ORDER Om Prakash, J. - These two writ petitions being directed against the orders of common authorities are disposed of by a common order. The first Writ Petition No. 4775 of 1989 is filed by the State of U.P. and the U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as The Corporation') against M/s. Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd., Rampur and others (hereinafter referred to as the Company') engaged in manufacture of sugar, challenging the orders dated 30-6-1986, Annexure 1 and dated 17-8-1988, Annexure? to the writ petition passed by the Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 3) and the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 9-1-1989. Annexure 8 to the writ petition. 2. By the second writ petition No. 22815 of 1989, the Corporation seeks quashing of the order dated 20-2-1989, Annexure 4 passed by the Prescribed Authority (respondent No. 3) and of the order dated 18-10-1989., Annexure 5 to the writ petition passed by the Appellate Tribunal (respondent No. 4). 3. To understand the controversy involved in these two writ petitions, it will be expedient to understand the Scheme of the U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 (briefly, the Act, 1971'). As the owners of certain sugar mills of the Uttar Pradesh or their lessees had created serious problems for the cane growers and labour which created an adverse an impact on the general economy of the areas, where those mills were situate, the State Government had enacted the Act, 1971 to acquire such units with a view to renovating and rehabilitating them and carrying out improvement therein. It is under this Act that the sugar mill belonging to the aforesaid Company was acquired inter alia. From the Schedule appended to the Act, 1971, it appears that as many as 12 sugar mills including the sugar mill belonging to the respondent Company, were acquired. The name of the respondent Company appears at serial No. 8 in the Schedule and as appears from column 3 of the Schedule, the Company became entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 118.00,000/-on account of acquisition by the State Government. Under Section 3 of the Act, 1971, every scheduled undertaking by virtue of this Act shall be deemed to have vested in the Corporation free from any debt. mortgage, charge or other encumbrances or lien on the appointed day which is defined under Section 2. meaning as July 3. 1971. 118.00,000/-on account of acquisition by the State Government. Under Section 3 of the Act, 1971, every scheduled undertaking by virtue of this Act shall be deemed to have vested in the Corporation free from any debt. mortgage, charge or other encumbrances or lien on the appointed day which is defined under Section 2. meaning as July 3. 1971. So the Company vested in the State on 3rd July, 1971. Section 5 of the Act, 1971 enjoined upon the Company to deliver the possession of the whole undertaking to the Collector and under sub-section (3) of Section 5. the Collector was enjoined upon to prepare an inventory of all properties. assets, books of account, registers and documents taken possession of. Delivery of possession to the Collector under this section shall amount to delivery of possession to the Corporation. Under sub-section (5) of Section 5, any person in possession or control of any property, asset etc. belonging to the undertaking shall be liable to account for to the Corporation for any such property. asset etc. which he has failed to deliver to the Collector. Under Section 6, the occupier of every scheduled undertaking shall, within 60 days from the appointed day or within the extended time. furnish the Corporation or its nominee. complete particulars of all liabilities and obligations incurred on the security of the undertaking and also of all agreements and other instruments relating to leave, pension, gratuity, provident fund and other terms of service to any person employed in that undertaking. Section 7 sub-section 11) clause (a) which is very relevant and important for the decision of the first writ petition. mandates that the State Government of together with interest and any other charges relating thereto and the storage and other incidental charges thereto payable to the Corporation or any other person shall be paid first and the balance shall be deposited with the Prescribed Authority and be paid to the persons entitled thereto as per decision of the Prescribed Authority or of the Tribunal. as the case may be. Similar provision is made under sub-section (2) regarding the payment of compensation for the acquisition of any stock of molasses. as the case may be. Similar provision is made under sub-section (2) regarding the payment of compensation for the acquisition of any stock of molasses. Sub-section 131 and subsection 141 contain a similar provision for the payment of compensation for the acquisition of any stock of sugar cane and sugar in the process of production respectively, whereas sub-sections ( 1) to 0) of Section 7 relate to the payment of the compensation of the stock of sugar, molasses, sugarcane and sugar in process of production. Sub-section 151 refers to the payment of compensation as mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule to the Act payable for acquisition of the undertaking itself. 