AVADH BEHARI, J. (Oral ). ( 1 ) FOR the first time in thesetwo appeals we are called upon to interpret the provisions ofthe Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984. ( 2 ) THESE are the facts. The land of the appellants situatedin village Dhaka was compulsorily acquired by the respondent,union of India. Notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (the Act) was issued on 13-11-59. In due coursethe Collector made the award (Award No. 1557 ). On a reference under section 18 of the Act the Additional District Judgeenhanced the compensation in this manner : FOR block A land. he raised the compensation fromrs. 4,500 per bigha as determined by the Collector to Rs. 8,000 per bigha. FOR block B land he enhanced the compensationfrom Rs. 3,200 to Rs. 6,000 per bigha. AS regards block C land the compensation was increased from 2,500 to Rs. 4,000 per bigha. THERE was one Khasra No. 61315721206 which wasin block C. For that he did not make any enhancement. He retained the valuation of the Collectorwhich he had fixed at Rs. 2,500 per bigha. ( 3 ) FROM the orders of the Additional District Judge dated10-6-68 the appellants appeal to this Court. They claim inthese two appeals enhancement of compensation. They claimthat market value of their entire land be fixed uniformly atrs. 15,000 per bigha except for Khasra No. 61315721206 forwhich they claim at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per bigha. ( 4 ) THE appellants mainly rely on a judgment of the division bench in Guizari Mal v. Union of India, LPA No. 132 of1979 decided on 6-8-1984 (1) by Prakash Narain CJ and B. N. Kirpal J. In that case the land owners were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per bigha for their land inblock A. Basing himself on this, appellants counsel submitsthat it will be just to award compensation at the uniform rateof Rs. 15,000 per bigha for all the lands of the appellants excluding Khasra No. 61315721206. He says that in any eventthe judge himself had made the distinction between classes ofa, B, C lands by making a difference of Rs. 2,000 in each ofthe three blocks. If class A is Rs. 20,000 per bigha, he argues,class B and C lands can well be Rs. 15,000 per bigha on thebasis of distinction made by the judge. We find force in thiscontention. 2,000 in each ofthe three blocks. If class A is Rs. 20,000 per bigha, he argues,class B and C lands can well be Rs. 15,000 per bigha on thebasis of distinction made by the judge. We find force in thiscontention. We, therefore, hold that it is just and fair to fixthe market value at Rs. 15,000 per bigha for the appellants land in blocks A, B and C us claimed by them. For Khasra No. 61315721206 the claim is limited to Rs. 8,000 per bigha whichwe think is also in no way extravagent. We determine themarket value of this Khasra at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per bigha. ( 5 ) IN appeal RFA 113 of 1968 the entire claim is forrs. 3,65,217. 39 P. on account of market value of the landacquired. The market value will in no case exceed this amount. In RFA 114 of 1968 the total amount of the market value ofthe land asked for is Rs. 33,000. The appellants in that appealwill not be entitled to more than this amount on account ofmarket value of their land. ( 6 ) IN addition to the market value of the land so determined above, the appellants will also be entitled to 30 per centon the market value on account of solatium. By the Landacquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Amendment Act) whichreceived the assent of the President on 24-9-1984, solatiumhas been increased by section 2312) from 15 per cent to 30per cent. Therefore, we have awarded 30 per cent "in consideration of the compulsoty nature of the acquisition" popularlyknown as solatium. ( 7 ) THE Amendment Act has given several benefits to theland owner whose land is taken. One such benefit is embodiedin section 23 (1-A ). This newly added sub-section (1-A) readsas under :" (1-A) In addition to the market value of the land asabove provided, the Court shall in every case awardan amount calculated at the rate of twelve percentum per annum oil such market value for theperiod commencing on and from the date of th:publication of the notification under section 4, subsection (1) in respect of such land to the date ofthe award of the Collector or the date of takingposseission of the land, whichever is earlier. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to sub-section (I-A) "in addition to the market value of the land " the land owners will be entitled to anamount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the marketvalue for the period commencing on and from the date of thepublication of the notification under section 4 (1) to the date ofthe award of the Collector or the date of taking possession ofthe land, whichever is earlier. In the present case the notification was made on 13-11-1959. The award was made on30-3-1963. So the additional amount of 12 per cent per annumon the market value of the land determined above will hepayable to the land owners from 13-11-1959 to 30-3-1963. ( 9 ) COUNSEL for the Union of India submits that the landowners are not entitled to