Judgement BAHARUL ISLAM, J. :- These six appeals arise out of six land acquisition cases and are directed against a common award made by the District Judge, L.A.D. Gauhati, and Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. The facts are common. This judgement of ours, therefore, will dispose of all the six appeals. 2. The material facts are that the lands in question belonging to the six respondents were requisitioned in 1963 for the construction of a bye-pass of the National High Way. The lands were acquired on 27-5-67 and admittedly fall within Greater Gauhati. The Deputy Commissioner, who is the appellant before us in all these appeals, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per bigha. The respondents accepted the amount under protest as they had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per bigha. Their case was that the land in question had great potential value as it was situated adjacent to Pandu town, N.F. Railway Head Quarter, Jalukbari Railway Station, Gauhati University, Engineering College and various other public and private institutions. Ultimately when the matter came up for disposal before the District Judge, he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 9,500 per bigha. He based his award on Ext. 4, which was an award made by him in connection with some other land. The learned District Judge found that the land of Ext. 4 and the lands under the proceedings in hand were similar. 3. The claimants, in support of their claims, proved some sale deeds marked as Exts. and 3. Learned counsel for the Collector submits that although on the basis of the value of the land of these two documents the value of the lands of the present proceedings should be much higher than Rs. 2,500, the lands covered by Exts. 1 and 3 were of small plots and cannot form the basis of valuation. That is true, but the learned District Judge has based the valuation primarily on Ext.4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents and not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the land of Ext.4 was for the same purpose and had been acquired by the same notification as in the cases in hand. That is true, but the learned District Judge has based the valuation primarily on Ext.4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents and not denied by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the land of Ext.4 was for the same purpose and had been acquired by the same notification as in the cases in hand. P.W. 2, Narayan Chandra Kumar, deposes in his evidence that the land of Ext.4 and the lands of the present claimants are contiguous and of the same quality. He further deposes that the lands acquired in the present proceedings fall in greater Gauhati and are situated near some important institutions like the Gauhati University, Pandu town, the Railway Head Quarters, and other public and private institutions. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence of the claimant witness No. 2 has been contradicted by the evidence of claimant witness No. 1 when the latter deposes that the lands in question are low lying paddy land, whereas the lands covered by Ext.4 are high land. The contradiction is not material. Even if the land in question is low lying and the land of Ext.4 is higher, there will be a small difference between the values of the land of Ext.4 and of the lands in the present cases and will not be of any significant importance. In our opinion the award given by the learned District Judge does not appear to be erroneous. 4. In the instant case the District Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of payment. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as the lands were acquired under the Defence of India Rules, no interest could be awarded as the Defence of India Rules do not provide for a decree for interest. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents submits that under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure interest can be decreed. Section 34 of the Code gives power to a court to decree interest at a reasonable rate when the decree is for payment of money. Although technically an award may not be called a decree, in our opinion the spirit of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be made applicable in awarding compensation for land acquired under the Defence of India Rules. Although technically an award may not be called a decree, in our opinion the spirit of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be made applicable in awarding compensation for land acquired under the Defence of India Rules. The claimant is also otherwise entitled to compensation as money was blocked by the Collector for a long time. That being the position, in our opinion, the learned District Judge has committed no error in awarding interest at the rate of 6 per cent. 5. As a result of the foregoing discussions we dismiss the appeals. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.