4. Sub-section (6) of Section 7 is again important for the decision of the first writ petition. It empowers the State Government to provisionally deduct from the compensation referred to in sub-sections ( 1). (2), (3).141 and (5) and enjoins upon the State to deposit the balance, if any. with the Prescribed Authority, and whether such deductions are equal to or exceed the compensation, then no deposit need be made. but the Prescribed Authority is simply to be informed accordingly. Sub-section (7) obligates upon the state Government to file with the Prescribed Authority a statement giving particulars of the deductions. referred to in sub-section 161. The following subsections of Section 7 provide the machinery for calling for and disposing of the objections filed against the statement of provisional deductions. 5. Then comes Section 8 which is germane for the decision of the second writ petition. Sub-section ( 1) of Section 8 enables the Corporation to prefer to the Prescribed Authority any claim based on any loss sustained by the Corporation by reason for any property, asset, book of account etc. comprising the scheduled undertaking not having been delivered in accordance with., the provisions of Section S. 6. Coming to the facts of the first writ petition, it is noteworthy that the State Government made provisional deductions and filed the statement of deductions thereof as envisaged by sub-section (7) of Section 7. The Prescribed Authority some how registered such statement of deductions as claim No. 209 of 1980. Coming to the facts of the first writ petition, it is noteworthy that the State Government made provisional deductions and filed the statement of deductions thereof as envisaged by sub-section (7) of Section 7. The Prescribed Authority some how registered such statement of deductions as claim No. 209 of 1980. The facts as gleaned from the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 9-1-1989, Annexure 8 to the writ petition, go to show that the Prescribed Authority fixed several dates for the disposal of the statement of deductions but none appeared on behalf of the State. Eventually 30th June, 1986 was fixed and on that date too, none appeared on behalf of the State. Then the statement deductions filed by the State of U.P., registered as Claim No. 209 of 1980 was dismissed in default. Aggrieved, the State of U.P. filed Appeal No. 4 of 1988 before the Appellate Tribunal against such order. Before the Appellate Tribunal, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Prescribed Authority acted wholly illegally in having dismissed the petition i.e. the statement of deduction in default. It was argued before the Tribunal that as the statement of deduction was filed under sub-section (7) of Section 7, it was the duty of the Prescribed Authority to determine whether the provisional deductions were rightly made and whether the amount deducted was really due to third person. The submission was that the Prescribed Authority should have decided after bearing the persons for whose benefit the amount was provisionally deducted and there was no j justification to dismiss the claim i.e. the statement of deductions in default. The Appellate Tribunal agreed with the submission and held that the dismissal in default was misconceived. The Tribunal further held that there was no need to register the statement of deductions as `claim', that it was not necessary for the Corporation to appear before the Prescribed Authority on each date fixed thereby; that objections filed by the Company against the statement of deductions could have been disposed of by the Prescribed Authority even in the absence of the Corporation and that the claim made by the State Government could have been dismissed for want of evidence. The Tribunal finally rejected such claim as not' substantiated. (a) Block Compensation as given in the Act Rs. 1,18,00,000.00 (b) Value of sugar.stock Rs. The Tribunal finally rejected such claim as not' substantiated. (a) Block Compensation as given in the Act Rs. 1,18,00,000.00 (b) Value of sugar.stock Rs. 4,52,97,000 as admitted in para 49 of C. A. filed by State in the Writ Petition No. 4130 of 1971, less Bank advances Rs. 2.58 crores Rs. 1,94,97,000.00 (c) Value of sugar in process Rs. 6,00,000.00 (d) Value of molasses & Press mud etc. Rs. 49,377.00 (e) Cash balance as on 30-10-1971 as printed in balance sheet Rs. 64,217.00 (f) Bank balance as on 31-10-1971 Rs. 18,12,567.00 (g) Book debts as per printed balance sheet as on 31-10-1979 Rs. 11,53,068.00 Rs. 3,44,76,279.00 Interest on Rs. 3,44,76,279/ - crores compensation for 15 years from 2:71 to 2-7-1986 at 5% Rs. 2,97,35,500.00 Rs. 6,42,11,779.00 7. The Company had made an application dated 29th July, 1986, Annexure 4 to the writ petition claiming compensation at Rs. 6,42,11779/-. This application was registered as claim No. 2 of 1986. Such claim was decreed by the Prescribed Authority and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The details of the said claim as furnished in para 8 of the application made under Section 7, Annexure 8 to the writ petition are as follows : To accept this claim, the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Tribunal relied on counter-affidavit of Sri Arvind Verma. Deputy Secretary which was filed by him on 16-11-1971 in the Writ Petition No. 4130 of 1971, which was filed by the Company challenging the vires of