the additional amount of 12 per centper annum because, on her. submission, this provision will applyonly to cases where section 4 notification is issued after 24-9-84the date on which the Amendment Act received the assent ofthe President. We do not agree. Section 30 (1) of the Amend-merit Act deals with "transitional provisions". It says : 30 (1 ). The provisions of sub-section (I-A) of section 23of the principal Act, as inserted by Clause. of section 15of this Act, shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied,also to. and in relation to, (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of anyland under the principal Act pending on the 30th day ofapril, 1982 the date of introduction of the Landacquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the Houseof the People, in which no award has been madeby the Collector before that date; (B) every proceeding for the acquisition of ally landunder the principal Act commenced after that date,whether or not an award has been made by thecollector "before the commencement of this Act. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 andsection 28 of the principal Act. s" amended byclause of section 15. . (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 andsection 28 of the principal Act. s" amended byclause of section 15. . aaand section 18 of this Actrespectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed tophave applied, also to, and in relation to, any awardmade by the Collector or Court or to any orderpassed by the High Court or Supreme Court inappeal against any such award under the provisionsof the principal Act after the 30th day of April1982 the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of thepeople and before, the commencement of this Act. " ( 10 ) THE critical words in this section are "also to" used insub-Section (3 ). This shows that firstly this provision of addltionnl amount made in section 23 (1-A) will also apply and shallbe deemed to have applied to every proceeding which waspending on 30-4-1982 and in which no award had been madeby the Collector before that date. Secondly this provision willalso apply to every proceeding for acquisition of the land whichwas commenced after 30-4-1982. whether or not an award hasbeen made by the Collector before 24-9-1984. This provisionapplies to cases falling within the two cut-off dates 30-4-1982and 24-9-1984. But if a case is decided after 24-9-1984, afterthe Amendment Act has become the law of the land. the Courtsarc bound to give effect to the) provisions of sub-section (I-A) ofsection 23 which means that the land owner in addition to themarket value of the land" will also be entitled to 12 per centper annum on such market value. This is exactly tile case here. We must apply the law of the land and award 12 per cent perannum on the market value from 13-11-1959 the date of section4 notification till 30-3-1963 the date of the award. The word"also is a copulative carrying on the sense that though the lawenacted will apply to future cases, it will also apply to past ingiven cases. The position comes to this. Section 23 (1-A) is prospective incharacter and will apply to all cases which are decided after24-9-1984. It is made retrospective only in two contingenciesspecified in section 30 (l) (a) and (b) of the Amendment Act. As regards the period preceding 24-9-1984 it will not be applicable to a case other than a case falling within (a) and (b ). Section 23 (1-A) is prospective incharacter and will apply to all cases which are decided after24-9-1984. It is made retrospective only in two contingenciesspecified in section 30 (l) (a) and (b) of the Amendment Act. As regards the period preceding 24-9-1984 it will not be applicable to a case other than a case falling within (a) and (b ). ( 11 ) BY sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Amendment Act,the amended provision of section 23 (1-A) has not been maderetrospective except in the above two cases. This means to anaward of the Collector or Court or to any order passed by thehigh Court or Supreme Court in appeal between 30-4-1982and24-9-1984 the porvisions of section 23 (1-A) shall not apply. The landowner shall not get the additional amount of 12 percent even though his case was decided between 30-4-1982 and24-9-1984 unless his case falls within section 30 (1) (a) or (b ). ( 12 ) COUNSEL for the land owners submits that the appellants are entitled to solatium on this additional amonut of 12per cent per annum which we have awarded them above. Inour opinion, the land owners are not entitled to solatium onthis additional amount. Under section 23 (2) as amended solatium is payable on the "market value of the land". The question is whether the additional amount of 12 per cent per annum provided in sub-section (I-A) of section 23 forms part ofthe market value or not. If it is a part of this market valuethen, of course, the land owners are entitled to solatium. Butif not, then solatium cannot be awarded on the additionalamount of 12 per cent per annum. ( 13 ) IN our opinion the additional amount is not a part ofthe market value. Our reasons are two. In the the first placeit is specifically said in sub-section (I-A) of section 23 that 12per cent is "in addition to the market value of the land". Thesame phraseology is used when it speaks of 12 per cent perannum on such market value". The market value is determinedunder the first clause of sec. 23 (1 ). What sub-section (1-A) saysin this. First determine the market value of the land on thedate of the publication of the notification under sec. 4 (1) ofthe Act. Then award an additional amount of 13 per cent perannum on the market value of the land so arrived at by thecourt. 23 (1 ). What sub-section (1-A) saysin this. First determine the market value of the land on thedate of the publication of the notification under sec. 4 (1) ofthe Act. Then award an additional amount of 13 per cent perannum on the market value of the land so arrived at by thecourt. Though calculated on the market value 12 per cent doesnot merge in the market value. It remains outside it. Becauseit is unrelated to the open market. Tt is an artificial augumentation of compensation. 12 per cent is a species of compensation. ( 14 ) SECONDLY in Union of India v. Ram Mehar, AIR 1973s. C. 305 ( 2) the Supreme Court held that compensation consists of market value plus solatium. These are two distinctexpressions. The first clause of section 23 (1) deals with themarket value. Section 23 (2) as amended deals with solatium. It says :"in addition to the market value of the land, as aboveprovided, the Court shall in every case award asum of Thirty per centum on such market value, incoasideration of the compulsory nature of theacquisition. " ( 15 ) THE real question is : What is the meaning of theexpression market value as used in the first clause- of section23 (1 ). In Ram Mehar the Supreme Court said :"it seems to us that the term "market value" has acquired ]a definite connotation by judicial decisions. Anyaddition to the value of the land to the owner whoseland is compulsorily acquired which addition is theresult of such factors as are unrelated to the openmarket cannot be regarded as a part of themarket value, (p. 309 ). ( 16 ) THROUGHOUT the Act the legislature has maintained adistinction between the market value and compensation . Market value i? the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser as the Privycouncil said in Gajapati Raju v. Rev divi. . Officer, AIR 1939privy Council 98 (3 ). The term compensation is the genusof which market value is a species. This is clear from section23 itself which says in sub-section (1) that in determiningthe amount of compensation to be awarded for land the courtshall take into consideration the matters mentioned therein. This distinction is further apparent from sections 17, 25, 28,and 28-A of the Act as amended where again and again thelegislature uses the word compensation in contradistinctionto the market value. This distinction is further apparent from sections 17, 25, 28,and 28-A of the Act as amended where again and again thelegislature uses the word compensation in contradistinctionto the market value. ( 37 ) THEREFORE there is a clear distinction between marketvalue and compensation . "market value is. therefore, onlyone of the components in the determination of the amount ofcompensation". (Ram Mehar p. 309 ). ( 18 ) WE cannot hold that 12 per cent forms part of themarket value. The additional amount of 12 per cent is a statutory creation. It is a statutory increase. A sort of statutoryallowance to the landowner. it is not relared to open market. Nor it is a benefit arising out of "land" (Section 3-A ). Theadditional amount of 12 per cent is certainly a part of the compensation and the land owner is entitled to interest on thisamount also under section 28 of-he Act as amended. But itis in no sense a part of the market value. Solatium which isawarded on "the market value of the land" under section 23 (21cannot be awarded on the additional amount of 12 per centper annum. It is an artificial increase in compensation. Toboost the compensation the legislature has given an additionalamount of 12 per cent. 12 per cent goes to increase the compensation and not the market value. Ram Mehar in our opinion is a complete answer to the land owner s claim to solatiumon 12 per cent. ( 19 ) THE truth is that the time, honounred test of market valuelaid down in the Act of 1894 was proving inadequate; in awading just compensation. By awarding an additional amount of12 per cent per annum on the market value the legislature istrying to cope with a situation complicated by inflation. Therevages of inflation reduced the compensation awarded on theold formula of 1894 to a mere pittance. It had no relation toreality. In 1984 the legislature has awarded an additionalamount of 13 per cent per annum and other benefits to bridgethe yawning gulf between prices ,prevailing 20 year; ago whensection 4 notification wa. s issued and now when compensationis to be paid after the decision of the reference or appeal. Theextra amount of 12 per cent per annum the legislature has givento the land owner to compensate him against the rising prices. This is the avowed policy of the. s issued and now when compensationis to be paid after the decision of the reference or appeal. Theextra amount of 