MOHAMED ANWAR J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal from the judgment and award dated 9-11-1998 passed in L. A. C. No. 9 of 1997 of the reference Court has arisen out of the land acquisition proceedings initiated on the basis of the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short), dated 20-5-1987 published on 11-6-1987 pursuant to which award dated 16 4-1997 of r-2, Special Land Acquisition Officer was passed acquiring the land of R-1 (claimant) bearing S. No. 31/1b measuring 1 acre 26 guntas situate at Henjagondanahalli Village in arasikere Taluk of Hassan District for the purpose of housing Scheme formulated by the appellant Karnataka Housing Board ( 2 ) THE fact situation of this case is same as obtainable in connected M. F. A. No. 1444 of 1999 which has been disposed of by us by a considered judgment dictated and delivered today. Therefore, for the reasons stated therein i. e. . M. F. A. No. 1444 of 1999, we hold that the market value of the acquired land in the instant case also should be Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. Thus, the market value per acre of the acquired land would be Rs. 1,30,680/ instead of Rs. 2. 17,800/- per acre as was determined by the court below. ( 3 ) NEXLLY as pointed out by the learned additional Government Pleader Mr. Umakanth, the reference Court has committed an error in granting the statutory benefit of the market value at the rate of 12% under Section 23 (1- a) of the L. A. Act from the date of preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) thereof till passing of the award, whichever is earlier, without excluding the period during which the land acquisition proceeding in L. A. C. No. 9 of 1997 which has given rise to this appeal was held up on account of the stay granted by this Court in claimant's Writ Petition No. 2559 of 1989 which was filed by him challenging the acquisition proceedings. Explanation to Section 23 (1-A) of the Act provides'for exclusion of the said period in computing the period for which the additional market value at the rate of 12% is required to be paid. Explanation to Section 23 (1-A) of the Act provides'for exclusion of the said period in computing the period for which the additional market value at the rate of 12% is required to be paid. Admittedly, an interim order staying further acquisition proceedings in this case was obtained by the claimant (R-1) in his Writ Petition No. 2559 of 1989 on 22-2-1989 and that, that stay order was in force till 5-8-1996 on which date the said writ petition came to be dismissed. It is also not in dispute that r-2 L. A. O. 's award acquiring the land of the claimant was passed on 16-4-1997 and that the possession of the land was taken by him subsequently on 7 6-1997. Section 23 (1- a) of the Act provides for payment, of additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value of the acquired land for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of notification under section 4 (1) to the date of the award of the l. A. O. or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever, is earlier subject to exclusion of the said, period of stay in consequence of the interim order dated 22-2-1989 made in writ Petition No. 2559 of 1989. The said stay period from 22-2-1989 to 5-8-1996 which was required to be excluded, has not been excluded by the Court below in granting additional market value at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A ). Therefore, it was in clear error in not doing so in compliance with this legal mandate. The direction of the Court below in this respect will have to be modified accordingly. ( 4 ) SIMILARLY, the Trial Court's grant of 9% interest per annum in the first year and at 15% per annum thereafter till realisation "on the remaining market value" is erroneous, in view of Section 28 of the Act which reads as under: "28. The direction of the Court below in this respect will have to be modified accordingly. ( 4 ) SIMILARLY, the Trial Court's grant of 9% interest per annum in the first year and at 15% per annum thereafter till realisation "on the remaining market value" is erroneous, in view of Section 28 of the Act which reads as under: "28. 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 cent 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 Courl 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 Courl before the date of such expiry" (emphasis supplied) it becomes manifest from a bare reading of section 28 that interest at the rale of 9% per annum is payable on the enhanced portion of the compensation only from the date on which the L. A. O. took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court, and that where such enhanced amount of com: pensation or any part thereof is paid into Court after expiry of the said one year's period from. the date on which possession was taken, then the interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereon becomes payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one. year Therefore, the grant of 9% interest per annum by the Court below in the first year from the date of acquisition under its impugned award is patently incorrect. the date on which possession was taken, then the interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereon becomes payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one. year Therefore, the grant of 9% interest per annum by the Court below in the first year from the date of acquisition under its impugned award is patently incorrect. It should be from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment of the enhanced amount of compensation and not from the date of acquisition or any other date whatever. In view of this legal position, the interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation in the present case becomes payable from 7-6-1997. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid and in view of our above conclusions and following our findings in connected M. F. A. No. 1444 of 1999, this appeal is partly allowed reducing the market, value of the claimant's's acquired land to rs. 1,30,680/ per acre instead of Rs. 2,17,800/- which was fixed and granted by the Court below, together with 12% additional market value thereof payable for the period 16-4-1997 till 22-2-1989 on which date the interim order staying further proceedings was granted in claimant's Writ Petition No. 2559 of 1989; and for the further period from 5-8-1996 on which date the said writ petition was dismissed, till the date of the L. A. O. 's award i. e. , 16-4-1997, since the possession of the land was taken subsequently and also the interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date 7-6- 1997 till the date of payment of the excess amount, and if the same or any part thereof remains unpaid within the period of one year from the said date, then the interest on such unpaid amount shall be paid at the rate of 15% per annum after the expiry of the period of said one year. The solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced market value granted by the court below is left undisturbed. Its impugned award shall stand modified accordingly. The parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed. Award modified accordingly. --- *** --- .