the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1971 (for short the Ordinance, 1971') before the Lucknow Bench of this Court. In that affidavit, Sri Arvind Verma, Deputy Secretary has stated that there were 262146 sugar bags in the stock of the Company and that the total value of the said bags was approximately Rs. 4,52,97,000/including the bank advances to the tune of Rs. 2,58,00,000/-. The Prescribed Authority also pointed out that in the statement of particulars of deductions filed by the Corporation, it was stated that the estimated gross margin of sugar bags in stock as on 2-7-1971 was Rs. 3,88,14,727/-. As this amount was lesser than the amount of compensation as disclosed by Sri Arvind Verma in his affidavit, the Prescribed Authority accepting the claim of the Company observed in his order dated 17-8-1988, Annexure 7 to the first writ petition. "Therefore, there is an easy conclusion that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 3,88,14,727/-. As this amount was lesser than the amount of compensation as disclosed by Sri Arvind Verma in his affidavit, the Prescribed Authority accepting the claim of the Company observed in his order dated 17-8-1988, Annexure 7 to the first writ petition. "Therefore, there is an easy conclusion that the claimant was entitled to Rs. 3,44,76,279/- as compensation on the appointed date." Adding interest to this amount, the Prescribed Authority directed the State Government to pay compensation for the sugar stock at Rs. 6,42,11,779/- and it was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal by a brief finding as contained in para 14 of its order dated 9-1-1989, Annexure 8 to the first writ petition. Whereas the Prescribed Authority while relying on the affidavit dated 16-11-1971 of Sri Arvind Verma, said : "It maybe that this statement as such is not very much admissible in evidence but when the matter is going ex parse and only the veracity of the statement of the claimant is to be verified, a supporting statement even in the form of inadmissible piece of statement would get a weight to support the contention of the claimant." the Appellate Tribunal commenting upon the affidavit in para 14 observed : "A certified copy of the affidavit obtained from the court's record had been filed before the Prescribed Authority an*it was therefore admissible piece of evidence besides being relevant." 8. Before turning to the facts of the second writ petition No. 22815 of 1989, I take up the first writ petition for disposal. The questions For consideration in this writ petition are : 1. Whether the provisional deductions were rightly made by the State Government ? 2. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that no amount was due to any third person and that all claims set up by third persons were settled and as nothing was due to the State Government, no provisional deduction could have been justifiably made by the State Government under sub-section (6) of Section 7; and 3. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Prescribed Authority directing the State Government to pay Rs. 6,42,11,779/- ? 9. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to questions Nos. Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of the Prescribed Authority directing the State Government to pay Rs. 6,42,11,779/- ? 9. The findings of the Tribunal with regard to questions Nos. 1 and 2 as contained in para 16 of the order dated 9-1-1989, Annexure 8 are as follows : "In the instant case all claims of third persons have been decided already and the stage has come when the State Government must part with the money which it has retained in purported exercise of its power under Section 7(6). However, in the revised statement of deductions the State Government had shown a deduction of Rs. 83 lacs as secured debt in its own favour on account of loan given by it along with interest thereon. But this deduction admittedly did not remain valid as it had been satisfied and the deduction which was also shown towards purchase tax and commission and penalty, but the same had been disallowed by the Prescribed Authority independently of the order of 30-6-86 by reason of decree in suit between the parties and that matter has not been specifically raised in the Appeal before me. The matter of bank dues, cane price and labour dues had been settled otherwise. The amount of Rs. 45 lacs and odd shown as 'other dues' in the revised statement of deductions could not have been taken into consideration in absence of specification and more over it has been undeniably asserted from the side of the respondent before me that it has nothing to do with any dues as on 2-7-1971, but relates to the position when possession was taken in 1979. So it is irrelevant. The result is that there is actually nothing which remains to he considered so far as the statement of deductions is concerned. Irrespective of the fact that the State Government remained unrepresented with dates were fixed for considering statement of deductions as a 'claim' and the objection filed against it by the Company and that it also remained absent throughout when those claims have been considered in respect of which it had made provisional deductions and. Irrespective of the fact that the State Government remained unrepresented with dates were fixed for considering statement of deductions as a 'claim' and the objection