3 3 (3) of the Amendment Act is payable for the period from 20-11-1967. Tho Court below has awarded such interest not only on the market value of the land which alone is provided for but also on the solatium allowed under S 23 (. 2) of the Principal Act. Sri T. Krishna Rao, learned Counsel in the claimant conceded that his client is entitled to interest u/s 3 (3) of the Amendment Act only on the market value of the land as determined under S. 23 (1) of the Act and not on the solatium payable under 5. 23 (2 ). The Court below has allowed interest till the date of deposit of the amount, into Court. As stated earlier, the period for which interest has to be allowed under S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act is till the date of tender of payment of compensation awarded by the LAO; it is not the date of deposit of compensation amount into Court. The dale of tender being 10-4-1970, interest nas to be allowed at six per cent on the market value of the land calculated at Rs. 18,000 an acre for the period from 20-11-1967 to 10-4-1970. The dale of tender being 10-4-1970, interest nas to be allowed at six per cent on the market value of the land calculated at Rs. 18,000 an acre for the period from 20-11-1967 to 10-4-1970. ( 13 ) THE Court below has disallowed interest under S. 28 of the Principal Act on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of taking possession of the land to the date of payment of the excess amount into Court. The reason given by the Court below is that the claimant has been allowed interest under S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act and therefore, interest under S. 28 is disallowed. Under Point 2, we have held that interest under S. 3 (3) of the Amendment Act has to be allowed only on the market value of the land for the period from 20-11-1967 to 10-4- 1974 ). The Court below has allowed interest on the, entire amount of compensation including solatium till date of deposit into Court. Though S. 28 of the Principal Act states that the Court may direct that the Deputy Commissioner shall pay interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of five per cent per annum, the discretion of the Court in the matter should be guided by law and not by humour. Unless there are special reasons to the contrary, interest' ordinarily should be granted to the claimant especially when there is a big difference between the award given by the LAO and the? amount eventually determined by the Court. ( 14 ) IN lnglewood Pulp and Paper Co v. New Brunswick Electric Power commission, 1928, AC. 492, it was held by the Judicial Committee, of thei Privy council :"it is true that the expropriation under the Act in question is not effected for private gain, but for the good of the public at large, but for all that, the owner is deprived of his property in this case as much as in the other and the rule has long been accepted in the interpretation of statutes that they are not to be held to deprive individuals of property withqut compensation unless the intention to do so is made quite clear. . . . . . . The right to receive interest takes the place of the right to retain possession. " ( 15 ) IN Sarinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1961 SC. . . . . . . The right to receive interest takes the place of the right to retain possession. " ( 15 ) IN Sarinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1961 SC. 908 , the Supreme Court, after referring to the above statement of Privy Council said :"it would thus be noticed that the claim for interest proceeds on the assumption that when the owner of immovable property loses possession of it he is entitled to claim interest in place, of right to, retain possession. . . . When a claim for paynient of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so called he is basing his claim on the general rule that if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession of compensation immediately; if noit, in lieu of possesion taken by compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation. " ( 16 ) FROM the above statement of law it is clear that interest is made payable from the date of taking possession till the date of payment of compensation as the deprived qwner of the land was not paid compensation to which he was entitled immediately on taking possession. In the instant case possession of the land was taken on 17-4-1970. Tha lao had awarded compensation at Rs. 8,000 an-acre only, which was enhanced by the Count below to Rs. 18,000 an acre. The award of the court below was made on 30-8-1973. The claimant has been kept out of the enhanced compensation amount for more than three years. There is no justification for denying interest on the enhanced amount of compensation under S. 28 of the Principal Act from 17-4-1970 and therefore, the claimant's claim in that regard has to be allowed. ( 17 ) THE award of the Court below is modified as follows :1. The claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,688-33 as the enhanced amount of compensation inclusive of solatium at 15 per cent; 2. The claimant will be entitled to interest under S. 3 (3) of the amendment Act at 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 24,660 for the periqd from 20-11-1967 to 10-4-1970: 3. The claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,688-33 as the enhanced amount of compensation inclusive of solatium at 15 per cent; 2. The claimant will be entitled to interest under S. 3 (3) of the amendment Act at 6 per cent per annum on Rs. 24,660 for the periqd from 20-11-1967 to 10-4-1970: 3. The, claimant will be entitled to interest at 5 per cent from-17-4-70 on the enhanced amount of compensation, viz. , Rs. 12,688-33 till the date of payment of such amount into Court. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the LAO is dismissed with costs and the memorandum of cross-objections of the claimant is allowed in part directing the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .