ARUN B. SAHARYA ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") against award and decree dated 8. 12. 90 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, determining the amount of compensation @ Rs. 36,400. 00 per bigha and other statutory benefits payable to the respondents herein for acquisition of their land situated in Village Palam, Delhi. ( 2 ) THE piece of land in question was acquired by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 27. 1. 84. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 26. 9. 84 and Award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 19 9. 1986. ( 3 ) THE appellant-Union of India has challenged determination of compensation in excess of the sum which the Collector did award and the direction for payment of interest @ 15% per annum under the proviso to Section 28 of the Act. ( 4 ) THE question of market value of land acquired by the same notification in respect of the same village was the subject-matter of RFA No. 718/90 : Rameshwar Solanki and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported as 57 (1995) DLT 410, which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 3rd February, 1995. In that case market value was enhanced and assessed Rs. 47,224. 00 per bigha. In view of that judgment, we find no justification for the plea raised in appeal for reduction of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi. ( 5 ) WITH regard to payment of interest, the plea taken in appeal is that award over and above 9% per annum is unreasonable and works hardship on the appellant keeping in view the period for which the interest is payable. We find no merit in the plea. ( 6 ) INTEREST has to be paid on the sum awarded by the Court in excess of the amount that the Collector did award as compensation under Section 28 of the Act. We find no merit in the plea. ( 6 ) INTEREST has to be paid on the sum awarded by the Court in excess of the amount that the Collector did award as compensation under Section 28 of the Act. Interest on such excess has to be paid @ 9% per annum from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum by virtue of the Proviso to Section 28 of the Act. Since the Collector s award was made after the 30th day of April, 1982, Section 28, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, would apply in the present case. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge was justified in directing payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation for one year from the date of taking over possession of the land and @ 15% per annum thereafter till the enhanced amount is paid into Court in terms of Section 28 of the Act. ( 7 ) AS a result, we find no merit in the appeal. ( 8 ) THE appeal is according dismissed. No costs.