filed against it by the Company and that it also remained absent throughout when those claims have been considered in respect of which it had made provisional deductions and. finally, it also remained absent when the application of the Company for directing the State Government to deposit the compensation money along with interest was heard by the Prescribed Authority, and also the fact that no opportunity was sought for by the State Government after the order of 30-6-1986 for the re-bearing of the dispute about the statement of deductions, no purpose is to be achieved at all by remanding the case to the Prescribed Authority for hearing the statement of deductions and objections on it simply on the ground of the aforesaid technical error in its order dated 30-6-1986 in so far as it was in the wording 'dismissed in default'." 10. The aforesaid finding is substantially factual and no reappraisal of the material which was before the Tribunal, can be made under the writ jurisdiction. There is nothing on record to show that the foregoing finding of the Tribunal is contrary to the record or is in violation of law. The Tribunal having considered the facts in entirety concluded that no amount was due to third party or to the State Government and, therefore, there was no good reason to make the provisional deductions under sub-section (6) of Section 7. 1 do not see any perversity in the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal and, therefore. this ,part of the impugned order deserves to be upheld. Whereas the question No. I is decided in native. the question No. 2 is decided in affirmative. 11. The findings of the Tribunal recorded on question No. 3 leave much to be desired. By application dated 29th July, 1986, Annexure 4 to the writ petition the Company claimed compensation for the sugar stock, sugar in process, molasses, press mud etc. as on 2-7-1971. Total claim for such stock and four more items aggregate to Rs. 3,44,76.279/- and the same was allowed by the Prescribed Authority whose order was upheld by the Tribunal. The sheet anchor of the finding of the authorities below is the counter affidavit dated 16-11-197 1, filed by Sri Arvind Verma. as on 2-7-1971. Total claim for such stock and four more items aggregate to Rs. 3,44,76.279/- and the same was allowed by the Prescribed Authority whose order was upheld by the Tribunal. The sheet anchor of the finding of the authorities below is the counter affidavit dated 16-11-197 1, filed by Sri Arvind Verma. Deputy Secretary to the Government in the writ petition No. 4130 of 1971 which was filed by the company challenging the vires of the Ordinance. 1971. The contents of the said affidavit have been reproduced by the Prescribed Authority in his order Annexure. 7. from a perusal or which it appears that Sri Arvind Verma stated that there were 262146 bags of sugar on the date of vesting, the value of which approximately was Rs. 4,52.97.000/- subject to deductions of bank advances etc. The question is whether on the basis of the averments made in the counter-affidavit dated 16-11-1971 by Sri Arvind Verma, the claim for compensation at Rs. 3.44.76,279/- can he awarded. It is to be noted that the said affidavit refers to the value of the sugar stock only as on 2-7-1971 and nothing else. Even if the affidavit is accepted as such, then the claim for Rs. 1,94,97,00%- only representing the value of the sugar stock as on 2-7-1971 can be decreed on that basis. The affidavit cannot form the basis for awarding the total compensation of Rs. 3.44,76,279/- comprising paying items. The Tribunal and the Prescribed Authority both have, therefore, failed to appreciate the averments made in the counter-affidavit in the right perspective. It is here t hey have made a serious legal error. 12. The question is: when does the State Government become liable to pay the compensation for the sugar stock Y The civil liability will ordinarily arise only when the sugar stock is appropriated by the State Government and this principle is not given a go-bye by Section 7. From the counter- affidavit of Sri Arvind Verma, what is established is that there was a sugar stock containing 262146 bags on the date of vesting i.e. 3-7-1971. If the said stock remains with the State Government and appropriated thereby, then surely it would he rendered liable to pay the compensation therefore under Section 7. Simply because the sugar stock was there on the date of vesting. If the said stock remains with the State Government and appropriated thereby, then surely it would he rendered liable to pay the compensation therefore under Section 7. Simply because the sugar stock was there on the date of vesting. liability to pay compensation of on the part of the State Government will not arise in view of the peculiar facts of this case, unless some more facts are found that the said stock was used or disposed of by the State Government I before restoring the possession to the Company on 5-7-1971 by virtue of the stay order or that it was accounted for to the State Government when the possession of the undertaking was re-delivered to the State Government in the year 1979. The admitted-. facts are that after acquisition. the possession I of the undertaking had been taken by the State Government on the appointed date i.e. 3rd July, 1971. Immediately after the promulgation of the Ordinance, 1971, a writ petition No. 4130 of 1971 was filed on 5-7-1971 by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 challenging the vires thereof before this Court in Lucknow Bench. A stay order was granted by the Court directing the State Government to restore the possession of the undertaking as on 2-7-1971. The said writ petition was dismissed on 3-5-1979. Against the decision of this Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Company on 2-4-1980. A custodian was appointed on 30-1-1979 by Central Government under the Central Act No. 49 of 1978 who continued in possession of the undertaking from 30-1-1979 to 1-11-1979. Prior to 30-1-1979, the Company, admittedly, remained in the possession of the sugar mill right from 5-7-1971 pursuant to the stay order. passed by this Court. It is. therefore, manifest that the Company remained in possession.of the entire sugar mill right up to 30-1-1979 when the possession was taken by the custodian except for two days, Le. 3rd and 4th July, 1971, when the possession was taken over by the Collector under the provisions of the Ordinance. From the Custodian, the possession of the undertaking was again passed over to the Collector on 2-11-1979. The question is whether on these facts, the State Government becomes liable to pay compensation simply on the ground that possession of the sugar stock as on July. 1971 was taken over by it for two days i.e. 3rd and 4th July, 1971. From the Custodian, the possession of the undertaking was again passed over to the Collector on 2-11-1979. The question is whether on these facts, the State Government becomes liable to pay compensation simply on the ground that possession of the sugar stock as on July. 1971 was taken over by it for two days i.e. 3rd and 4th July, 1971. Subsection (1) clause (a) to Section 7 postulates that upon acquisition the State Government takes possession of the sugar stock and, therefore, it becomes liable to pay compensation therefor. On the hypothesis that the State Government takes possession of all the properties and assets forming part of the acquired undertaking, civil liability to pay compensation under Section 7(l)(a) for such asset arises. It implies actual appropriation of the asset by the State Government. There is no liability on the part of the State Government to pay compensation for any property or asset which is not appropriated thereby. There is no finding by the Tribunal that the sugar stock was not 'restored to the Company on 5th July. 1971 and that it was used or disposed of by the State Government prior to the restoration of possession. Clauses (b) and (c) sub-section (1) of Section 7 re-enforce my view. Clause (b) says that such sugar stock shall be disposed 1 of from time to time and as and when the stocks are disposed of, so much of the said compensation as relates to the quantity disposed of shall be paid in cash by the deposit with the Prescribed Authority. The compensation is not to be paid immediately upon the vesting of the undertaking but compensation is to be paid upon the disposal of the stock. As and when the stock is disposed of, commensurate compensation is to be deposited with the Prescribed Authority. It gives a clue that liability to pay compensation for sugar stock will arise only when the State, Government take actual possession of the stock and is in a position to exercise power to dispose it of. 13. Under Clause (c) to sub-section( 1) of Section 7, out of the compensation payable for t he sugar stock. It gives a clue that liability to pay compensation for sugar stock will arise only when the State, Government take actual possession of the stock and is in a position to exercise power to dispose it of. 13. Under Clause (c) to sub-section( 1) of Section 7, out of the compensation payable for t he sugar stock. the amount of any advance made on the security of the quantity disposed of together with the interest and any other charges relating thereto payable under the terms of the advance and storage and other incidental charges relating thereto payable to the Corporation shall be paid first and the balance shall be deposited with the Prescribed Authority. So the storage charges and the incidental charges can be deducted by the Corporation and that affords a clue that such charges can be deducted by the Corporation only when the sugar stock is appropriated or disposed of by it. And that is possible only when the sugar stock remains in actual possession of the Corporation. 14. In para .17 of the petition, the petitioners pleaded that sugar bags and molasses produced in the -season 1970-71, that is, from Ist October, 1970 till the date of vesting were sold by the Company. In para22 of his counter-affidavit, 'Sri J.P. Pandey Pairokar of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 stated that sugar bags and molasses of 1970-71 season were sold by the respondents on behalf of the Corporation and so they got the entire stocks of sugar and molasses worth crores of rupees of 2nd Nov. 1979. On such pleadings, the material question is not the one whether sugar stock was there on 2-71971 and whether that was taken in possession by State on 3-7-1971, but the controversy was whether such stock was fully accounted for by the Company to the petitioners after having been sold. Sale by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is not denied. Then the only question remains whether the sale proceeds of sugar and molasses stock were appropriated by the petitioners. This question has not at all been touched by the authorities below. This question, therefore, requires reconsideration by the Tribunal and it is accordingly remanded for being decided afresh by the Tribunal in the light of the aforesaid observations. The same view holds good for the compensation for the sugar in process claimed at Rs. 600000/-. 