Judgment :- K.A. Swami, C.J. In all these cases, the notification dated 12. 1986 issued under Sec.4(l) of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the inquiry held under Sec.5-A of the Act, the declaration dated 33. 1987 under Sec.6 of the Act, published in the Gazette, the awards dated 33. 1989 and 4. 1989 (Award Nos. being 1/89 and 2/89) and the Award Notices dt. 2. 1992 are challenged. The acquisition is for public purpose i.e., for providing Mass Rapid Transit System, between Madras Beach to Luz. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is a long delay in taking possession of the lands from the date of the Awards as no possession has been obtained as on today; that the amount of compensation as per the awards has neither been paid nor deposited into court; that there is no prior approval of the awards as required by the first proviso toSec.11(1) of the Act, obtained. As such, it is contended that having regard to the provisions contained in Secs.11, 12(2) and 31 of the Act, read with Board’s Standing Orders, pertaining to the depositing of the award amount and issuance of the Award notice, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. 3. It may be pointed out that till date, the amount as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, under Award Nos.1 and 2 of 1989, dated 33. 1989 and 4. 1989 has not been either paid or deposited in the court as per Sec.31 of the Act. However, the learned Government Pleader has produced the records i.e., a xerox copy of the treasury receipt for Rs.32,59,960, dated 13. 1991, to show that the amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been kept in civil deposit on 13. 1991. On the contrary, it is the contention of the petitioners that as per Board Standing Order 90, paragraphs 6,7(ii)(a), 12,20 and as per Appendix XII, Form I of the Board’s Standing Orders, provisions ought to have been made in the budget for the cost of acquisition: that the amount ought to have been deposited in the court or paid immediately on the passing of the award; that the delay being inordinate, it has adversely affected the petitioner and thereby rendered the compensation illusory as it is paid with reference to the date on which Sec.4(l) Notification was published. 4. 4. Sec.31(l) of the Act specifically provides that, on making the award under Sec.11 of the Act, the Collector shall tender the compensation awarded by him to the person interested and entitled thereto according to the award and shall pay it to them, unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies mentioned in Sub-sec.(2), thereto. On the basis of the aforesaid provisions, it is contended that the amount determined under the Award ought to have been immediately tendered to the claimants. We are of the view that having regard to the provisions contained in Secs.31 and 34 of the Act, which enable the acqiring authority to deposit the amount even after taking possession, a mere delay in the payment of the amount by itself cannot be held to vitiate, the acquisition proceedings. Sec.31 of the Act has to be read with Sec.34 of the Act. Part V of the Act, which deals with payment of compensation amount as awarded and other matters relating thereto, consists of Secs.31 to 34. All these section as they relate to payment of compensation are to be read together. A reading of Secs.31 and 34 of the Act together makes it clear that if the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, interest has to be paid on the amount awarded at 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession until depositing of the amount. The proviso thereto further provides, that if there is a delay of more than one year, in depositing the amount even after taking possession the interest shall be paid at the rate of 15% p.a., from the date of expiry of the period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof, which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry. 5. The Standing Orders of the Board of Revenue will be hereinafter referred, to as the Standing Orders, in short, as S.Os. S.O. No.90 deals with acquisition of land for public purposes. Paragraph 6 of S.O.90 relates to preliminary proceedings preceding issuance of the preliminary notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. It deals with the acquisition for Revenue Department and for other Departments and also for and on behalf of Local Authority or Municipality. Paragraph 7 thereto deals with the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Paragraph 6 of S.O.90 relates to preliminary proceedings preceding issuance of the preliminary notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. It deals with the acquisition for Revenue Department and for other Departments and also for and on behalf of Local Authority or Municipality. Paragraph 7 thereto deals with the Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. Among other things, it also states that as the compensation to be paid for the land is determined by its market value at the date of the publication of the notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act, there should be no avoidable delay in its submission. Paragraph 7(ii) (a) of S.O. 90 relates to submission of notification for publication". Paragraph 12 of S.O. 90 deals with the