E.Padmanabhan, J.: A.S.No.474 of 1993 has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer - Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur challenging the entire enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge of Sankari by judgment and award dated 10th August, 1992 made in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991. 2. Mr.N.Swaminathan, sole respondent in A.S. No.474 of 1993 has filed Cross Objection No.87 of 1994, in so far as the learned Subordinate Judge of Sankari in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 has disallowed the portion of the claim for enhanced compensation claimed by the cross objector in the said L.A.O.P. Since A.S. No.474 of 1993 and cross objection arise out of the same common judgment and award, they are taken up together for hearing. 3. A.S. No.512 of 1997 has been preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer, Salem and the Assistant Director of Agriculture, State Seed Farm of Salem as against the judgment and award dated 17th April, 1996 made in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Salem. No cross-objection has been preferred by any one of the eight respondents in this appeal. 4. The subject matter of acquisition in both the appeals arise out of one and the same Notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and in respect of contiguous lands. Therefore, at the instance of learned Additional Government Pleader and the counsel for the respondents in both the appeals, the above two appeals and one cross-objection were consolidated and taken up together for final hearing. 5. Heard Mr.Ashokan, Additional Government Pleader and Mr.V. Karthikeyan, Government Advocate appearing for the appellants in both the appeals as well as respondent in Cross Objection No.87 of 1994, Mr.B.T. Seshadri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in A.S. No.474 of 1993 and cross-objector in Cross Objection No.87 of 1994, M/s. Subbiah; ARL. Sundaresan; P. Jagadeesan; G.Jermiah for respondents in A.S. No.512 of 1997. 6. For the formation of Government Coconut Farm in Danishpet Village, at the instance of the Assistant Director, Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Salem, lands were acquired. Notification was issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No.139, Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Department, dated 19.2.1990, published in Government Gazette dated 19.2.1990. 6. For the formation of Government Coconut Farm in Danishpet Village, at the instance of the Assistant Director, Agriculture (Oil Seeds), Salem, lands were acquired. Notification was issued under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in G.O.Ms. No.139, Agriculture (Oil Seeds) Department, dated 19.2.1990, published in Government Gazette dated 19.2.1990. The lands were already under the occupation of the beneficiary even before issuance of Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act pursuant to the proceedings of requisition ordered under Tamilnadu Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1956. There were certain proceedings by the land owners and as a result of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, the acquisition of lands were undertaken under The Land Acquisition Act 1894. Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act was published on 19.2.1990; Sec.6 declaration was published on 19.9.1990. Award was passed in Award No.2 of 1991 in respect of the following lands: Survey No. Extent in Hectares 242/2B 1.12.0 243/1 2.55.0 243/2 1.12.5 244 2.62.0 297/1 2.25.0 ——— Total 9.66.5 ——— 7. In respect of the above 9.66.5 hectares, the land acquisition officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,19,670 while fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.44,958 per acre, which works out to Rs.449.58 per cent. 8. The land owner N.Swaminathan claimed the market value at the rate of Rs.2,50,000 per acre. At the instance of land owner, a reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the above 9.66.5 hectares, being the subject matter of award No.2 of 1991 dated 23.3.1991 in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari. 9. The learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.85,000 per acre by judgment and award dated 10.8.1992. Challenging the enhancement, the land acquisition officer has preferred A.S. No.474 of 1993 and the land owner has preferred cross objection in Cross Objection No.87 of 1994. In the cross-objection, the land owner prayed for that the market value of the acquired land be fixed at Rs.1,50,000. 10. In respect of the remaining land covered by the same Sec.4(1) Notification dated 19.2.1990, separate award was passed by the land acquisition officer in award No.3 of 1991 on 24.3.1991. This award covered in all measuring 25.16.5 hectares of land owned by eight different individuals. 10. In respect of the remaining land covered by the same Sec.4(1) Notification dated 19.2.1990, separate award was passed by the land acquisition officer in award No.3 of 1991 on 24.3.1991. This award covered in all measuring 25.16.5 hectares of land owned by eight different individuals. The land acquisition officer fixed the market value of wet lands measuring 7.61.0 hectares at Rs.60,000 per acre, for irrigated dry lands measuring 16.0.00 hectares, the land acquisition officer fixed the market value at Rs.44,958 per acre and in respect of Manavari dry lands measuring 1.55.5 hectares, the market value was fixed at 34,951 per acre besides usual solatium and interest. The land acquisition officer awarded a total compensation of Rs.49,52,888, which includes 12% additional amount as well. 11. The following lands which are the subject matter of L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 and in all it measures 25.16.5 hectares. Survey No. Extent in hectares 299/1 0.71.5 Wet 299/2 1.41.5 Wet 308/1 0.56.0 Wet 308/2 0.06.0 Wet 308/3 1.16.0 Wet 310/1 0.52.0 Wet 310/2 0.03.0 Wet 310/3 0.23.5 Wet 310/4 0.06.5 Wet 310/5 0.24.5 Wet 310/6 0.48.5 Wet 313/1 0.11.0 Wet 313/2 2.01.0 Wet 302/2 0.09.0 irrigated dry 302/3 0.06.5 " 304 3.36.0 " 305/1A 0.22.0 " 305/1B 2.46.0 " 305/2 1.04.0 " 309/1B 0.28.0 " 309/1C 0.12.0 " 309/1D 0.15.0 " 309/3 0.46.5 " 325 3.74.5 " 330 4.00.0 " 305/2A 0.02.0 Manavari dry 309/1A 0.01.0 " 309/1E 1.37.5 " 309/1F 0.09.5 " 309/1G 0.05.5 " Total 25.16.5 12. At the instance of the eight land owners, a reference was made in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem under Sec.18 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 13. The learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.95,000 per acre for wet lands; Rs.85,000 per acre for irrigated dry lands and Rs.75,000 per acre for manavari dry lands with usual solatium, interest and compensation. 