JUDGMENT Roy, J. On or about 1st August, 1957, the lands belonging to the petitioners, were sought to be acquired, on publication of necessary Notification under s.4 of the Land Development and Planning Act, 1947 and the consequent declaration was published on 14th February, 1962 Thereafter, on or about 3rd December, 1963, the Collector, 24-Parganas, made his award in Case No. L.A. (Rehab) 8 of 56-57 and on 12th December, 1962, possession of the lands in question was taken. 2. Against the sold award, an application under s.18 of the Land Requisition/Acquisition Act, was made in L.A. Case No 25 of 1968(V) of the court or the Special L.A. Judge, 24-Parganas contending that the valuations of land and buildings as made, on the basis of the price prevailing in 1946, was wrong and incorrect On 4th July, 1970. the said Reference was accepted in part and the learned Judge modified the award of compensation and determined the value of solid land of 3 belts at Rs 1000/, Rs.608/and Rs.3331-per cottah respectively. He also determined the value of the tank in these belts at Rs. 500/., Rs. 333/- and Rs. 166/- Per cottah respectively, and further fixed the valuation of the structure at Rs. 49,492/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the said determination, this Court was moved in F.A. No 251 of 1971, by he petitioners herein and by the judgment dated 24th March, 1982, the case was remitted back. for fresh fixation of valuation as on 1st August, 1952, i.e. the date of publication under s.4 of the Act on or about 11th August, 1982, the said Reference was allowed after remand and the Valuation of the land in 1st, 2nd and 3rd belt, were enhanced. 4. Against the said determination, the opposite parties herein preferred F.A. No 52 of 1983, and there was also a cross objection filed by the petitioners before us and on 27th June, 1984, the said appeal was dismissed and the cross-objection was allowed, directing determination of compensation as fixed by the learned Special L.A. Judge, with a further direction that the referring claimants should get Interest @ 6% per cottah from 31st December, 1962 i.e. the date of taking possession or the acquired lands, on the enhanced amount of compensation. It was also directed that the said learned Judge, should also take statutory allowance @ 15% on the enhanced amount of compensation, as statutory allowance, after deducting the amounts that have already been withdrawn by the referring claimant Mr. Mukherjee, appearing in support of the present proceeding indicated that after the 11th August, 1982, judgment, deposit was made on 27th April, 1983, and in may, 1985, after the judgment of 27th June, 1984. 5. After the above, the petitioners, on 13th May, 1985, filed an application, claiming solatium @ 30% and interest @ 15% stating inter alia amongst others that they would be entitled to get the benefit of s.15(b) of the Act, which provides 30% solatium on the amount awarded as compensation and also the provisions of s.18(a) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1894, wherein enhanced Interest has been provided for and that application far review was allowed on 11th October, 1985 and the petitioners were granted salatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% In that proceeding, the petitioners further claimed that provisions of s.30(2) of the amended Land Acquisition Act, was applicable in this case. Admittedly, the petitioners herein, moved a Special Leave Petition No 3853 of 1986 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, against the said determination dated 11th October, 1985 and the judgment dated 2nd March, 1987, the following order :- The only grievance of the petitioners is that the award in respect of interest payable on the compensation has not been computed in accordance with law-as per proviso to s. 28 of the amendment Land Acquisition Act. It is open to the petitioners to apply to the High Court to modify the judgment bringing it in accordance with law on a review petition to be presented by the petitioners in view of this we do not propose to admit this petition 'the petitioners are at liberty to file a review petitioner within one month from today. If such a Review Petition is filed within one month the High Court will proceed to dispose it without reference to the period of limitation. Petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that he has filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition for amendment Civil Miscellaneous Petition far amendment is allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as passed. Petition is disposed of accordingly. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners state that he has filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition for amendment Civil Miscellaneous Petition far amendment is allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as passed. Thus, It is clear that by the said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, granted liberty to the petitioners herein to file an application for review in this Court. 