procedure to be followed after the publication of the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act. It also provides that the award should not be delayed merely because the ownership of the land is in dispute, as the Collector is in no sense of the term a Judicial Officer and the proceedings before him is not a Judicial proceeding, that he acts as the agent of the State Government and that if the owner of the land desires a Judicial decision as to its value or rival claimants as to their title, they can obtain it by requiring the matter to be referred by the Collector to the Court under Sec.18. The Collector can also of his own motion refer disputes of titles to the civil court under Sec.30 and should do so in all difficult cases. Paragraph 20 of S.O. 90 gives instructions regarding payment. It specifically provides that the instructions framed for regulating the payment of compensation for the land acquired for public purposes as well as the audit of such payments are given in Appendix II. Paragraph 21 of S.O.90 further states that the payment of compensation should be made as soon as after the declaration of the Award as possible. It specifically provides that the instructions framed for regulating the payment of compensation for the land acquired for public purposes as well as the audit of such payments are given in Appendix II. Paragraph 21 of S.O.90 further states that the payment of compensation should be made as soon as after the declaration of the Award as possible. It states thus: "The payment of compensation should be made as soon as after the declaration of the award as possible as under Sec.34 of the Act, interest is payable on the amount of compensation for the interval between the date of occupation and the date of payment at the rate of 6 per cent per annum in cases of acquisition of land for the purposes of Central Government and at the rate of 4 per cent per annum in cases of acquisition of land for purposes of the State Government. Accordingly, the Collector or other Officer duly empowered should, immediately after making an award under Sec. l1, tender payment of compensation to such of the persons entitled thereto as are then present either personally or by their representatives." Appendix II, Form A is the statement to be prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, showing the amount payable to each person under the A ward and submission of the same to the Accountant General with whom he is in account. Form AA of Appendix II also has to be submitted to the Accountant General, which contains the particulars regarding acceptance, by the persons concerned, of the amounts entered in Column No.6 of the Award Statement. Thus the provisions contained in S.O. 90 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners do not warrant a submission that as the amount awarded has not been paid immediately on the signing of the award or, at any rate, on the service of notice of the award, the acquisition proceeding is vitiated. As already pointed out, paragraph 21 of S.O. 90, which has been reproduced above, provides for payment of interest in the event there is a delay in payment of the compensation amount, even after taking possession. The rate of interest mentioned in paragraph 21 of S.O. 90 does not hold good, having regard to the amendment effect to Sec.34, which provides for higher rate of compensation. The rate of interest mentioned in paragraph 21 of S.O. 90 does not hold good, having regard to the amendment effect to Sec.34, which provides for higher rate of compensation. Further, it cannot also be disputed that S.O. 90 being a- rule of procedure as to matters relating to acquisition of land and payment of compensation shall have to be read in confirmity with the substantive provisions contained in the Act. S.Os. cannot be read and enforced so as to defeat the very provisions of the Act. It is also not possible to agree with the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Mohinder Singh Sharma and others v. State of Haryana and others, A.I.R. 1989 P. & H. 110, in which it has been held that failure to deposit the amount as per Sec.31 of the Act, immediately after passing of the Award, renders the award invalid. In Mohinder Singh’s case, the effect of Sec.34 of the Act has not been considered. 6. It is contended that the award is bad in law, because it has not been approved by the Government or the officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf as per Sec.11 of the Act. This argument cannot be accepted in view of the records produced by the learned Government Advocate, which disclose that the Awards have been approved by the officer authorised by the Government. By the order dated 112. 1982 in G.O.Ms.No. 2003, Revenue Department, the State Government has authorised the Commissioner of Land Administration to approve every award in which the total compensation to be awarded exceeds Rs.10 lakhs and the District Collectors to approve every award in which the total compensation to be allowed does not exceed Rs.10 lakhs. This order is passed under Sec.11 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Under the order bearing C.L.A. No. J3/ 18357/1989 dated 33. 1989 and another order in C.L.A.D.Dis. (J) 19389/1989, dated 4. 