JUDGMENT : C. V. Jani, J. These 8 appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'), filed by the Land Acquisition authorities, arise out of the common judgment and Awards made by the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad in Land Acquisition Cases No. 9/91, 8/91, 10/91, 11/91, 12/91, 13/91, 14/91 and 15/91 respectively. The lands situated in Umrala, Tal. Dhandhuka which belonged to the respondents in all these appeals were acquired for the public purpose of constructing Shitla lake. Strange as it may seem though, the possession of the lands was taken admittedly in March 1963 by private negotiation, but no compensation was paid. The respondent had to approach this court for an appropriate writ directing the land Acquisition authority to take proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose of determining compensation. As the Land Acquisition authorities agreed to commence and finalise the land acquisition proceedings, the land owners withdrew the writ petition. As a result, notification under section 4 of the Act, was published in the Government gazette on 22-3-1990. Public notices were also issued and objections were invited. After hearing the interested persons the Land Acquisition Officer declared his award on 31-8-90, whereby he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50/- per sq.mtr. for all the lands, even though, the owners claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. Admittedly the acquired lands were agricultural lands. 2. At the instance of the claimants, the District Court was moved under section 18 by making References which were numbered as Land Acquisition Cases No. 9/91 to 15/91. All the offences were considered and evidence were admitted did in L.A.Q. case No. 9/91. The only evidence that was led before the District Court consisted of oral evidence Exh. 24 of the claimant Narsinbhai Talshibhai, Registrar's Index Exh. 21 evidencing the sale transaction in respect of agricultural piece of land at village Umrala, comparative statement Exh.29 regarding agricultural lands produced by the acquisition authorities and an award made by another Reference Court, Exh. 37 in respect of agricultural land situated in another village Sangalpur. No oral evidence was led by the Acquisition authorities. 21 evidencing the sale transaction in respect of agricultural piece of land at village Umrala, comparative statement Exh.29 regarding agricultural lands produced by the acquisition authorities and an award made by another Reference Court, Exh. 37 in respect of agricultural land situated in another village Sangalpur. No oral evidence was led by the Acquisition authorities. Taking an over all view of the evidence produced by the parties, the learned Judge ultimately adopted the capitalisation method for determining compensation on the basis of the oral evidence led by the claimant Narsinbhai Talshibhai, and fixed Rs. 5-30P. as compensation per sq. mtr. The learned Judge also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and running interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking over possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the payment of the entire amount. The learned Judge also awarded 12% increase on the market value from the period from 18-1-90 to 31-8-90 i.e. from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act to the date of award under Section 23(1A) of the Act. The learned Judge also awarded proportionate costs, but issued a direction to deduct 5% by way of Government share in case of new tenure lands. This common Judgment and the awards are being challenged in these 8 appeals. 5-3-1992 3. Mr. D. K. Trivedi, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, has made the following submissions: (i) The Reference Court has erred in taking into consideration exh. 37 which is a certified copy of the judgment in another land Acquisition Reference in respect of the lands of the adjoining village Sangalpur; (ii) The Reference Court has also erred in taking into consideration the Registrar's Index exh. 21 in respect of the sale of agricultural lands of the village Umrala on 19-10-1988, in absence of any evidence to prove the transaction of sale; (iii) The Reference Court has committed an error in arriving at the market value of land by the method of capitalisation of the net profit; (iv) The Reference Court has committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 9% for a period of one year after taking possession and at the rate of 15% thereafter under section 28 of the Act. 4. No other point was urged. 5. 4. No other point was urged. 5. So far as the first submission of Mr. Trivedi is concerned, the document Exh. 37 is a copy of the judgment of the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, Ahmedabad, in Land Acquisition Case No. 553/1988 along with other References in respect of agricultural lands situated in village Sangalpur, Tal. Dhandhuka, which had been acquired for the purpose of constructing Canals under Sukhbhadar Irrigation Scheme. The Notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 12-7-84 and the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded only 0-30 Paise per sq.mtr. by way of compensation, though the claimant had claimed at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. The learned IInd Extra Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) allowed the Reference and passed an order for paying additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. mtr. It was, therefore, found by the learned Judge that the market value of the agricultural lands in Sangalpur was Rs. 4-30P. per sq. mtr. in July 1984. There is some dispute about the distance between the village Sangalpur and the village Umrala. However, even according to the Government Pleader, the distance would not be more then 6 Kilometers, though according to the claimant, Narsinbhai, examined at exh. 24, the distance is only about 1 Km. Whatever may be the distance between the two villages, one fact cannot be lost sight of, that the agricultural lands acquired in July 1984 from the village Sangalpur which is adjoining the village Umrala, were valued at Rs. 4-30 per sq. mtr. by the Reference Court, and the question would be whether the valuation of lands of