JUDGMENT - Y.K. SABHARWAL, C.J.:---Appeal admitted. 2.Respondents waive service. 3.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with their consent, at this stage itself, we proceed to decide the appeal. 4.The land of the respondents was acquired in terms of Notification dated 20th September 1969 under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act, for short). The Special Land Acquisition Officer made the award on 1st October, 1977. The said award was the subject matter of reference. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 21st December 1995 has enhanced the compensation and has also issued directions for payment of solatium @ 30% under section 23(2) of the Act and for payment of interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the land and @ 15% thereafter from 30th November, 1978 till 14th December, 1995 under Section 28 of the Act. The learned Judge also directed that the claimants are entitled to further interest @ 15% per annum from 15th December, 1995 till date of payment. The Corporation is in Appeal before us. 5.The market value of the land as determined by the learned Single Judge has not been questioned by the appellants in this appeal. The appellants have, however, challenged the grant of interest on solatium, the rate of interest granted for the period from the date of possession till 30th April, 1982 and the amounts on which interest is to be calculated. 6.Regarding grant of interest on solatium, the learned Counsel for the appellants relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Prem Nath Kapur another v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. others)1, 1996(2) Supreme Court Cases, 71, wherein it was, inter alia, held that no interest is payable on solatium under section 23(2) of the Act. In view of this decision, the learned Counsel for the respondents very frankly submits that as the legal position stands now, the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent that it grants interest on solatium will have to be set aside. Order accordingly. It is thus held that the Claimants will not be entitled to interest on solatium. In view of this decision, the learned Counsel for the respondents very frankly submits that as the legal position stands now, the judgment of the learned Single Judge to the extent that it grants interest on solatium will have to be set aside. Order accordingly. It is thus held that the Claimants will not be entitled to interest on solatium. 7.The Claimants have been awarded interests under section 28 of the Act @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from 30th November, 1977 i.e. the date when the possession was taken upto 29th November, 1978 and thereafter from 30th November, 1978 @ 15% per annum. 8.The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that under section 28 of the Act, interest to the claimant would be awardable @ 15% per annum from 30th April, 1982 and for the period upto 30th April, 1982, the interest awardable would be @ 4% per annum. According to learned Counsel section 28, is not retrospective in its operation and, thus the learned Single Judge committed illegality in awarding interest @ 9% per annum for the period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum. Section 28 of the Act 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 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)." 9.It is apparent that the aforesaid provision deals with payment of interest to a claimant on excess compensation. There is nothing in the language of section 28 to suggest that from the date of possession till coming into force of the Act, the claimant would be entitled to such rate of interest as was payable prior to the enforcement of the amendment. 10.In support of the contention that interest payable upto 30th April, 1982 would be @ 4% per annum, the learned Counsel for the appellants also relies on the language used in section 34 of the Act and submits that the language of the two sections i.e. sections 34 and 28 being almost similar, the interest at the enhanced rate could not be awarded except from 30th April, 1982. Admittedly, the present case does not concern payment of interest under section 34 of the Act. Further, section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 makes clear distinction between cases where interest is payable under section 28 of the Act and those cases where it is payable under section 34 of the Principal Act, the said section 30 reads as under :--- "30. Transitional provisions.---(1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of section 23 of the Principal Act, as inserted by Cause (a) of section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to,--- (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the Principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 and section 28 of the Principal Act, as amended by Clause (b) of section 15 and section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the Principal Act after the 30th day of April 1982, (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act. (3) The provisions of section 34 of the principal Act, as amended by section 20 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, (a) every case in which possession of any land acquired under the principal Act had been taken before the 30th day of April 1982, (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People), and the amount of compensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited under section 31 of the principal Act until such date, with effect on and from that date; and (b) every case in which such possession had been taken on or after that date but before the commencement of this Act without the amount of compensation having been paid or deposited under the said section 31, with effect on and from the date of taking such possession." sub-section (2) of section 30 as aforesaid, inter alia, stipulates that provisions of sub-section (2) of section 23 and section 28 of the Principal Act, as amended shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th April 1982. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in (Sita Devi wd/o Mukand Lal v. State of Haryana another)2, 1996(8) Supreme Court Cases, 83, where the award of the Collector was dated 26th November 1976 and the award of the reference Court was dated 10th January 1985. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in (Sita Devi wd/o Mukand Lal v. State of Haryana another)2, 1996(8) Supreme Court Cases, 83, where the award of the Collector was dated 26th November 1976 and the award of the reference Court was dated 10th January 1985. The Supreme Court held in the said case that the appellant is entitled to payment of enhanced interest under section 28 of the Act. 11.Under these circumstances, we find no illegality in the grant of interest in the manner aforesaid by the learned Single Judge under section 28 of the Act. 12.From the calculation sheet attached to the judgment, calculating the amount payable as Rs. 12,65,968.00, objection was taken by the learned Counsel for the Corporation that there are manifest errors in the said computation. It was pointed out that while working out the additional compensation as at clause (E) in the calculation sheet at Rs. 3,47,088.05, the learned Judge deducted the amount paid as per the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer of Rs. 1,56,413.00 from the total compensation at Clause (C) which shows that interest has been paid twice over. It was submitted that the sum of Rs. 1,56, 413.00, being the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer ought to have been deducted from the market value of Rs. 3,87, 308.50. The objection is partially correct. While working out the interest payable at Clauses (F) and (G) under section 28 of the Act, the amount of compensation paid as per the award ought to have been deducted from the market value shown in Clause (A) in the calculation sheet by the learned Single Judge. However, it is to be borne in mind that the sum of Rs. 1,56,413.00 is also inclusive of the solatium. The market value as determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not Rs. 1,56,413.00 but it was Rs. 1,36, 012.00. Therefore, amount of Rs. 1,36,012.00 ought to have been deducted from the market value of Rs. 3,87,308.50 thus arriving at the figure of Rs. 2,51, 296.50 on which interest under section 28 of the Act, as aforesaid, ought to have been worked out. The working in the aforesaid manner would show that the amount payable upto 14th December 1995 would be Rs. 10,12,369.71 calculated as under:-- CALCULATION SHEET A)Market value of 3367.90 sq. mtrs. 3,87,308.50 thus arriving at the figure of Rs. 2,51, 296.50 on which interest under section 28 of the Act, as aforesaid, ought to have been worked out. The working in the aforesaid manner would show that the amount payable upto 14th December 1995 would be Rs. 10,12,369.71 calculated as under:-- CALCULATION SHEET A)Market value of 3367.90 sq. mtrs. of land at the rate of Rs. 115/- P.M. Sq. mtr.:Rs. 3,87,308.50 B)30% Solatium on (A) above under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894::Rs. 1,16,192.55 -------------------- C) Total Compensation payable (A+B):Rs. 5,03,501.05 D)Amount paid as per the SLAO's Award:Rs. 1,56,413.00 -------------------- E) Additional compensation payable (C-D):Rs. 3,47,088.05 F) Market Value under SLAO's AwardRs. 1,36,012.00 G) Additional Market Value (A-F)Rs. 2,51,296.50 H)Interest on (G) above i.e. Rs. 2,51,296.50 under section 28 of LA Act at 9% p.a. from 30-11-1977 (date of possession) to 29-11-1978:Rs. 22,616,68 I)Interest on (G) above i.e. Rs. 2,51,296.50 under section 28 of LA Act at 15% p.a. (from 30-11-1978 to 14-12-1995 (6223 days):Rs. 6,42,664.98 J)Total amount due and payable as on 14-12-1995:Rs. 10,12,369.71 ============= The claimants would, of course, be entitled to interest @ 15% per annum under section 28 of the Act from 15th December 1995 till payment on Rs. 2,51,296.50 in addition to the aforesaid amounts. 13.The learned Single Judge had directed that out of the awarded amount, a sum of Rs. 4,47,459.60 is payable to the claimants and the remaining is required to be deposited in Court under section 30 of the Act where a claim is made by one Zilla who also claims a right in the land under reference. In view of our aforesaid conclusion, this amount would now change. 14.The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that taking into account the land of the claimants in respect of which there is no dispute whatsoever, they would be entitled to a total Rs. 3,57,454.31 as on 14th December 1995 instead of Rs. 4,47,459.60. Besides, they would also be entitled to interest on Rs. 88,681.50 from 15th December 1995 till date of payment @ 15% per annum under section 28 of the Act. These are as per the calculations filed by the learned Counsel for the respondents which reads as under :--- CALCULATION SHEET A)Market value of 1199.7 sq. mtrs. of land at the rate of Rs. 115/- P.M. Sq. mtr. :Rs. 88,681.50 from 15th December 1995 till date of payment @ 15% per annum under section 28 of the Act. These are as per the calculations filed by the learned Counsel for the respondents which reads as under :--- CALCULATION SHEET A)Market value of 1199.7 sq. mtrs. of land at the rate of Rs. 115/- P.M. Sq. mtr. :Rs. 1,37,965.50 B)30% Solatium on (A) above under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :Rs. 41,389.65 -------------------- C)Total compensation payable (A+B) :Rs. 1,79,355.15 D)Amount paid as per the SLAO's Award :Rs. 56,676.00 -------------------- E)Additional compensation payable (C-D) :Rs. 1,22,679.15 F)Market Value under SLAO's AwardRs. 49,284.00 G)Additional Market Value (A-F)Rs. 88,681.50 H)Interest on (G) above i.e. Rs. 88,681.50 under section 28 of LA Act at 9% p.a. from 30-11-1977 (date of possession) to 29-11-1978 :Rs. 7,981.34 I)Interest on (G) above i.e. Rs. 88,681.50 under section 28 of LA Act at 15% p.a. from 30-11-1978 to 14-12-1995 (6223 days) :Rs. 2,26,793.83 ----------------------- J)Total amount due and payable as on 14-12-1995 :Rs. 3,57,454.31 ============== Further interest is payable on (G) above i.e. Rs. 88,681.50 from 15-12-1995 till date of payment at the rate of 15% p.a. under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 16.In view of the aforesaid, the total amount to be deposited under section 30 of the Act would be Rs. 6,54,915.40 besides interest on Rs. 1,62,615.00 from 15th December 1995 till date of payment/deposit. This amount would be deposited in L.A. Reference No. 4 of 1978 in terms of the direction of the learned Single Judge within two months from today. 17.For the aforesaid reasons, we partly allow the appeal in terms of the aforesaid calculations. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. 18.Issuance of certified copy of this order is expedited. Appeal partly allowed.