1989, the Special Commissioner, and Commissioner of Land Administration has approved both the awards. However, it is contended by (he learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that as the detailed draft award has not been prepared and sent in the case of the award dated 33. 1989 as stated in the order of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, the approval of the draft award (abstract) is bad in law. However, it is contended by (he learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that as the detailed draft award has not been prepared and sent in the case of the award dated 33. 1989 as stated in the order of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, the approval of the draft award (abstract) is bad in law. The Officer empowered to approve the award under Sec.11 of the Act, has to see as to whether the award placed before him for approval contains the particulars as specified in Sec.1l(l)(i) (ii)and(iii)of the Act and accord his approval. It is clear from the order dated 33. 1989 according approval to the award, that all the necessary particulars of the award were furnished to the Special Commissioner. The Order is as follows: Proceedings of the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration, Madras-600 005. Present: Thiru Ramamurthy, I.A.S. CLA.No. J3/18357/1989. Dt. 33. 1989. Sub: Land Acquisition - Mass Rapid Transit System - Madras District - Mylapore Triplicane Taluk - Mylapore Village - Block No. 20 - R.S. No. 1004/13 etc. -Acquisition for Mass Rapid Transit System - Alignment purposes phase I - Draft Award Approved. Ref: This office D.Dis. (J) 9005/89 D. 23. 1989. 2. From the Collector of Madras Lr.No. U/53956/85 D. 30.3.1989. ORDER: In this office proceeding first cited, the value of lands measuring an extent of 2 grounds, 1215 sq.ft. in S.No. 1004/13 etc. in Mylapore village, Mylapore Triplicane Taluk of Madras District was fixed and approved at Rs.60,952 (Rupees Sixty thousand nine hundred and fiftytwo only) per ground. 2. The Collector of Madras in his letter second cited has now sent Draft Award (Abstract) for the lands of 2 grounds, 1,215 sq.ft. in S.No. 1004/13 etc., Mylapore Village for approval by Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. 3. The proposal was examined with the connected records. The Collector has sent the Draft Award (Abstract) for the total compensation amount of Rs.10,99,499.30 (inclusive of land value, value of structures, 30% solatium and 12% Additional Market value). 4. The value of the lands involved in this case exceeds 10 lakhs the Draft Award (Abstract) has been sent by the Collector of Madras for approval of Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. 5. The total compensation amount is worked out to Rs.10,99,0680. 6. The Collector of Madras has sent the abstract of the Draft for Rs.10,99,499,30. 4. The value of the lands involved in this case exceeds 10 lakhs the Draft Award (Abstract) has been sent by the Collector of Madras for approval of Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration. 5. The total compensation amount is worked out to Rs.10,99,0680. 6. The Collector of Madras has sent the abstract of the Draft for Rs.10,99,499,30. Due to the difference in the amount of 12% Additional Market value, the total cost of acquisition for which award has to be passed has been revised as Rs.10,99,0680. The detailed draft award has not been prepared and sent. The Draft award (abstract) for the revised amount of Rs.10,99,063.80 (Rupees ten lakhs ninety nine thousand and sixty-three and paise eighty only) as detailed below is hereby approved. The total extent involved in this acquisition is 2 grounds, 1,215 sq.ft. Rate per ground approved by Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Administration is Rs. 60,952.00 Land Value for 2 Grs., 1215 sq.ft. Rs. 1,52,761.00 Structure value Rs. 5,09,588.00 30%‘Solatium Rs. 1.98,704.70 12% Additional amount from the date of 4(1) to date of award (i.e.) 4. 1986 to 33. 1989) Rs. 2,38,010.12 Rs.10,99,063.82 or Rs.10,99,063.80 (Rupees ten lakhs ninetynine thousand sixtythree and paise eighty only) 7. The Collector of Madras is requested to include the following as the last paragraph of the detailed award. 8. The lands covered by this award shall after acquisition be given to the Metropolitan Transport Project (Railways), Madras only under lease basis. Sd...... For Special Commissioner and ‘Commissioner of Land Admn. To The Collector of Madras, Chepauk, Madras-5. Copy to the Special Tahsildar, Mass Rapid Transit System, Madras-2. Thus, all the necessary particulars of the award were furnished to the approving authority. Further the object of the proviso to Sec.11(1) in making the previous approval of the award mandatory is to ensure that the Land Acquisition Officer does not pass the awards granting exorbitant amount as compensation, as in such an event the State will not have any remedy as it cannot challenge the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In addition to this, such a provision is also intended to ensure that while awarding compensation the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into account all the relevant aspects as per the provisions of the Act. In addition to this, such a provision is also intended to ensure that while awarding compensation the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into account all the relevant aspects as per the provisions of the Act. As the awards are passed within 2 years from the date of publication of the declaration under Sec.6 of the Act and on obtaining the prior approval of the Officer authorised in this behalf the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Rajiv Gupta, (1994)5 S.C.C. 686 , is satisfied as such the awards are valid. Therefore, we see no justification to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is accordingly rejected. 