M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Government Advocate. Respondent served. The learned Government Advocate vehemently submitted that in all those land acquisition cases where due to the urgency of the project and the pressing public need, the possession had to be immediately taken over and where the notification came to be issued much later, that the Court can only take the date of issuance of the notification as the earliest point of time from which the interest can be computed. The submission is that the court must construe the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act as being the enabling provision of law under which the possession of the land can be taken over and the starting point for such operation can only be the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The submission is that only after the land is notified for acquisition for a public purpose, that the right of the State accrues to takeover possession of the land, in urgent cases, within a short span of time by applying the urgency clause. Learned Government advocate submits that in this background the date of taking over possession which is the starting point for the computation of interest can only be the date subsequent to the issuance of the notification and not prior to it. I do not see any difficulty in accepting the correctness of this argument because the right to take over a citizen's land is virtually the power under which the state takes over possession. It is necessary in this background to further record that the liability to pay compensation accrues on and from the date on which the possession is taken over which is the well-settled law. Where the provisions of the Land acquisition Act are correctly applied, there is no difficulty about accepting the position that the interest on the compensation amount can only commence from that date. ( 2 ) WHAT is common in this and several other similar proceedings is however something unusual. The notification in this case came only on 29-10-1977 whereas the possession of the land in question was taken over on 28-5-1973. ( 2 ) WHAT is common in this and several other similar proceedings is however something unusual. The notification in this case came only on 29-10-1977 whereas the possession of the land in question was taken over on 28-5-1973. In the reference proceedings, the Court enhanced the compensation and under section 28 of the Act, the Court is empowered to grant interest at 9% for one year from the date on which the possession was taken over and at 15% thereafter. The learned Government advocate submitted that an application was made to the Trial court to amend the award because the Court had originally granted the interest from the date of the Court order and, on the error being pointed out, the Court passed an order correcting that mistake and awarding interest from the date on which the possession was taken over in the year 1973. This civil revision petition challenges the impugned order and the contention is that the award of interest could only be from the point of time after the issuance of the Section 4 notification on 29-10-1977 and not before that. ( 3 ) I am unable to uphold this contention for the simple reason that the State cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong. If the State has taken over the possession of the land on a date prior to the issuance of the notification, the State cannot be allowed to compound the wrong by contending that even though the taking over of possession is wrong, illegal and unlawful that the Court will have to construe the lawful takeover only after the issuance of the notification. This would not only lead to an absurd situation in law but would also result in patent illegality for the simple reason that the citizen has been deprived of the land at a point of time 41/2 years prior to the date when the notification was issued and it can never be argued that the citizen will not be entitled to compensation from the date on which the actual possession was taken over. I need to observe here that the Legislature was conscious of such situations which was why, and very advisably, the Legislature laid down that the compensation would be payable from the date on which the possession was taken over and that the interest would also run from that date at the prescribed rates and not from the date on which the notification is issued. Section 28 is silent with regard to the issuance of the Section 4 notification and while construing Section 28, the date of issuance of Section 4 notification will have nothing to do with the calculation which must and can only proceed on the basis of the date of dispossession. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the aforesaid position in law, no ground sare made out for interfering with the impugned order. The civil revision petitiqn fails and stand disposed of. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .