M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE short point that arises in this appeal is the question as to whether the State can be ordered to pay damages to a citizen for having encroached upon his land and constructed public buildings thereon. Admittedly, the lands in dispute belong to the petitioner and this case which is 28 years old has had a very unfortunate background. The appellant-State did not commence and conclude proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act which ought to have culminated in an award and the petitioner receiving his compensation. From the references that are available on record, as pointed out by the learned Govt. Advocate, the State did issue some notification in the Gazette which may be treated as having been the commencement of the acquisition proceeding. Thereafter the notice under S. 4 (1) was issued to the petitioner and there is a reference to notice under S. 9 at which stage the petitioner appears to have pointed out that the value of the land is Rs. 10,000/- per acre which should be awarded to him. The proceedings thereafter did not go ahead and there is no award on record even though the respondent seems to have been advised that he should apply to the authorities to refer the matter to the Civil Court for purposes of computing a just compensation. That reference was never made obviously because there was no award in question. ( 2 ) THE learned Govt. Advocate has vehemently submitted that even after the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge, that by efflux of time the land acquisition proceedings have lapsed and are therefore of no legal consequence and that it was wrong on the part of the learned trial Judge to have straightway awarded damages. It is his submission that since lands have been acquired by the Government, that the petitioner is entitled to compensation as prescribed but that this can be awarded only in the manner as set out in the Land Acquisition Act and that at the highest, the Court could have directed the authorities to complete the acquisition proceedings and the petitioner could have availed of his remedies only under the provisions of the Act. This argument has been vehemently opposed by the petitioner's advocate who pointed out that the petitioner is a poor man, and secondly that his land has been taken almost two decades back without any due process of law and under these circumstances there can be no acquisition proceedings commenced long after the possession has been lost and the land has already been utilised. Under these circumstances, he submitted that the learned trial Judge has only awarded damages by following the same principles as the Court would have followed in an application under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the award of interest is justified having regard to the long lapse of time. 2a. The submissions canvassed by the learned Govt. Advocate to the effect that the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act should now be made applicable and that the procedure be commenced and completed cannot be even considered. It is imperative that those procedures have to be commenced prior to the acquisition whereas in this case, the acquisition has taken place without any compensation having been awarded. All that a Court can therefore do is to correct the action vis-a-vis the aggrieved party who was the plaintiff and to award the amount what he could have received had the acquisition taken place along with interest at the rate which the Court feels just. The learned trial Judge has given very cogent reasons for having awarded compensation as also for the rate at which he has awarded this compensation. I have carefully considered this aspect of the judgment and to my mind, neither of them is erroneous. If at all, I am firmly of the view that the compensation awarded was very much on the low side but in the absence of any appeal against that order, it would be improper to disturb those findings. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned trial Judge has considered the time factor and again to my mind the rate of interest awarded is absolutely just and proper. It is neither too high nor excessive. Under these circumstances to my mind, there is no interference whatsoever called for as far as the present appeal is concerned. It is neither too high nor excessive. Under these circumstances to my mind, there is no interference whatsoever called for as far as the present appeal is concerned. ( 3 ) IT is clarified, that the amount awarded to the plaintiff is to be construed as having been awarded as compensation for the acquisition and would therefore be deemed to be accepted in full and final settlement thereof. The learned Govt. Advocate has pointed out that even though there do not appear to be any direct reference in the record to the petitioner having been paid any compensation, that since he has made an application for enhancement, that there is the possibility that at some point of time he had received the compensation. ( 4 ) THE appellant-State is directed to deposit in the Trial Court the entire decretal amount along with the interest awarded up to date within a period of four weeks from today. Under no circumstances will any default be permissible and the learned Government Advocate shall communicate forthwith to the Department the directions of this Court to deposit the amount in question. That communication shall be in writing and shall inform the concerned officers, that in the event of default, the rate of interest shall be stepped up to 18 per cent per annum compounded quarterly. At the time of depositing the amount, if the record indicates that any payments have been received by the plaintiff against compensation in this case, then the evidence thereof may be produced before the learned trial Judge and the deposit shall be reduced to the extent of the amount already paid to the plaintiff, if any. On the amount being deposited in the Trial Court, the learned trial Judge shall forthwith pay over the same to the plaintiff. The appeal to stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Order accordingly. --- *** --- .