12 per cent per annum the legislature has givento the land owner to compensate him against the rising prices. This is the avowed policy of the. legislature as declared in thestatement of Objects and Reasons appended to the Amendmentact. ( 20, ) THE legislature is taking into consideration the chancein the value of money. Over the last fifteen years or so therehas been a spectacular decline in in. ? purchasing power of therupee. Now 12 per cent is an extra amount in the quabtifieation of total compensation. It is n bounty of the legislature. It is given to reduce the owner s loss of land. If it shows anything it is this. That the law of compensation stood in needof correction and addition by the legislature. To the complaints of the land owners which were growing louder and louderthe legislature, gave a sympathetic ear. With a view to increasethe compensation the Amendment Act was passed. Theamendment Act gives more money to the expropriated owner. The object is to alleviate his pain and suffering which compulsory acquisition inflicts upon him. ( 21 ) MARKET value is the primary measure of compensation. Market is a real thing. People buy and sell in the market. Prices in the market rise and fall according to the law of demandand supply. In the market place "money talks". The solution isnot to be arrived at by the court holding an imaginary auction. So the legislature in the Amendment Act has left the conceptof market value untouched. It has not distorted it. What ithas done is this. It has pushed up the compensation by awarding more solatium, higher rates of interest, and an artificialaddition of a fixed numerical figure. These three are components of compensation. ( 22 ) WE, therefore, hold that the land owners are not entitledto solatium of 30 per cent on the additional amount of 12 percent par annum because it forms no part of the market value. ( 23 ) NOW we come to interest. The Amendment Act hasprovided for interest in section 28 as amended. ( 22 ) WE, therefore, hold that the land owners are not entitledto solatium of 30 per cent on the additional amount of 12 percent par annum because it forms no part of the market value. ( 23 ) NOW we come to interest. The Amendment Act hasprovided for interest in section 28 as amended. The amendedsection reads as under :"collector may be directed to pay interest on excesscompensation If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court,thecollector ought to have awarded as compensationis in excess of the sum which the Collector didaward as compensation tlie award of tho Courtmay direct that the Collector shall pay intereston such excess at the rate of nine per centum perannum from the date on which lie took possessionof the land to the data of payment of such excessinto Court. Provided that the award of the Court may alsodirect that where such excess or any part thereofis paid into court after the date of expiry of aperiod of one year from the date on which possession is taken interest at the rate of fiifteen percentum shall be payable from the date of expiryof the said period of one year on the amount ofsuch excess or part thereof which has not beenpaid into Court before the date of such expiry. " ( 24 ) A plain reading of the section shows that the landowners are entitled to 9 per cent per annum interest from thedate on which the Collector took possession of the land to thedate of payment. ( 25 ) THERE was a considerable debate before us with regardto the proviso. The proviso says that the award of the courtmay also direct that where such excess compensation is paidinto Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year fromthe dale on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of15 per cent per annum shall be payable by the Collector fromthe date of taking possession till payment. The main controversy is whether section 28 is retrospective or prospective. Bysection 30 (2) of the Amendment Act this provision has beenclearly made retrospective. The legislature has imported afiction. It is a deeming provision. Section 30 we have quoted in an earlier part of this judgment. The main controversy is whether section 28 is retrospective or prospective. Bysection 30 (2) of the Amendment Act this provision has beenclearly made retrospective. The legislature has imported afiction. It is a deeming provision. Section 30 we have quoted in an earlier part of this judgment. ( 26 ) ON a reading of section 30 (2) t)f the Amendment Actit is clear to us that section 28 as amended is retrospective incharacter and would also be applicable to case. in which (1)the award is made by the Collector, or (2) by the Court of thedistrict judge, or (3) to any order passed by. the High Court,or (4) Supreme Court after 30-4-1982 when the Amendmentbill was introduced in the House of the People and before. thecommencement of the Amendment Act, that is, 24-9-1984. These are two cut-off dates. If there is an award by the Colelctor or any enhancement ordered either by the district court. or the High Court or the Supreme Court the amended provisionsof section 28 shall apply provided the case falls within these twocut-off dates. To that limited extent it is retrospective. Otherwise it is prospective. Generally laws are intended to be prospective only. To alleviate harsh ami unfair consequences ofpast transactions the statutes are sonic times made retrospectivewithout injury to vested rights. The retrospective operation ismainly curative. ( 27 ) COUNSEL for the Union of India says that this interpretation is not correct because it will make the proviso to theamended section 28 wholly unworkable. This argument is based on a misconception that the Collector is being asked to payinterest at the rate of 15 per cent even though the excess compensaion was not known to him. And if the excess compensation is not known to him, so runs the arguments, how can hedeposit the excess within one year from the date of taking possession. It is said that the proviso is penal in nature and therefore it ought not to be enforced. We do not agree with thissubmission. ( 28 ) THE wordings of the section, are clear. The theory ofsection 28 is that the excess compensation awarded by thedistrict court or the High Court or the Supreme Court is infact a sum which the Collector "ought to have awarded ascompensation" and as such was payable at the date of the taking of the possession. ( 28 ) THE wordings of the section, are clear. The theory ofsection 28 is that the excess compensation awarded by thedistrict court or the High Court or the Supreme Court is infact a sum which the Collector "ought to have awarded ascompensation" and as such was payable at the date of the taking of the possession. Though determined in future by thecourts the "excess compensation" relates back to the date oftaking possession of the owner s land. And it ought to be so. The Government cannot take the land as well as keep compensation with it. The taker of the land must pay interest on compensation for the delay. Therefore the legislature has gone lothe aid of the land owner and has made its intention quite clearby opening the section with the words : if the sum which inthe opinion of the court the collector ought to have awarded ascompensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector didward as compensation". Therefore if there is an excess between the amount awarded by the Collector and as determined bythe Court on reference under section 18 or on appeal by thehigh Court or on a further appeal by the Supreme Court, thensuch excess compensation shall carry interest not from the datewhen the excess is determined but from the date the Collectortook possession of the owner s land. That interest is 9 percent for the first year. After the expiry of the first year it is15 per cent till the date of payment. ( 29 ) WE do not agree that the section is penal. The objectis to pay just compensation to the land owner. This again isstated clearly in the Objects and Reasons. It is stated therethat the compensation hitherto paid to the land owners was"unrealistic and inequitous". To compensate the land ownerthe interest rate has been increased in the first instance from per cent to 9 per cent and in the second place to 15 per centafter the expiry of one year from the date of the taking ofpossession. ( 30 ) NOR do we agree that the section is unworkable. Wedo not think that it is because of his default that the Collectoris being asked to pay 15 per cent interest. He is being askedto pay 15 percent because from the "ought" figure of compensation the land owner was kept out for so long. ( 31 ). ( 30 ) NOR do we agree that the section is unworkable. Wedo not think that it is because of his default that the Collectoris being asked to pay 15 per cent interest. He is being askedto pay 15 percent because from the "ought" figure of compensation the land owner was kept out for so long. ( 31 ). It is obvious that there will always be a lap.-ie of timebetween the taking of possession of the land and the paymentof compensation. Frequently the land owner will have to waitfor a considerable time until Just compensation is determinedand paid. What the landowner has therefore lost by the latereceipt of the compensation, "excess" as it is called, is onlythat element of modern interest rates which truly represent the"use value" of money. These years of delay are truly years ofdeprivation when the land owner was kept out of land andout of compensation money. ( 32 ) THOUGH section 28 uses the word may both in themain section and the proviso, it is mandasory It means Mall . Sometimes the legislature uses the word may out of deferenceto the high status of the authority on whom the ,power- and theobligation are intended to be conferred and imposed (State ofu. P. v. Joginder Singh, AIR 1963 S. C. 1618 (4) (See alsocellector v. Habib-Ullah-Din AIR 1967 J and K 44 (PB) (S ). Therefore the rates of interest, namely, 9 per cent and 15 percent per annum, are compulsory for the court to award. In1894 when the Act was passed the rate of interest was 6 percent per annum. In 1984 when the Amendment Act. waspassed the legislature has given power to the Collector and thecourt to award 9 per cent per annun for one year ana 15 percent per annum thereafter till payment. (See section 34 asamended ). The span of time remains the same. But now,under the amended law, it is broken into