village Umrala acquired in March 1990 at Rs. 5.50 per sq. mtr. by the Reference Court, can be said to be excessive, even if the distance between the two groups of agricultural Lands which would be usually immaterial for the purpose of valuation, is taken into consideration. The appeals filed on behalf of the Land Acquisition authority against the judgment and awards evidenced by Exh. 37 were summarily rejected by the High Court. This award in respect of the land of village Sangalpur was not only admissible, but also relevant in order to arrive at the market value of the lands of village Umrala. However, there is not much substance in the submission of Mr. 37 were summarily rejected by the High Court. This award in respect of the land of village Sangalpur was not only admissible, but also relevant in order to arrive at the market value of the lands of village Umrala. However, there is not much substance in the submission of Mr. Trivedi in view of the fact that the Reference Court has not based its judgment on the award exh. 37. The Reference Court has taken into consideration this award only in order to appreciate the rise in prices of the lands. 6. Mr. D.K. Trivedi, incidentally submitted that the Reference Court has committed a jurisdictional error in admitting and exhibiting the award Exh.37 in evidence. Mr.Trivedi submitted that the claimants had passed a Pursis exh. 33 on 10-7-91 for closing their evidence and the Government Pleader had also passed a Pursis Exh.34 for closing the evidence on behalf of the land acquisition authority on 11-7-91. According to Mr.Trivedi, the copy of the award in L.R.C. No. 553/88 could not therefore be produced on behalf of the claimants on 10-7-91 and could not have been exhibited by the court. This submission of Mr. Trivedi is only referred to for being rejected, in view of the fact that the Government Pleader in the District Court had made an endorsement of no objection in the application Exh.35 submitted on behalf of the claimants for permitting them to produce the certified copy of the award and the Government Pleader also had no objection if the said certified copies were exhibited. 7. Mr. D. K. Trivedi's second submission regarding the Registrar's Index exh-21 evidencing the sale transaction in respect of survey No. 228/2 of village Umrala which took place on 19-10-88 equally requires to be rejected. Mr.Trivedi submitted that the claimant did not produce the alleged sale deed dated 19-10-88 nor the certified copy thereof nor they examined any witness to prove the transaction of sale. According to Mr.Trivedi, no evidence was led to prove that the said sale transaction dated 19-10-88 was really a transaction between a willing seller and a willing purchaser. Mr.Trivedi, in fact, objected to exhibiting the document itself and submitted that the contents of the documents were not proved. Mr. According to Mr.Trivedi, no evidence was led to prove that the said sale transaction dated 19-10-88 was really a transaction between a willing seller and a willing purchaser. Mr.Trivedi, in fact, objected to exhibiting the document itself and submitted that the contents of the documents were not proved. Mr. Trivedi over-looked the fact that the District Government Pleader himself had produced the comparative statement of sales of Umrala lands at Ext.39 and the Index Ext-21 formed a part of such a statement. When the District Government Pleader produces a certain document on behalf of the acquisition authority, it would not be open to the learned Government Pleader to submit that the contents of Exh. 21 were not proved. In fact, they were proved by production of statement Exh. 29 by the District Government pleader himself. Hence, the document exh. 21 along with the statement exh. 29 conclusively proves that an area ad-measuring 3 Acres and 16 Gunthas of survey No. 228/2 situated in village Umrala, was sold on 19-10-88 for Rs. 40,800/-. This works out at the rate of approximately Rs. 3/- per sq.mtr. We do not want to draw any other inference from these documents. 8. Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- claimants produced a copy of the sale deed dated 19-10-88 to show that the price was agreed upon between the parties as far back as in the year 1984, and Rs. 3/- was the price of one sq. mtr. of land in the year 1984 it would be much more in the year 1988. Since the production of copy of the sale transaction dated 19-10-88 can be permitted under Order 41 Rule 27, Civil Procedure Code, we do not propose to examine the question whether the market value as reflected in the document dated 19-10-88 in respect of Umrala land, was the prevailing market rate in the year 1988. We must state that even the Reference Court has not placed much reliance on Exh. 21 and Exh. 29 ; the Reference Court has observed that only the statements were produced and the certified copy of the original sale deed was not produced. Hence it cannot be said that the Reference Court has committed any jurisdictional error in exhibiting the documents Exh. 21 and Exh. 21 and Exh. 29 ; the Reference Court has observed that only the statements were produced and the certified copy of the original sale deed was not produced. Hence it cannot be said that the Reference Court has committed any jurisdictional error in exhibiting the documents Exh. 21 and Exh. 29 in as much as these documents have not been found to be the basis of the judgment of the Reference Court. 