JANARDAN SAHAI, J. The dispute in the present revision relates to the rate of payment of interest. The dispute has arisen in consequence of the award of the Reference Court dated 24-4-1999 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The applicant filed objection under Section 47 of CPC alleging that it is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of judgment of the Reference Court. The objections have been rejected by the Courts below. 2. Before this Court Shri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the liability of payment of interest is at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of judgment in the Reference Court and for the subsequent period, the liability is at the rate of 15% per annum. The Executing Court has taken a different view. The matter relates to the interpretation of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plain reading of Section 28 suggests that interest at the rate of 9% per annum is payable from the date on which possession of the land is taken. Proviso to Section 28 is to the effect that the Court may direct that interest at the rate of 15% shall be payable after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which possession is taken. The word may used has been interpreted to mean shall by the Apex Court in the case of Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi, AIR 1997 SC 1779 . The effect of the decision of the Apex Court is that the Court has no option but to direct payment of interest at the rate of 15% per annum after the date of expiry of one year period from the date on which possession is taken. 3. Shri Mittal further relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of U. P. and others v. Raj Narain Singh and another, 1987 LACC 559, and upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yadavrao P. Pathade (dead) by LRs. etc. v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (27) ALR 446 (SC ). 4. etc. v. State of Maharashtra, 1996 (27) ALR 446 (SC ). 4. On the other hand, Shri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and another v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. and others, (1996) 2 SCC 71 . 5. Shri Mittal while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in 1987 LACC 559, contends that requirement to deposit excess amount within a period of one year of taking over possession is a task impossible to perform as the excess amount itself has not been determined within a period of one year of taking over of the possession. 6. In view of the fact that controversy has now been decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and another (supra) there can be no doubt that the payment has to be made at the rate of 15% after the expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the possession is taken. 7. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Yadavrao, Pathade (dead) by LRs. etc. (supra) is concerned in paragraph 3, the Supreme Court has laid down the law as under: " (3) Section 28 gives power to the Court to award interest when the Court enhances the compensation in excess of amount awarded by the Collector at the rate specified therein, namely preceding the Amendment Act 68 of 1984, at 6% per annum under the Central Act or at the rates as per the appropriate Act amended by the local amendments to the Act. After the amendment Act coming into force w. e. f. September 24, 1984 the claimants would be entitled to interest at 9% p. a. for one year from the date of taking possession and on expiry thereof, at 15% p. a. till the date of the deposit into Court. " 8. After the amendment Act coming into force w. e. f. September 24, 1984 the claimants would be entitled to interest at 9% p. a. for one year from the date of taking possession and on expiry thereof, at 15% p. a. till the date of the deposit into Court. " 8. Shri Pankaj Mittal, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment in which the Supreme Court has observed that: "it is needless to mention that under Section 28 the claimants will be entitled to the interest on enhanced compensation from the date of the award of the Court under Section 26 on appeal under Section 54 of the respective compensation, if enhanced, till date of deposit in the Court. " Reading the decision as a whole as well as in view of the view taken by the Supreme Court in its latest judgment in the case of Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and also in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prem Nath Kapur and another (supra) and on the plain reading of the Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act it appears that view taken by the Executing Court that interest is payable at the rate of 15% from the date after expiry of the period of one year from the date on which the possession is taken is correct. 9. There is another aspect of the matter. Shri Dilip Gupta, learned counsel for respondent referred the decision of the Reference Court on issue No. 6 and contended that in view of the finding already given by the Reference Court in issue No. 6 the matter relating to rate of payment of interest at the rate of 15% from the date on which the possession is taken has already been decided. Mr. Gupta contended that the Executing Court could not go behind the decision of the Reference Court. The contention of Mr. Gupta appears to be well-founded. Reference Court has already decided the matter relating to rate of interest and as such it was not for the Executing Court to go behind the decision. 10. In the result the revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. 11. However, there will be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed. .