JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J.—The above appeal has been filed by the claimants whose land came to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the judgment/award passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, dated 19.9.1991 in Land Reference Petition No. 129-S/4 of 89. The relevant facts, which are necessary to appreciate the question that has been raised for consideration in the appeal, are that the land of the appellants measuring 17 Biswas in village Tipra, Pargana Bhaget, Tehsil Kasauli, was notified for acquisition by the State Government for a public purpose for the construction of Patta Beja Masul Khana road by means of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 11.6.1985 and that the same was published in Rajpatra onl3.7.1985. It was followed up by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 17.12.1985 and this was published on 5.7.1986. The Collector, Land Acquisition, made his award under Section 11 of the Act on 29.6.1988 determining the compensation payable for the land acquired and the market value of the land was fixed at the rate of 20,000/- per Bigha. In addition to compensation awarded, as above, the Land Acquisition Collector further awarded solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value assessed by him and additional acquisition charges at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 till 31.5.1988. The acquisition pertains to the land measuring 11 Biswas belonging to the petitioner and proforma respondent No.3. Not satisfied, a reference was sought for by the claimants and on such reference the learned District Judge, Solan, concurred with the market value of the land fixed at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per Bigha. As for the claim made on behalf of the appellants that the possession having been taken of the acquired land even in the year 1978 much before its actual acquisition under the provisions of the Act, they are entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Act on the sum determined as a market value from the date of taking over of possession till the date of payment. So far as the additional amount claimed under Section 23(1-A) of the t\ct as amended by Central Act 68 of 1984, the learned District Judge was of the view that the date on which the possession was actually taken has not been brought on record and, therefore, the award of the sum under Section 23(1-A) from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) till 29.6.1988, the date of the award, alone is to be countenanced. Not satisfied, the above appeal has been filed contending that the possession of the lands were taken actually from the claimants on 23.1.1978. 2. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Coumel for the appellants sought to place reliance upon the earlier award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector on 15.2.1979 in award No. 43 of 78, whereunder reference is made to the notification issued under Section 4 on 23.1.1978 under the Act and contend that the possession must be held to have been taken on that day inasmuch as, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, it is only while taking the possession of the land pursuant to.the said notification made in the year 1978 that larger extent than what was notified therein was actually taken possession of, which necessitated the initiation of the subsequent acquisition proceedings to formally legalise the takirg over of possession on an earlier date and consequently the date of taking over of possession, which according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, being 23.1.1978, the amount due under Section 23(1-A) has to be awarded from the said date. In support of the said stand, the learned Counsel relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 (2) Sim. L.C. 461 (L.A.C., H.P.P.W.D., Kulluv. Smt. Dugli Devi and others) and a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1996) 2 S.C.C. 369 (Astekaar Naganaatha Rao and others v. Assistant Comissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and others). L.C. 461 (L.A.C., H.P.P.W.D., Kulluv. Smt. Dugli Devi and others) and a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1996) 2 S.C.C. 369 (Astekaar Naganaatha Rao and others v. Assistant Comissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and others). Per contra, the learned Advocate General placed strong reliance upon the decisions reported in 1995 (2) S.C.C. 142 (Special Tehsildar (LA), P. W.D. Schemes, Vijayawada v. M.A. Jabbar) and (1995) 6 S.C.C. 233 (Union of India v. Budh Singh and others) for the contra position contending that the provisions of Section 23(1-A) cannot be applied in such a manner as to award the sum envisaged therein based on the alleged and even actual date of taking of possession from a date anterior to Section 4 notification and that, therefore, no exception could be taken to the award passed by the learned District Judges. 3. The provisions of Section 23(1-A) need be set out and which are as follows: "(1-A) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent 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. Explanation.—In computing the period referred to in this subsection, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up an account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded." 4. In 1996 (2) S.C.C. 369 (supra), it is found stated, "consequently, they are also entitled to the compensation at that rate and solatium at 30% and also additional amount at 12% under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, as agreed upon by the parties, from the date of taking possession which the Court has fixed, viz., 31.12.1942. In other words, the claimants would be entitled to the additional amount from 1.1.194? till the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1).-Vide paragraph 3 of the judgment." It could be seen that the declaration made therein was more on the agreement arrived at between the parties themselves and not by means of any objective consideration and adjudication. The decision in 1997 (2) Sim. till the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1).-Vide paragraph 3 of the judgment." It could be seen that the declaration made therein was more on the agreement arrived at between the parties themselves and not by means of any objective consideration and adjudication. The decision in 1997 (2) Sim. L.C. 461 (supra), no doubt supports the stand taken for the appellants and it was held therein by the Division Bench of this Court that in case possession has been taken before publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the benefits under Section 23(1-A) are payable from the date of possession till date of award of the Collector Land Acquisition. In 1995 (2) S.C.C. 142 (supra), this question has been specifically adverted to and it was held as follows: "3. On a true interpretation of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23, we are of the considered view that the High Court is right in concluding that the claimants are entitled to the additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum from 6.3.1980, the date of publication of the notification till the date of award, namely, 30.9.1983. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 adumbrates that: "in addition to the market value of the land, the Court shall in 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(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." In other words, the owner of the land who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the land by having been parted with possession, the Act intended that the owner be compensated by awarding an additional amount calculated at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the enhanced market value for the period between the date of notification and the date of award or date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Admittedly, possession having already been taken on 15.2.1965, before publication of the notification under Section 4(1) on 6.3.1980, the award of additional amount for the period from 6.3.1980 to 30.9.1983, i.e., the date of making the award under Section 11 is perfectly correct. Admittedly, possession having already been taken on 15.2.1965, before publication of the notification under Section 4(1) on 6.3.1980, the award of additional amount for the period from 6.3.1980 to 30.9.1983, i.e., the date of making the award under Section 11 is perfectly correct. In addition to other statutory benefits, the owner also is entitled to the additional amount but to give in award additional amount from 15.2.1965, i.e., from the date of taking possession, though apparently earlier in point of time mentioned in Section 23(1-A), in effect it amounts to giving retrospective effect to sub-section (1-A) to Section 23 under the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, even though the Amendment Act was prospective and the transitory provision had only retrolimited activity. 4. Therefore, we hold that the claimants would be entitled to additional amount of the enhanced market value at 12% per annum from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) till the date of the award, since possession had already been taken before the Amending Act has come into force. Both the appeals by the State and cross-appeal by the claimant are accordingly dismissed. No costs." 5. In 1995 (6) SCC 233 (supra), in objectively considering the issue arising on the interpretation to be placed on Sections 34 and 28 of the Act in the matter of awarding of interest, with reference to taking of possession of the land, their Lordships have elaborately considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is a condition precedent and such action only gives legitimacy to the State to take possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act and that any possession otherwise taken but not in accordance with the provisions of the Act could not be considered to be possession taken under the Act so as to impose liability on the State under the statute stipulated therein. It was also observed that the Act is a self-contained code and common law principles of justice, equity and good conscience cannot be extended in awarding interest, contrary to the provisions of the statute. It was also observed that the Act is a self-contained code and common law principles of justice, equity and good conscience cannot be extended in awarding interest, contrary to the provisions of the statute. On that view, it was also held, that since the possession was taken in exercise of the powers pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) direction for payment of interest with effect from the date of taking possession pursuant to the notification under Section 4(1) could alone be consistent with the scheme of the Act. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. The additional amount envisaged to be awarded under Section 23(1-A) at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the market value determined has to be from the de e of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) upto the date of the award of the Collector or "the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier." The Act contemplates taking of possession after the award has been made lander Section 11-vide Section 16. The other circumstance envisaged under the Act for taking lawful possession even before the passing of the award is under Section 17 of the Act, when in cases of urgency, if the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector though no such award has been passed may on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section 9(1) of the Act take possession of any land needed for public purpose (Vide Section 17(1) of the Act). Sub-section (2) contemplates that in case where unforeseen emergency of the nature envisaged therein arise or the appropriate Government considers it necessary to acquire the immediate possession of any land for the purpose mentioned therein, the Collector may, immediately after the publication of the notice mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 17 and with the previous sanction of the appropriate Government enter upon and take possession of the land Section 9, which is referred to in Section 17 stipulates that the Collector shall after the issue of a declaration under Section 6 and notification of the authority under Section . have the land to be acquired and marked out unless it has been already marked out under Section 4, and after preparing a plan shall cause to put notice at convenient places on or near the land to be taken stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and the claims to compensation for all interests in such land be made to him. In other respects, on the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) too what is authorised and rendered permissible is to enter upon the land, to make survey and take levels and do all or any of the acts permitted under Section 4(2) and there is no other manner in which possession is permitted or authorised to be taken of a land under the Act, at any rate prior to the point of issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Hence, the words, "the date of taking possession of the land", wherever occurs under the Act including in Section 23(1-A) has to be construed inevitably to have relevance and reference to lawful possession taken under the Act and not any possession or occupation of a particular item of land, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in a given case even before the notification under Section 4 of the Act. There can be no premium secured on any unlawful act under a statute or anyone of the provisions under the Act and any such taking of unlawful possession has to be suitably got dealt with and relief obtained in appropriate proceedings otherwise than under the Act, and that too only if it is permissible and otherwise within the prescribed period of limitation and in accordance with law. Nor could a party who slept over the matter inspite of unlawful dispossession, and adopted an indifferent attitude be made the beneficiary of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 7. Consequently, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned District Judge does not call for our interference in this appeal though for different reasons, which have been noticed above. 7. Consequently, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned District Judge does not call for our interference in this appeal though for different reasons, which have been noticed above. The grant of additional amount envisaged under Section 23(1-A) of the Act can and ought to be only from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act upto the date of the award is correct in law and it cannot be from a date anterior to even the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The appeal, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. -