(1) LEAVE granted. (2) WE have heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for Respondent 1. Respondent 2 though served, did not think it fit to contest the proceedings. (3) A limited notice was issued on 16-12-1998 to the following effect: "NOTICE to issue to respondents limited to the question of showing cause why the proceedings should not be remanded to the Division Bench of the High Court for considering the question as to when the possession of the disputed land, if at all was handed over to the petitioner so as to make it liable to pay interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from that date." (4) IN our view, under the facts and circumstances of the case, when the matter proceeded beyond the award at the reference stage under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the question as to when possession of the land sought to be acquired was taken will assume great importance for deciding whether under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, the respondents are entitled to interest as claimed by them. According to the counter-affidavit filed, possession of the land was taken in 1991. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant refutes this contention and submits on instructions that the possession is still not taken as stated in the rejoinder affidavit. This disputed question of fact will have to be resolved by the Division Bench of the High Court after arriving at a clear finding on hearing the parties as to when the possession of the acquired land of the respondents in fact was taken by the appellant, if at all, and in that light to decide the claim of interest as put forward by the respondents. We make it clear that we do not express any opinion on the merits of the controversy between the parties. It is for the Division Bench of the High Court to come to its own conclusion. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The impugned order is set aside. Writ Appeal No. 40 of 1997 is restored to the file of the High Court of Gauhati, Imphal Bench with a request to redecide the same in the light of the question required to be considered by the Division Bench as per our present order. There will be no order as to costs.