7. It is next contended that as the acquisition has been started without the sanctioned amount, it is intended to peg the value of the land and therefore, it is a fraud on the power of the State Government in acquiring the lands in question. It is not possible to hold that the acquisition in question is a fraud on the power of the authority of the State Government, as it is not in dispute that the acquisition is for a public purpose and not for any ulterior motive. As far as the payment of compensation is concerned in an acquisition for a public purpose, the State Government has to bear the acquisition cost and it cannot be said that the Government will not be able to pay the compensation; nor is there any provision of law contained in the Act, making it obligatory on the part of the acquiring Authority to set apart in the budget, the amount of compensation even on the very date of issuance of preliminary notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act. The State being a welfare State, it is required to undertake several welfare measures. It requires money for that purpose. Therefore, it is highly unreasonable to expect and make it incumbent upon the State to set apart the amount of compensation for a period of more than two years without utilising it for any other purpose as it would take over two years from the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Sec.4(l) of the Act, to pass the award. It is also possible that the acquisition may be challenged in the Court of Law and in that event the period between the date of publication of the preliminary notification and the passing of the award will be more than two years, or it may even be dropped. Therefore, we find it difficult to accept the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard. It is rejected. 8. The next question for consideration is, as to the delay that has been caused from the date of award till the date of taking possession of the lands in question. It is stated at the Bar that possession has not yet been taken as there is an interim order prohibiting the taking over of possession, passed in the writ petitions and that interim order is still in force. However, as pointed out, in W.P. No.4261 of 1992, the award was passed on 33. 1989. As far as the period from the date of preliminary notification till the date of award is concerned, it is not possible to hold that there is any delay. Sec.4 and Sec.6 provide as to the period, during which, the enquiry has to be completed and the declaration has to be made and Sec.11-A of the Act prescribes the period within which the award is to be passed. The period covered from 12. 1986, date of preliminary notification under Sec.4(1) and the date of award i.e., 33. 1989, it is not disputed does fall within the time schedule prescribed by Sec.4(l), Sec.6 as well as Sec.l1-A of the Act. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that there is any delay in this case. Similarly in W.P. No.4987 of 1992, the preliminary notification was issued on 12. 1986 and the declaration was made on 4. 1987 and the award was passed on 4. 1989 which, it is not in dispute, were all within the period prescribed under Sec.4(l), Sec.6 and Sec. 11-A of the Act. Therefore, we will have to consider the delay only from the respective dates of the awards passed in these two cases. As per Sec.31 of the Act, the award amount has to be deposited without delay. 1989 which, it is not in dispute, were all within the period prescribed under Sec.4(l), Sec.6 and Sec. 11-A of the Act. Therefore, we will have to consider the delay only from the respective dates of the awards passed in these two cases. As per Sec.31 of the Act, the award amount has to be deposited without delay. In the instant case, though it is the case of the respondents that the amounts have been deposited it is not in accordance with Sec.31 of the Act because the amount is still held in civil deposit in the Treasury and not deposited in the civil court and even the parties i.e., claimants have not been informed of the deposit made in the treasury so as to enable them to withdraw the same. Therefore, the fact that the amount has been deposited to the credit of civil deposit in the treasury will not absolve the respondents of their legal obligation to deposit the amount into civil court Deposit. Therefore, we are of the view that there is a delay in the payment of the amount to the claimants or depositing the same into the court, as required under the Act. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1767, that such delay can be compensated by awarding interest. In paras 15 and 16, it has been observed as follows: (15) The other question raised by the counsel for the appellants was that there was sufficient delay between the date of the Sec.4 notification and taking over possession of the lands during which period the price of land had appreciated substantially and, therefore, the compensation should be paid according to the value of the land prevailing on the date of actual taking over of possession. This argument also is without substance for the following reasons: 1. that it is not the fault of the Collector for causing the delay in taking over the possession because the matter was pursued both in the courts and before the Government and the proceeding has to be stayed, as a result of which the Collector was prevented from taking possession or giving his award, although all other proceedings had taken place. 2. 2. The landowners being in continuous possession of the land had enjoyed the usufruct of the same, particularly the lands happened to be mostly mango orchards by selling them in the market. (16) On an analysis of the various steps taken by the parties and others in the taking of possession, there is undoubtedly a delay of about 1 1/2 years and for the purpose of calculation and convenience which rounded off the delay may be taken to be of two years. So far as this delay is concerned, the appellants have undoubtedly a case for payment of some additional compensation in equity though not under law and as this Court is not only a Court of Law, but a court of equity as well, it will be impossible for us to deny this relief to the appellants. After taking into consideration the various shades and aspects of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that apart from the compensation which may be awarded by the Collector or enhanced by the Judge or a higher Court, the appellants should get an equitable compensation in the form of interest calculated at the rate of 7 1/ 2% per annum for two years on the value of land owned by each landowner. The equitable compensation has been awarded in the special facts of this case and will not be the subject matter of appeal, if any, under the Act on the amount of compensation." No doubt, under Sec.34 of the Act, the civil court, will be awarding interest on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession of the lands in question. Therefore, we are not concerned with the interest to be awarded from the date of taking possession of the lands. We are only to see the period from 33. 1989 in one case and from 4. 1989 in another case, till the date of taking possession. During this period, it is relevant to notice that the claimants have been in possession of the land, enjoying the same. Therefore, that aspect has to be taken into account. We are only to see the period from 33. 1989 in one case and from 4. 1989 in another case, till the date of taking possession. During this period, it is relevant to notice that the claimants have been in possession of the land, enjoying the same. Therefore, that aspect has to be taken into account. Thus, taking into consideration the fact that the claimants have been in possession and enjoying the property without any hindrance during all these years and also there is an undue delay in paying the amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and taking possession of the land on equity we are of the view that payment of interest on the value of the land that may be determined by the court, fom the date of the award at 7 1/2% from 33. 1989 in W.P. No.4261 of 1992 and from 4. 1989 in W.P. No.4987 of 1992 till the date of taking possession would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The amounts so far deposited pursuant to the award in the treasury, as per the treasury receipt produced before us, shall be paid over to the claimants by the respondents as per the award on ascertaining and on being satisfied about the persons entitled to receive the compensation, as per law. The payment shall be made within one month from today. 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions arc disposed of in the following terms: The prayer for quashing the land acquisition proceedings including the awards is rejected. The amounts deposited pursuant to the award in the treasury shall be disbursed to the claimants by the respondents as per the terms of the award on ascertaining and on being satisfied that they are entitled to receive the amount under the award. The disbursement shall be made within a month from today. The respondents shall also pay interest on the value of the land that may be determined by the court from the date of award viz., 33. 1989 concerned in W.P. No.4261 of 1992 and from the date of another award viz., 4. 1989, concerned in W.P. No.4987 of 1992 at 7 1/2 per cent per annum till the date of taking possession. 1989 concerned in W.P. No.4261 of 1992 and from the date of another award viz., 4. 1989, concerned in W.P. No.4987 of 1992 at 7 1/2 per cent per annum till the date of taking possession. However, we make it clear that the amount as per the award passed by the Collector has to be excluded for the purpose of calculation of interest at 7 1/2 per cent as ordered by us from the date it is paid and the interest at the rate of 7 1/2 per cent has to be paid on the balance of the amount from the dale of such payment till the date of taking-possession. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost.