JUDGMENT R L Khurana, J.—By virtue of the present judgment, we propose to dispose of the above noted regular first appeal and the cross-objections, which have arisen out of award dated 17-10-1987 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Kullu in Land Reference Case No, 40 of 1987. 2, Land measuring 2-7-16 bighas of village Phari Shaken, Tehsil Kullu, belonging to the respondents m the regular first appeal No 31 of 1988, hereinafter referred to as the claimants, came to be acquired for construction of National Highway No 21 by the State of Himachal Pradesh in pursuance of a notification issued under section 4 (I) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, published on 5-12-1984. Vide award No. 14 made on 4-6-1985, under section 1 of the Act, the Collector Land Acquisition, awarded compensation by fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs lf600 per biswas, or say Rs, 32,000 per bigha. In addition to the said market value, the Collector, Land Acquisition allowed solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value assessed by him and additional amount under section 23 (l»A) of the Act at the rate of 12% per annum from 5-12-1984 the date of notification under section 4 (I) of the Act] till 4-6-1985 (the date of the award). No interest as permissible under section 34 of the Act was, however, allowed. 3 On a reference under section 18 of the Act, having been made to him, the learned Additional District Judge, vide the impugned award assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs 80,000 per bigha. He accordingly awarded compensation at the said rate to the claimants. In addition, he allowed the following statutory benefits to the claimants :— (a) Solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount; (b) Interest on the amount of compensation as assessed by the Collector. He accordingly awarded compensation at the said rate to the claimants. In addition, he allowed the following statutory benefits to the claimants :— (a) Solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount; (b) Interest on the amount of compensation as assessed by the Collector. Land Acquisition, at the rate of 9% per annum with effect from 1971 (the date of taking possession of the acquired land) till the expiry of one year thereafter and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of payment/deposit of the amount ; (c) Interest on the enhanced amount at the rate of 9% per annum from 1971 for a period of one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment/deposit of the enhanced amount. The benefit of additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on the enhanced amount as required under section 23 (1-A) of the Act was not allowed by the learned District Judge. 4 Both the parties feeling aggrieved by the award of the learned District Judge has come up before this Court by way of appeal and cross-objections, 5 Though the State of Himachal Pradesh by virtue of the present appeal had assailed the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the learned District Judge, during the course of hearing, the learned Advocate General has confined his attack only with regard to the grant of interest as detailed at (b) and (c) above. It has been contended that interest under sections 18 and 34 of the Act is payable from the date of possession till the date of payment/deposit of the amount. The words "date on which he took possession of the land appearing in section 28 denote the taking of possession under the provisions of the Act. If possession was taken otherwise than under the provisions of the Act, interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Act cannot be awarded from such date. The same would be awardable only from the date of award since the earlier possession would be deemed to be under the provisions of the Act only on the pronouncement of the award. 6. The same would be awardable only from the date of award since the earlier possession would be deemed to be under the provisions of the Act only on the pronouncement of the award. 6. The claimants, on the other hand, while disputing the market value of Rs 80,000 per bigha as assessed by the learned District Judge, have averred that the market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was Rs 1,20,000 per bigha. It has also been contended that the learned District Judge committed an error in having failed to allow the benefits under section 23 (i-A) of the Act to the claimants. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 8 The learned District Judge, in arriving at the market value of the acquired land, has placed reliance on the sale deed Ex. PW 3/A, whereby land measuring 2 biswas, which was adjoining the acquired land, was sold for a consideration of Rs. 12,000 on 9-1 Ml 84. The rate per bigha comes to Rs 1,20,000. Keeping in view the smallness of the land, subject-matter of sale, the learned District Judge allowed a deduction of Rs. 40,00r) there from and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 80 000 per bigha 9. The method of fixing market value of large extent of land on the basis of sale price of small parcel(s) of land after allowing necessary deductions towards developmental charges etc., stands approved by this Court in State v. Srnt Uma and others, 1995 (!) Sim LC 302. Therefore, no fault can be found with the market value of the acquired land as assessed by the learned District Judge. 10. Admittedly, the possession of the acquired land belonging to the claimants was taken by the State sometime in 1971 for the purpose of construction of National Highway No. 21. The requisite notification under section 4 (1) of the Act for the acquisition of this land, however, came to be issued only on 5-12-1984. If. Section 28 of the Act, provides for payment of interest on the enhanced amount assessed by the court. It reads :— "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. If. Section 28 of the Act, provides for payment of interest on the enhanced amount assessed by the court. It reads :— "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." Section 34 of the Act, provides for payment of interest on the amount of compensation assessed by the Collector, Land Acquisition, if such amount is not paid/deposited on or before the date of taking possession of the land. It reads :— "Payment of interest —When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited : Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within 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 compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry." A bare reading of the provisions contained in sections 28 and 34 of the Act shows that liability to pay interest arises from the date of taking possession of the acquired land. 12 The words "taking of possession of the land” appearing in section 28 of the Act came up for consideration before a Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Revenue Divisional Officer, Guntur v. Vasireddy Rama Bhanu Bhupal and others, AIR 1970 AP 262 In the said case, the proceedings for the acquisition of the land involved therein were started by the publication of a notification under section 4 of the Act on 12-4-1956 at the instance of the Guntur Municipality The Collector, Land Acquisition gave bis award on 31-3 1958 The Guntur Municipality, much prior to the initiation of the acquisition proceedings, had taken possession of the land on 30-11-1950. The Collector, Land Acquisition, besides offering compensation for the value of the land, awarded solatium at the rate of 15°/ and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount from 30-11-1950 that is when the land was taken possession of by the Municipality till 31-3-1958, the date of the award. The Collector, Land Acquisition, besides offering compensation for the value of the land, awarded solatium at the rate of 15°/ and interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation amount from 30-11-1950 that is when the land was taken possession of by the Municipality till 31-3-1958, the date of the award. On a reference to the District Court the compensation was enhanced and interest at the rate of 6% per annum was awarded on the enhanced amount from 30-11-1950 till the date of payment On appeal to the High Court, it was contended that interest under section 28 of the Act could be awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation only from the date when the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess amount into the court and that taking of possession under the section could only mean taking of possession in pursuance of or under the Act, that is, when the Possession of the land is taken by the Government immediately after the Collector makes an award, and that it is only from the date of taking of such possession that interest becomes payable under the section. Repelling the contentions, the Full Bench held :— "Section 28 of the Act states that the Collector shall pay interest from the date on which lie took possession of the land. It does not say that the Collector should pay interest only from the date on which he takes possession under the Act. On a plain reading of the section, it appears to us that the interest is payable from the date when the Collector takes possession, whether he takes possession under any of the provisions of the Act or by private negotiations or otherwise in anticipation of valid proceedings under the Act for the acquisition of the land in question That section 28 of the Act has been so understood is also clear from the provisions of Chapter XXVI of the Land Acquisition Manual relating to payment of interest on the compensation awarded Under paragraph 3 of the said Chapter it is stated as follows : Independently of the Land Acquisition Act, it may become necessary to take possession of a land urgently .... The Officer entering upon the land should record a statement from the owner agreeing to his entry. The Officer entering upon the land should record a statement from the owner agreeing to his entry. When he takes possession he should if possible obtain a further statement that the owner will not claim interest from the date of taking possession. In cases in which the owner declines to give such further statement, interest on the amount of compensation should be included in the award ‘’ Even assuming that the expression taking possession of the land under section 28 of the Act, would only mean taking possession of the land under or in pursuance of the Act we do not see any reason why the taking of possession of the land prior to the Land Acquisition proceedings without any objecting by the owner (in this case by private negotiation with his consent) followed by valid proceedings under the Act should not be held to be taking possession of the land under the Act The Act does not prescribe when the Collector representing the Government should take possession of the land, Under section 16 of the Act he may take possession after he has made an award, but there is nothing in that section or in any other provision of the Act, which prevents the Collector from taking possession of the land earlier with the consent of the owner. On the other hand there are provisions in the Act, for instance, section 17 which authorises the Col lector, in case of urgency to take possession of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes, after expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in section 9 (1) of the Act ” 13, In Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1961 SC 908, one of the question in controversy was whether the amount of compensation awarded for the property acquired under the East Punjab Requisition of Immovable Property Temporary Powers Act (48 of 1948) should carry a reasonable rate of interest from the date when the clamants lost possession of their properties. The following pertinent observations made in that context in the decision rendered in that case are reproduced hereinbelow :— "What then is the contention raised by the claimants? The following pertinent observations made in that context in the decision rendered in that case are reproduced hereinbelow :— "What then is the contention raised by the claimants? They contended that their immovable property has been acquired by the State and the State has taken possession of it, thus they have been deprived of the right to receive the income from the property and there is a time lag between the taking of the possession by the State and the payment of compensation by it to the claimants During this period they have been deprived of the income of the property and they have not been able to receive interest from the amount of compensation. Stated broadly the act of taking possession of immovable property generally implies on agreement to pay interest on the value of the property and it is on this principle that a claim for interest is made against the State... It would thus be noticed that the claim for interest proceeds on the assumption that when the owner of immovable property losses possession of it he is entitled to claim interest in place of right to retain possession when a claim for payment of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so called ; he is basing his claim on the general rule that if he is deprived of his land he would be put in possession of compensation immediately, if not, in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the said amount of compensation We have already seen that the right to receive interest in lieu of possession of immovable property taken away either by private treaty or by compulsory acquisition is generally regarded by judicial decisions as an equitable right, and so, the proviso to section 1 of the Interest Act saves the said right. We must accordingly hold that the High Court was in error in rejecting the claimants case for payment of interest on compensation amount, and so we direct that the said amount should carry interest at 4% per annum from the date when respondent 2 took possession of the claimants lands to the date on which it deposited or paid the amount of compensation to them ". 14 A similar question also arose for consideration before a Single Bench of this Court in Land Acquisition Collector, H P P. W. D, Solan and another v. Jeet Ram, AIR 19K7 HP 71. In this case the possession of the land taken over by the State on 1-6-1958. The Collector, Land Acquisition, made his award on 1-6-1983. The learned single Judge following the ratio of the Full Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the above referred to case and the principle laid down by the apex Court in Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh (supra), held :— "The decision in Vasireddy Rams case, AIR 1970 AP 262 (FB) (supra), with which I am in respectful agreement, is an authority for the proposition that the liability to pay interest on the amount of compensation does not arise only from the date on which the Collector takes possession under the Act The liability arises from the date when the Collector takes possession, irrespective of whether such possession is taken under any of the provisions of the Act or by private negotiations or otherwise. Besides, the Act of taking possession before the initiation of acquisition proceedings without any objection on the part of the owner followed by valid proceedings under the Act must be regarded as tantamounting to taking possession of the land under the Act. In any case, as held in Satinder Singhs case (supra), as well as in Vasireddy Ramas case (supra), interest is payable on equitable principles on the compensation amount from the date when the owner is deprived of the possession of the land. The very act of taking possession of immovable property generally implies an agreement to pay interest on the value of the property. A person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily is entitled to base his claim for interest on (he general rule founded on equitable principles that he should be put in possession of compensation immediately ; if not in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition, interest should be paid to him on the amount of compensation from the date of dispossession In view of the foregoing legal position, which must be regarded as well settled, the submission made by the learned Advocate General that the liability to pay interest arose, in the present case, earliest on June lt 1983, when the award was announced must be rejected. 15. 15. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Full Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vasireddy Ramas case. AIR 1970 AP 262, and that of the single Judge of this Court in Jeet Ram9s case, AIR 1987 HP 71, and hold that the clamants are entitled to interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Act from the date of possession, that is, 1971 till the date of payment/deposit of the amount of compensation. The learned District Judge, therefore, rightly granted interest as at (b) and (c) above. The notification under section 4 (1) of the Act in the present case as stated above, was issued on 5-12-1984, that is after the coming into force of the Amendment Act No. 68 of 1984. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to the benefit under section 23 (1-A) of the Act Such benefit has not been given to the claimants by the learned District Judge. Section 23 (1-A) of the Act provides :— "In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided the court shall m every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier….” 16. In the present case, possession of the land acquired was taken much before the publication of the requisite notification under section 4(1) of the Act. The question which, therefore, arises as to how to regulate the interest in such a situation. 17. In State o/H. P. v. Dharam Doss, (1995) 5 SCC 683, the apex Court was faced with a similar question. In the said case, possession of the land was taken m October, 1972, while the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act was issued on 27-2-1986 and the award by the Collector Land Acquisition, was made on 29-3-1987. The High Court directed the payment of benefit under section 23 (i-A) of the Act at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of possession till the date of award by the Collector Land Acquisition. Such direction was upheld by the apex Court. 18. The High Court directed the payment of benefit under section 23 (i-A) of the Act at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of possession till the date of award by the Collector Land Acquisition. Such direction was upheld by the apex Court. 18. The proposition which, therefore, emerges is that in case the Possession has been taken before the publication of a notification under section 4 of the Act, benefits under section 23 (1-A) are payable from the date of possession till the date of awards of the collector, land Acquisition. 19. As a result, while the appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh being R. FA. No. 31 of 1988 is dismissed, the cross-objections filed by the claimants, being cross-objection No 114 of 1988 are partly allowed and the impugned award dated 17-10-1987 of the learned Additional District Judge is modified to the extent that in addition to the statutory benefits already granted, the claimants shall further be entitled to the benefit under section 3 (1-A) of the Act at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of Rs. 80,000 from the date of possession till the date of the award of the Collector, Land Acquisition, that is. 4-6-1985. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.