two parts : ( 1) forone year from the date of dispossession - per cent per annum. (2) After the expiry of one year 15 per cent per annum tillpayment. To maintain the symetry of the section tile moderndraftsman has added a proviso to the old section Out ofrespect to the Court he has used the same word may in theproviso as was done in the main section of 1894. (2) After the expiry of one year 15 per cent per annum tillpayment. To maintain the symetry of the section tile moderndraftsman has added a proviso to the old section Out ofrespect to the Court he has used the same word may in theproviso as was done in the main section of 1894. The principles are the same but the measuring rods are Different. Weare now given a new set of set squares and foot rules to measurecompensation. ( 33 ) THROUGHOUT the Amendment Act, whether it is section23 or section 28 or section 34, one thing is conspicuous. Thelegistature is conscious that the expropriated owner has had arough deal. He was being paid less compensation. He shouldhave more, the legislature felt. A repentent legislature, spurredinto activity, is trying to be just. It is giving with both hands. To those who had less more shall be given. This is the pithand substance of the Amendment Act. As is slated in the Objects and Reasons when the individual s land is taken he isvery often deprived of his means of livelihood. He can well says :"you take my life when you do take the means whereby I live" (Shakespeare Merchant of Venice IV. (i ). Compulsory acquisition inflcts pain and suffering, as the Objects say. Theamendment Act is the product of the felt necessity "to restructure the legislative framework for acquisition of land . It hasrighted the wrong of "unrealistic; scale of compensation" bymaking three substantial changes. One 30 per cent solatiumin place of 15 per cent. Second by awarding an additionalamount of 12 per cent p. a. on the market value. Third by increasing the rate of interest from 6 per cent to 9 per cent and15 per cent p. a. ( 34 ) THE Government counsel opposed the demands of theland owners under the Amendment Act. We cannot appreciatethe Government stand. The executive cannot deny to the expropriated ]owners what the legislature has given in the Amendment Act, even though it may mean a heavy burden en the Consolidated Fund of India. Those who are guardians of the publicpurse have decided to give more. Why grudge them just compensation when the legislature has done away with "unrealisticand iniquitous" compensation. The executive cannot deny to the expropriated ]owners what the legislature has given in the Amendment Act, even though it may mean a heavy burden en the Consolidated Fund of India. Those who are guardians of the publicpurse have decided to give more. Why grudge them just compensation when the legislature has done away with "unrealisticand iniquitous" compensation. The Objects state that the individual who is deprived of his property rights in land need to beadequately compensated for the loss keeping in view the sacrificehe makes for the larger interests of community. As the Supreme Court has said that community has no right to enrich itselfby deliberately taking away the property of any of its memberswithout providing adequate compensation for it. (Ram Mehar (supra) at p. 309 ). ( 35 ) AT the end we make) it clear that the land owners willalso be entitled to 30 per cent on account of solatium on themarket value as determined by the Collector and the additionaldistrict judge on reference. This means that there shall be afurther payment of 15 per cent per annum on account of solatium because 15 per cent has already bee" paid to them underthe orders of the Collector and the Additional District Judge. ( 36 ) COUNSEL claims that the land owners are also enviedto interest under the amended section 28 on the sum enhancedby the Additional District Judge. This praver ton is oprosedby the counsel for the Union of India, So we. must tnrn to "section 28 once again to see whether the claim is correct or not. We have quoted this section above. The important words ofthe section are : "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 court may direct the Collector to pay interest at therate of 9 per cent for the period of one year from the date oftaking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent tillpayment. ( 37 ) IN plain language it means this. Anything over andabove the Collector s award is "excess compensation". Thetheory underlying section 28 is evident from the opening wordswe have quoted. Interest has to be awarded on "excess compensation". How do we find the excess ? The formula is this. See what is given by the Collector. ( 37 ) IN plain language it means this. Anything over andabove the Collector s award is "excess compensation". Thetheory underlying section 28 is evident from the opening wordswe have quoted. Interest has to be awarded on "excess compensation". How do we find the excess ? The formula is this. See what is given by the Collector. Then see what is given bythe Courts on reference and appeal. The difference of these twofigures is the "excess compensation". The critical words of thesection are ought and did . In