9. In fact, the Reference Court has rightly held that the documents Exhs. 21, 22, 29, and 37 were not sufficient for arriving at a conclusion regarding the prevailing market value of the lands and, therefore, the court had to fall back upon the method of capitalisation of the net agricultural yield regarding which the claimant Narsinbhai Talshibhai has led oral evidence. It cannot be said that the Reference Court has committed any error in resorting to this method, particularly when the approach of the Reference Court was quite moderate in adopting this method. Though each claimant claims to have received Rs. 5000/- per year per Vigha by way of net income from the acquired lands, the Reference Court after appreciating the oral evidence, regarding average yield of the crops of cotton, bajeri, ground- nut and wheat, has come to the conclusion that the average yield would be about Rs. 2700/- per Vigha per year. It is to be borne in mind that the oral evidence of the claimant Narsinbhai Talshibhai who is the brother of other claimants has not been effectively challenged in cross-examination, nor any witness has been examined on behalf of the Land Acquisition Authority in respect of agricultural production from the acquired lands. So the oral evidence of the claimant Narsinbhai Talshibhai Exh. 24 remains quite uncontroverted. The learned Judge has, therefore, accepted Rs. 2700/- as the net annual income per Vigha which is equal to Rs. 2300 sq. mtrs. The Reference Court has adopted a multiplier of 15 for the purpose of capitalisation and has come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired lands would be round about Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. However, in view of the judgment and award exh. 37 as confirmed by the judgment of the High Court in ext. 38 in respect of the lands of Sangalpur, the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. mtr. 18/- per sq.mtr. However, in view of the judgment and award exh. 37 as confirmed by the judgment of the High Court in ext. 38 in respect of the lands of Sangalpur, the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- per sq. mtr. only, in view of the fact that the lands of these two villages were similar in fertility and they had similar facilities of irrigation, electricity and transport service. 10. Mr. Trivedi's submission that the Reference Court has committed an error in resorting to the capitalisation method cannot, therefore, be accepted. However, his incidental submission that the Reference Court could not have adopted the multiplier of 15 deserves to be accepted though ultimately it does not affect the ultimate result of these appeals. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have already observed in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P.Veerahgadarappa and Others, (1984) 2 SCC 120 that when the rate of return of investment was 8.25 per cent in the year 1971-72, the person investing his capital in agricultural land would ordinarily expect 2% to 3% more than what he could obtain in gilt-edged security and, therefore, the proper multiplier to be applied for the purpose of capitalisation would not exceed 10. In view of this principle laid down by the Supreme Court the market value of the land in question would be Rs. 27,000/- per Vigha i.e. for 2300/- sq. mtrs. This would be in any way more than Rs. 11/- per sq. mtr. Hence the Reference Court had awarded Rs. 5.50P. per sq. mtr. in view of the document on record, and particularly the Award exh. 37 which, according to Mr. Trivedi, should not have been taken into consideration. It was because of Exh.37 that the Reference Court had arrived at the moderate figure of Rs. 5.50P. per sq.-mtr. and hence the submission of the learned Government Pleader on this count deserves to be rejected. 11. The last submission of Mr. D. K.Trivedi regarding the award of interest at the rate of 15% per annum after the expiry of one year from the date of taking over possession deserves to be accepted in view of the language of section 28 of the Act, and not in view of Mr. 11. The last submission of Mr. D. K.Trivedi regarding the award of interest at the rate of 15% per annum after the expiry of one year from the date of taking over possession deserves to be accepted in view of the language of section 28 of the Act, and not in view of Mr. Trivedi's submission that formerly i.e. before 1984, the rate of interest was only 4½ percent per annum, and it came to be increased by the Amending Act of 1984. Mr. Trivedi has submitted that though the land was acquired in the year 1988, possession thereof had been taken in the year 1963, and if the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act had taken place at the relevant time the claimant could not have claimed interest at more than 4½ percent on the amount of compensation. He further submitted that the amount of interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 7-3-63 to 6-3-64 in respect of the acquired lands would come to Rs. 1,62,550-95P. while the amount of interest at the rate of 15% per annum from 7-3-64 to 7-11-91 would come to Rs. 74,95,409-05P. It was, therefore, submitted by Mr.Trivedi that the Land Acquisition Authority cannot be directed to pay such a huge amount by way of interest to the claimants only because possession had been taken by private arrangement about 26 years before the date of Section 4 notification. The anxiety of the learned Government Pleader is understandable. However, so far as the award of interest is concerned, it would be governed by the provisions of law, and not by quantum which the Government will have to part with. If the possession was taken about 26 years ago without following the requisite procedure, and without compensating the land owners, for deprivation of possession, the Land Acquisition authority is bound to compensate them. The only question, therefore, requires to be answered is whether the Reference Court had committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till expiry of one year, and at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from the date of the expiry of one year after taking possession. This question can be answered in the context of section 28 of the Act : "28. This question can be answered in the context of section 28 of the Act : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation.- 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 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." Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government, 1967 SC 465 that granting or refusing to grant interest under section 28 is discretionary. But once discretion to grant interest is exercised, the Court has no further discretion and interest if awarded has to be at the rate specified in section 28. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court has reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, in Jaiwant Laxman P. Sardesai and etc. etc. v. Government of Goa, Daman and Diu and Anr. 1987 Bombay 214. It held that it is not obligatory on the Court to award interest either under section 28 or to enhance interest under the amended proviso. 