6A. Pursuant to such liberty, the present application for review was filed by the petitioners an 31st March, 1987 and Mr. Mukherjee, appearing in support of the application contended that the rate of interest should be 15% instead of 9% as ordered, and he also painted out that In fact, such rate was challenged in the crass objection of the petitioners herein, which was filed in connection with the concerned F.A. No.52 of 1983. On the basis of the dates of deposits as indicated hereinbefore, Mr. Mukherjee further submitted that since in this Case, the Collector did not admittedly deposit the enhanced amount of compensation within one year from the date of taking possession, so also Interest @ 15% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation, should have been directed and that too from the date of expiry of the period of one year from the date of taking possession. It was stated that un 31st December, 1962, possession of the land was taken by the Collector, but he deposited the enhanced amount of compensation in April, 1983 i.e. long after the expiry of one year's period and as such also, Interest @ 9% per annum should have been granted far the period of one year from 31st December, 1962 to 30th December, 1963 and on and from 31st December, 1963 @ 15% per annum as per the amended provisions of s.28 of the Laud Acquisition Act, 1894 and in not ordering such, the true, scope, import and effect of that section, was overlooked or not duly construed. 7. 7. Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 mentions the mailer to be considered in determining compensation and s.24 makes provisions for such matters, which can be neglected in determining compensation and s.15 postulates, that in determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in ss.23 and 24, as mentioned above it should also be noted that by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No.68 of 1984), a proviso to the following effect. : "Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of it period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable firm the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has nut been paid into Court before: the date or such expiry was added to s.28 of the Act, which has Indicated 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, has been added. On the basis of the provisions as indicated hereinbefore, Mr. Mukherjee categorically contended that that Court, while making the determinations in FA No 52 of 1983, should have thus granted interest at the full rate i.e 9% per annum for a period of one year 31st December, 1962 and then @ 15% per annum on and from the expiry of one year from the date of taking possession i.e. 31st December, 1963 8. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mukherjee, firstly referred to the case of Union of India v. Smt. Mariya Olivia Carvalho & Ors. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mukherjee, firstly referred to the case of Union of India v. Smt. Mariya Olivia Carvalho & Ors. AIR 1986 Bom 1 , where it has been held, inter alia, amongst others, that interest of 9% per annum on excess amount should be paid for first year and at 15% after expiry of first year till date of payment Such determination was made on construction of the amended provisions of s.28 of the Land Acquisition Act He, secondly referred to the case of The Special Deputy Collector, Srisailam project (L.A) Atmakur v. B. Venkata Seshama, AIR 1987 AP 136 , where the Court, while dealing with s.23(1A) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 and s.30, has observed that on a consideration of the language in s.30(1) and s.23(1A), it is seen that the predominant intention of the Parliaments to award Interest in All Cases (pending on the date of enforcement of Act 68 of 1984) decided after the Amending Act, is enforced. The predominant intention of the Amending Act 68 of 1984 is to award 12% Interest in all cases pending before the authorities and Courts irrespective of the fact when s.4(1) notification was published or when the award wall passed and thirdly, to the Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court, in the case of Special Land Acquisition officer, Dandeli, v. Soma Gopal Gowda, AIR 1986 Kant 179 In that case, It has been observed that to all pending cases whether on reference or on appeal, the Court is required to apply the provisions of sub-s.(1-A) of s.23 in determining the compensation payable to claimants. The award in that Case was found to be made by the Deputy Commissioner as only to the nature of an offer to the party whose property has been compulsorily taken away. If the party does not accept the offer the matter is required to be referred to the Court. There then the Court is required to determine the amount of compensation. At must be determined in the light of the principles provided under s.23 Section 23 in clear terms enjoins on the Court to take into consideration the matters set out thereunder in determining the amount of compensation. The Court is required to determine the market value of the land as obtained on the date of preliminary notification. At must be determined in the light of the principles provided under s.23 Section 23 in clear terms enjoins on the Court to take into consideration the matters set out thereunder in determining the amount of compensation. The Court is required to determine the market value of the land as obtained on the date of preliminary notification. Thereunder, the Court shall award under sub-s (1-A) of s 23, an additional amount provided thereunder. This additional amount is intended for the benefit since their property has been compulsorily acquired. The court, therefore, shall award this amount in all references coming before it. The date of acquisition of land or date of the award made by the Deputy Commissioner appears to be immaterial. The power to award the additional amount is that or the Court There is no inhibition express or implied for exercising that power apart from holding that the operation of sub-s. (1A), s.23, is not restricted by s.30 of the Amending Act only to matters covered by that section Subs (1), s.30, of the Amending Act states that sub-s (1-A), s.23, shall apply "also to" It means, in addition to That is in addition to its application to proceedings in Courts, it shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied firstly to every proceeding which was pending on April 30, 1982 and in which no award has been made by the Deputy Commissioner before that date Secondly, it shall apply to every proceeding for acquisition of any land commenced after April 30, 1982 whether or not an award has been made by the Deputy Commissioner before September 24, 1984. Thus it has been given a limited retrospective to category of cases specified Under subs (1), s.30 But that does not mean that sub-s (1A) s.23 has only limited operation. Apart from its general application, It has been expressly made applicable to proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner pending or disposed of between the said two out-off-day. It impliedly provides for re determination of the award amount even at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner where the claimant has Lot sought for a reference to the Court. 9. There was no affidavit-in-opposition filed to the application, and Mr. Banerjee, appearing for the respondents, only contended that under s. 28. Interest, if at all, is payable on the excess amount and not on the amounts claimed. 10. 9. There was no affidavit-in-opposition filed to the application, and Mr. Banerjee, appearing for the respondents, only contended that under s. 28. Interest, if at all, is payable on the excess amount and not on the amounts claimed. 10. We have Indicated earlier the two dates as 27th April, 1983 and May 1985, when deposits were made in Court after the respective orders dated 11th August, 1982 and 27th June, 1984, or more particularly when, first and second enhancement in respect of the amount of compensations were made and admittedly no deposit was made within one year from the date of taking over possession. On the basis of the submissions of Mr. Mukherjee, It appeared that such being the position, there was admittedly no timely deposits made and his clients, would thus and according to the amended provisions of s.28 of the Act, be entitled to interest @ 15% per annum from 11th August, 1982. But on the first deposit or on the second one, the opposite par lies herein were admittedly defaulters and such deposits were also made after one year from the date of taking over possession on 12th December, 1962 and as such, it cannot be denied or disputed that they will be entitled to claim interest @ 5% per annum, from the date of expiry of one year, on the amount of such excess or part thereof, which has not been paid In Court, before the date of such expiry. Thus, Mr. Mukherjee’s submissions, that Interest to his client should have be en granted @ 9% per annum, for a period of one year from 31st December, 1962 and then @ 15% per annum on and from the expiry of one year from the date of taking over possession on 31st December, 1963, according to us, were of substance and while making such determinations, we accept and follow the determination of the Bombay High Court in the Union of India v. Smt. Olivia Carvalho & Ors. (supra) in fact, we find that the predominant Intention of the Parliament, in bringing about the amendments in the Act, is to award interest to the owner of the land In question, which has been compulsory acquired. 11. (supra) in fact, we find that the predominant Intention of the Parliament, in bringing about the amendments in the Act, is to award interest to the owner of the land In question, which has been compulsory acquired. 11. For the reasons as indicated hereinbefore, we allow this application for review and direct that the earlier determination dated 27th June, 1984, as made In F.A. No 52 of 1983 and so also the order as made on the cross objection as filed therein, be modified accordingly. There will he no order as to Costs. Mookherjee, J : I agree. Application allowed; earlier orders modified