15. This question has not at all been touched by the authorities below. This question, therefore, requires reconsideration by the Tribunal and it is accordingly remanded for being decided afresh by the Tribunal in the light of the aforesaid observations. The same view holds good for the compensation for the sugar in process claimed at Rs. 600000/-. 15. No finding has been recorded by the Tribunal at all as to the cash balance, bank balance and book debts. Under Section 5, it is enjoined upon the person in whose possession or custody or control the books of account, register or other documents pertaining to the undertaking may be that he shall deliver the same to the Collector immediately after vesting of the undertaking in the State Government. Section 2 clause ) of the Act, 1971 defines the term "scheduled undertaking". Clause (h), read with sub-clause (xiii) to Section 2 shows that the scheduled undertaking comprises all books of account, registers and other documents pertaining to the factory or the other properties as mentioned in other sub-clauses of clause (h), but does not include the cash in hand, cash at bank, book debts etc. It means if cash in hand, cash at bank and book debts were there as claimed by the petitioners then they being not the subject matter of acquisition shall be paid to the Company. The question is whether the claim made by the Company in this regard was substantiated from the account-books of the Company. There is no finding by the Tribunal in this regard and, therefore, this matter also reburies reconsideration. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the cash in hand, cash at bank and book debts as claimed by the Company existed in the account books and were appropriated by the petitioners then they redirected to be paid to the Company. 16. Lastly comes the block compensation of 11800000/- as mentioned in column 3 against the name of the Company at serial No. 8 in the Schedule appended to the Act, 1971. The Tribunal's order having been accepted that nothing is due to the State Government or to the third persons and, therefore, no provisional deductions could have been made by the State Government under sub-section (6) of Section 7, or under any other provision, the Company becomes entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,18,00000/- under subsection (5) of Section 7 of the Act. 1,18,00000/- under subsection (5) of Section 7 of the Act. Then the question is whether the company is entitled to interest on this amount, if so, to what extent? Sub-section (6) of Section 7 says that if any provisional deduction is made from the compensation payable under sub-sections (1) to (5), then the balance shall be deposited with the Prescribed Authority. Sub-section (10) of Section 7 says that such deposit, in so far as it relates to the compensation referred to in sub-section (5) shall be made not later than six months from the date on which the possession of the properties and assets comprised in the undertaking has been delivered under Section 5. The proviso to sub-section (10) says that where in consequence of any act committed by any person interested, the Corporation is deprived of or is interrupted in the possession of such properties and assets, the period of such deprivation or interruption shall be excluded while computing the said period. In this case, admittedly, the Company filed the writ petition before the Lucknow Bench and got the stay order on 5-7-1971 which continued up to 3-5-1979 when that writ petition was dismissed. However, the Custodian appointed by the Central Government under the Act, 49 of 1978 remained in control of the undertaking from 3-1-1979 to 1-11-1979 and possession was finally delivered to the Collector on 2-11-1979. So the Corporation was at least deprived of possession of the undertaking by virtue of the stay order from 5-1-1971 to 1-1-1979. Therefore, no interest is payable for the period in which the Corporation was deprived of possession. The Company will, therefore, be entitled to interest at the rate of 5 per cent on the compensation of Rs. 1.18,00000/- from 2-1-1979 till the date of its actual payment/deposit within the meaning of sub-section (11). The Tribunal has not at all adverted to these provisions, and, therefore, erroneously., accepted the entire claim of interest made by the Company. 