RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is presented by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land acquisition Act against the award made by the City Civil Judge, Bangalore in a Land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. ( 2 ) THOUGH the respondents are served they are not represented. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also looked into the records of the Court below. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case are as follows : 1 acre 21 quntas of land belonging to the appellant was requisitioned by the Central Government for defence purpose under the provisions of the requisitioning and. Acquisition of immo- veable property Act 1952. The Central government took possession of the land and was paying rents to the appellant in accordance with the rate prescribed under the said Act, Even as the respondent was continuing in possession of the land, a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the act-) was issued on 4 5-1972 proposing to acquire the land. After considering the objection to the acquisition a final notification was issued under Section 6 of the Act, on 20th November, 1972. The land Acquisition Officer made an award fixing the compensation payable in respect of the land acquired. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation the appellant sought reference under Section 18 of the land Acquisition Act. The reference was allowed and the compensation payable was determined at Rs. 44,000/- per acre. The Court also directed payment of statuory allowance at 15 per cent on the said amount and also interest at 5 per cent on the enhanced amount from the date of dispossession to the date of payment or tender. ( 4 ) THE only grievance made in this appeal is, about not granting interest under section 28 of the Act, on the enhanced compensation. ( 4 ) THE only grievance made in this appeal is, about not granting interest under section 28 of the Act, on the enhanced compensation. Section 28 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant point of time reads: "co/lector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation- 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 (nine 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. 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 a 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 from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry " according to the above provision, the court should direct the Collector to pay interest on the amount constituting the difference between the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Court at 5 per cent per annum from the date on which the possession of the land was taken till date of payment of the excess into the Court. The appellant states that such interest is awarded only from 19-11-1976 on the ground that the possession of the land, as stated by the land Acquisition Officer, was taken on the said date. The appellant states that such interest is awarded only from 19-11-1976 on the ground that the possession of the land, as stated by the land Acquisition Officer, was taken on the said date. But the learned Counsel pointed out the undisputable fact was that, the possession of the land was taken much earlier to the preliminary notification under the provisions of the Requisitioning and Acquisition Act, 1952 and according to the provisions of Section 7 of the said Act, the moment a notification for acquiring the land is issued, the land stands vested in the Central Government and therefore the possession must be deemed to have been taken on 4-5-1972 on which date the preliminary notification was issued and therefore the interest payable under Section 28 of the act must be paid from 4 5-1972 upto the date of actual payment into the Court. ( 5 ) FROM the records of the Court below, the following facts are clearly established : (1) the possession of the land in question had been taken by the Defence department of the Central Government, much earlier to 4-5-1972 under the provisions of the Requisition and Acquisition act ; (2) the preliminary notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 4-5-1972 ; (3) the final notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 20-11- 1972. In view of the undisputed facts, viz. , that the possession of the land was already witht he Defence Department, there can be no doubt that 19-11-1976, cannot be taken as the date on which the possession of the land was taken for purpose of Section 28 of the Act. The question however for consideration is, whether the possession must be deemed to have been taken on 4-5-1972 on which date the preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued or on 20th November 1972, on which date the final notification under section 6 of the Act was issued In our opinion, the clear effect of Section 7 of the Act is, that it is only on the Central government taking a final decision to acquire the property and the issue of the notice to that effect, by the force of the said Section, the land stands vested in the Central Government. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that 4-5-1972, the date of preliminary notification, must be regarded as the date on which the possession must be deemed to have been taken by the Central Government, cannot be upheld, It is only on the issue of final notification under Section 6 of the Land acquisition Act, the provisions of Section 7 of the requisitioning and Acquisition Act 1952 gets attracted. Therefore, while rejecting the contention of the appellant that 4-5-1972 must be taken as the date on which the possession of the land must be deemed to have been taken by the Central Government, we hold that the possession must be deemed to have been taken on 20-11-1972 on which date final notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was issued. Consequently, the appellant would be entitled to the interest payable under Section 28 of the Act with effect from 20-11-1972 instead of 19-11-1976. ( 6 ) IN the result, we make the following order : (i) The appeal is partly allowed ; (ii) The award of the court below is modified as follows : the appellant shall be entitled to the interest payable under Section 28 of the Act on the enhanced amount of compensation from 20th November, 1972. In other respect the award remains undisturbed. --- *** --- .