11.1. Section 28 consists of two parts. The first part empowers the Court to direct the Collector to pay interest on the additional compensation as determined by it, at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of taking possession to the date of payment of such excess paid into the court. This does not leave any scope for awarding interest at a lesser rate. The first part empowers the Court to direct the Collector to pay interest on the additional compensation as determined by it, at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of taking possession to the date of payment of such excess paid into the court. This does not leave any scope for awarding interest at a lesser rate. The second part consists of the proviso empowering the court to award interest at the rate of 15% per annum in certain cases. The only question which arises in this case is whether the proviso would be applicable to the facts of the case. The proviso empowers the Court to issue a direction to the Collector to pay interest at the rate of 15% where "such excess" is paid into Court after the date of expiry of period of one year from the date on which possession is taken. The term "such excess" obviously refers to the excess as determined by the Court and before such determination there would be no "excess" which could be paid into the Court in order to attract liability to pay interest. It is, therefore, obvious that the proviso to section 28 applies only in those cases where the possession of the acquired lands is taken after declaration of the award and not before it, inasmuch as it is not possible for the Collector to pay the amount as determined by the Court before the Award is made. If, therefore, possession is taken before declaration of the award, the proviso to section 28 would not apply, and the question of paying the excess amount as determined by the court within one year from the date of taking possession also may not arise in certain cases. Such a contingency, therefore, rules out the question of payment of interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum. 12. So far as the present group of appeals is concerned, the possession was taken long back on 7th March, 1963, by private arrangement. The Land Acquisition Officer declared his award on 31-8-90 and the Reference Court decided the question of excess compensation on 30th July, 1991. 12. So far as the present group of appeals is concerned, the possession was taken long back on 7th March, 1963, by private arrangement. The Land Acquisition Officer declared his award on 31-8-90 and the Reference Court decided the question of excess compensation on 30th July, 1991. It was, therefore, humanly impossible for the court to direct the Collector to pay excess amount of compensation on or before 7th March, 1964, and if the Legislature cannot compel the authority to do what is impossible, the consequence of not performing such an impossible act would not follow. Hence it is obvious that the award of interest at the rate of 15 percent in the present group of cases was not justified. 13. Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents-claimants referred to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in State of Maharashtra and another v. Nanabhai Rathod and others, 1989 Bombay 9 wherein, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court awarded interest at the rate of 9 percent for one year after taking possession, and at the rate of 15% for the period thereafter, even though possession had been taken on 10-1-74 before the date of section 4 Notification i.e. before 25th July, 1974. The interregnum period between taking possession by private arrangement and the date of section 4 Notification was only six months and so, the seriousness of calculating interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum, in exceptional cases, was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges nor the scheme of section 28 was discussed. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, therefore applied the proviso to section 28 by placing literary interpretation and not considering whether the proviso would be applicable at all. 14. A similar question had arisen before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. and others v. Raj Narain Singh and another, 1986 Allahabad 321. In that case possession of the acquired land was taken about 7 years before determination of excess compensation by the District Judge. 14. A similar question had arisen before the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. and others v. Raj Narain Singh and another, 1986 Allahabad 321. In that case possession of the acquired land was taken about 7 years before determination of excess compensation by the District Judge. The Division Bench held that direction in regard to payment of 15% interest would be justified only if the excess amount of compensation awarded by the court is not paid within one year from the date on which possession is taken, and when the excess amount had itself not been determined by the court within one year of the possession being taken, it would be requiring the Collector to perform impossible task to deposit excess amount within the said period of one year. Hence the submission of the claimants for awarding interest at the rate of 15% on the excess amount of compensation was rejected by the Allahabad High Court. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion the award of the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) regarding interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum on the excess amount of compensation from the date of taking over possession has to be set aside. It must be held that the claimants are entitled to recover the interest at the rate of 9 percent on the amount of compensation as determined by the court from the date of taking possession till payment. To that extent, the appeals have to be allowed. The result thereof would be, on ultimate calculation, that the appellants namely, the Land Acquisition authorities, will have to pay Rupees Thirty Lakhs less by way of interest. 16. The Appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. The decrees will be drawn up accordingly. Appeals Allowed.