17. Then I switch on to the second writ petition No. 22815 of 1989 relating to the claim of the Corporation set up under Section 8 of the Act, 1971. After the appeal of the Company was dismissed by the Supreme Court in April, 1980, the Corporation made an application on 2-6-1980 before the Prescribed Authority which was registered as Claim No. 127 o f 1980. After the appeal of the Company was dismissed by the Supreme Court in April, 1980, the Corporation made an application on 2-6-1980 before the Prescribed Authority which was registered as Claim No. 127 o f 1980. The claim was later amended by the application dated 20-10-1981. The amended claim is reproduced below : - i. Losses occurred as a result of sale of Railway Line, Boiler, Brass tubes, Scrap etc. Rs. 30,27,255.22 ii. Damages for unauthorised occupation of scheduled undertaking for the period with effect from 3-7-71 to 2-11-79 @ Rs. 30,00,000/- per annum Rs. 2,40,00,000.00 iii. Damages for use and occupation of residentilil bungalow owned by the Corporation with effect from 2-11-79 (a) Jai Bhawan in possession of Sri P.C. Jhunjhunwala, Director, @ Rs. 5,000/- per month Rs. 1,17,500.00 iv. Liabilities which are in excess over liabilities to be met out of lien etc., of the Bank on the Sugar stocks pledged with the Bank (as per Section 7 of the Acquisition Act) paid by the factory after 2-11-79 Medium Term Loan Rs. 5,89,747.85 Cash Credit (Hypothecation) Stores Rs. 10,52,063.90 Rs. 16,41,811.75 Total of (i) to (iv) Rs. 2,87,86,566.97 The Corporation further made an application dated 22-12-1986 along with an affidavit and prayed that full particulars of the claim as given in the accompanying affidavit be treated as part of the claim. By furnishing such details, the figures of the above reproduced Items 1 and 3 were revised, and a new claim was made for losses due to depreciation of the machineries from 5-1-1971 to -40-1-1979. The details of losses on account of depreciation so furnished are reproduced by the Tribunal in para 7 itself from which the aforesaid details have been reproduced. At the same time, the Corporation claimed profits earned by the Company during the period 5-7-1971 to 30-1-1979 details of which have also been reproduced in para 7 by the Tribunal in its order. The details of depreciation and the profits are not reproduced herein as for the decision of the writ petition reproduction is not necessary. 18. The question for consideration is whether losses occurred as a result of sale of railway line, boiler, brass tube etc. The details of depreciation and the profits are not reproduced herein as for the decision of the writ petition reproduction is not necessary. 18. The question for consideration is whether losses occurred as a result of sale of railway line, boiler, brass tube etc. damages for unauthorised occupation of scheduled undertaking during the period 3-7-1971 to 2-11-1979, the damages for use and occupation of residential bungalow and Jai Bhawan, medium term loan, cash credit, losses suffered due to depreciation of machineries and the profits purportedly earned by the Company during varying years can be claimed under Section 8. Both the Prescribed Authority and the Appellate Tribunal have rejected such claim of the Corporation holding that the claim set up by the Corporation does not come within the purview of Section 8. Sub-section 1 1) of Section 8 states that the Corporation may prefer to the Prescribed Authority any claim based on any loss sustained by the Corporation by reason for any property, asset, book of account, register or any other document comprised in the scheduled undertaking not having been delivered in accordance with the provisions of Section 5. Both the authorities below have consistently held that the claim set up by the Corporation is not covered by sub-section (1) of Section 8, as none of the items tant amounts to a loss sustained by the Corporation by reason of the property, accounts etc. not having been delivered in accordance with the provisions of Section 5. Without straining the language of Section 8 sub-section (1), it will be seen that to make a claim under Section 8 the loss should be such which arose from the property, asset, book of account, register or any other document not having been delivered in accordance with Section 5. None of the claims set up by the Corporation can be said to be a loss sustained owing to the property, book of account. documents etc. comprised in the scheduled undertaking not having been delivered. 1, therefore, fully agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and the Prescribed Authority in this regard. It is, therefore, held that such claim of the Corporation was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 19. documents etc. comprised in the scheduled undertaking not having been delivered. 1, therefore, fully agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and the Prescribed Authority in this regard. It is, therefore, held that such claim of the Corporation was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. 19. In the result, the Writ Petition No. 477-5 of 1989 is partly allowed, inasmuch as the decision of the Tribunal in regard to all the claims set up in the Claim No. 2 of 1986 of the Company, excepting the claim for block compensation of Rs. 1,18,00,000/-, which shall be paid to the Company respondent No. 1 within two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by the Company before the petitioner No. 1 with interest C Rs. 5 per cent for the period from 2-1-1979 till the date of its actual payment/deposit, is quashed and the same is remanded to the Tribunal for afresh decision in the light of the observations made in the body of the judgment. This writ petition, in so far as it relates to the Claim No. 209 of 1980 and also the Writ Petition No. 22815 of 1989 stand dismissed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties will bear their own costs.