short the excess is the difference of ought and did . What the Collector "ought to haveawarded as compensation" and what he "did award as compensation" are the two figures with which section 28 is concerned. Find out what is the difference between ought and did . Youget the excess. The ethical ought legally expresses the amountof compensation to which the land owner is finally found to beentitled on reference or appeal. This determination takes years,it is true. The judicial process is tardy and time consuming. The is why there is always a gap between what the Collector didaward and what he ought to have awarded. ( 38 ) MARKET value can be only one. It is determined by thecollector in the first instance and redetermined by the Courts onreference and appeals. The old section 25 has been abrogated. The amended section 25 says : "the amount of compensationawarded by the Court shall not be less than amount awarded by the Collector under section II". This will rarely happen. So virtually there is now no limitation on the Court s power toaward adequate compensation. The restrictions of old section25 have been abolished. Case law on old section 25 is now obsolete and can be safely consigned to the legal waste paperbasket. ( 39 ) IF the Collector, for example, gives Rs. 5. 00 per sq. yardand by way of enhancement, whether it is by the district judge scourt or by this court or by the Supreme Court, the land owneris awarded Rs. 15. 00 per sq. yard then obviously the excess isrs. 10. 00 per sq. yard. The section is quite clear. It says :give to the land owner interest on the excess compensationthis excess of Rs. 16. 00 will carry interest in terms of the amended section 28. 15. 00 per sq. yard then obviously the excess isrs. 10. 00 per sq. yard. The section is quite clear. It says :give to the land owner interest on the excess compensationthis excess of Rs. 16. 00 will carry interest in terms of the amended section 28. ( 40 ) NOW prior to the Amendment Act the Court of theadditional District Judge had awarded to the land owners interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum as was the law inforce at that time. Now the land owners will be entitled to 9percent per annum and 15 per cent per annum in terms of theamendment on the excess compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge. So we hold the interest which he has alreadyawarded, namely 6 per cent per annum will be deducted and thebalance shall be paid. ( 41 ) THE land owners also claim interest under section 4 (3)of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967. We find that there is a difference of more than 3 years betweenscetion 4 notification (13-11-1959) and section 6 declaration (22-11-1962) of the Act. The laud owners shall therefore beentitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on themarket value provided there is no overlapping between section 28of the Act and section 4 (3) of the Amendment Act, 1967. Wearc of opinion that the land owners shall be entitled to interestunder the Amendment Act of 1967 also because the Amendmentact of 1967 has not been repealed by the Amendment Act of1984. ( 42 ) THE appellants will be entitled to proportionate costs. Conclusion ( 43 ) IN conclusion we make the following order :__ 1. The appellants will be entitled to the market value of theland at the rate of Rs. 15,000. 00 per bigha for their land in blocksa, B and C and at the rate of Rs. 8000. 00 per bigha for the landin Khasra No. 613/572/206. In Appeal No. 113/68 the totalamount of the market value will in no case exceedrs. 3. 65,217. 39 p. In Appeal No. 134/68 the total amount ofthe market value will not exceed Rs. 33 000 2. Besides this market value the appellants will be entitledto an additional amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent perannum from the date of notification under see. 3. 65,217. 39 p. In Appeal No. 134/68 the total amount ofthe market value will not exceed Rs. 33 000 2. Besides this market value the appellants will be entitledto an additional amount calculated at the rate of 12 per cent perannum from the date of notification under see. 4, that is,13-11-1959, the date of the award, that is, 30-3-1963 on theen I ire market value, that is, the market value as assessed by thecollector and increased by the Additional District Judge andfurther increased now by this court. 3. The appellants will also be entitled to solatium at the rateof 30 per cent on the market value as determined under clause (1) above. 4. The appellants will also be entitled to interest at the rateof 9 per cent per annum from the date of dispossession till theexpiry of one year from that date and thereafter till the date ofpayment at 15 per cent per annum on the amount enhancedby the Additional District Judge and this court. 5. The appellants will also be entitled to interest undersection 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on themarket value provided there is no overlapping between section28 of the Act and section 4 (3) of the Amendment Act, 1967. 6. Whatever lias already been paid on account of marketvalue, interest and solatium shall be deducted. 7. The appellants will be entitled to proportionate costs.