14. Challenging the said enhancement, the land acquisition officer has preferred the appeal. The land owners have not preferred any cross-objection nor they have preferred any separate appeals seeking for enhancement of compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem. 15. 14. Challenging the said enhancement, the land acquisition officer has preferred the appeal. The land owners have not preferred any cross-objection nor they have preferred any separate appeals seeking for enhancement of compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the learned Subordinate Judge of Salem. 15. In both the appeals, the crucial date for fixing the market value of the land is one and the same, namely, 19.2.1990, which is the date of Notification issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act. For convenience, separate award came to be passed and therefore, there has been separate reference under Sec.18 of the Act and hence separate appeals. 16. In A.S. No.474 of 1993, separate compensation has been awarded for the wells as well as towards certain developments and trees. 17. In L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995, the claimants (which is the subject matter in A.S. No.512 of 1997) marked Exs.A-1 to A-17, the Referring Officer marked Exs.B-1 to B-17 besides Exs.C-1 to C-5, which are the Court exhibits. The claimants examined themselves as P.W.1 to P.W.8, while the respondent examined R.W.1 to R.W.4. 18. In L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991, against which A.S. No.474 of 1993 has been preferred, the claimants marked Exs.A-1 to A-12 besides examining four witnesses, while the land acquisition officer (Referring Officer) marked Exs.B-1 to B-5 and examined two witnesses. That apart one Court exhibit has been marked as Ex.C-1. 19. Ex.A-1 in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 is the judgment in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari against which the appeal in A.S. No.474 of 1993 has been preferred. Ex.A-2, dated 23.10.1989, Ex.A-3, dated 30.10.1989 and Ex.A-4, dated 30.10.1989 are the sale deeds relied upon in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995, while the very same sale deeds have been marked as Exs.A-2, A-3 and A-1 in the other L.A.O.P. In other words same set of documents are being relied upon to substantiate the claim of market value by the claimants in both the appeals. 20. Exs.A-2 and A-3, sale deeds respectively dated 23.10.1989 and 30.10.1989 relates to Survey Nos.223/3 and 38/3 and the sale consideration paid under the said two documents respectively being Rs.85,000 and Rs.90,000 per acre. The land acquisition officer has rejected Exs.A-2 and A-3, since the sale transactions were between close relatives and it is sold at a higher rate. 20. Exs.A-2 and A-3, sale deeds respectively dated 23.10.1989 and 30.10.1989 relates to Survey Nos.223/3 and 38/3 and the sale consideration paid under the said two documents respectively being Rs.85,000 and Rs.90,000 per acre. The land acquisition officer has rejected Exs.A-2 and A-3, since the sale transactions were between close relatives and it is sold at a higher rate. Even though the sale transactions were one year prior to Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, Exs.A-2 and A-3 have been held to be genuine sale transaction according to the learned Subordinate Judge. The sale consideration recited in Exs.A-2 and A-3 as deposed by R.W.1 is in conformity with the guideline values fixed by the Registration Department. 21. Apart from the said three documents, Exs.A-15 to A-17 respectively dated 7.11.1988, 24.1.1990 and 19.2.1990 were relied upon and marked in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995, which sale transaction were two years prior to Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act. As far as Ex.A-16 is concerned, the land acquisition officer, who was examined as R.W.1 has deposed that the value of the wet lands would be Rs.10,000 higher than the value of the irrigated dry lands and the value of manavari dry lands would be Rs.10,000 less than the value of irrigated dry lands. But there is documentary evidence to substantiate such a reference. 22. The learned subordinate judge in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 fixed the market value of the acquired land based upon Ex.A-2, sale transaction, by adding Rs.10,000 per acre in respect of wet lands and deducting Rs.10,000 in respect of dry lands. The Court below had declined the award of separate compensation for the wells but awarded compensation towards cement concrete channels and pipe lines. The learned Subordinate Judge also awarded interest from 18.3.1960, the date of taking possession less the amount already received as lease/ compensation, even though Sec.4(1) Notification in respect of the lands came to be issued only on 19.2.1990. 23. The learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.84,000, awarded Rs.2,00,000 towards pipe line and Rs.8,700 towards two wells and interest from 18.3.1960, the date on which the possession was taken by the State farm. In fact 9% interest was awarded for the period from 18.3.1960 to 17.3.1961 and for the period subsequent to 18.3.1961, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded 15% interest. 24. In fact 9% interest was awarded for the period from 18.3.1960 to 17.3.1961 and for the period subsequent to 18.3.1961, the learned Subordinate Judge awarded 15% interest. 24. Challenging both the awards, the present appeals have been preferred. 25. In these appeals, the following points arise for consideration was: (i) Whether the classification of land into dry, irrigated dry and wet land is sustainable? (ii) What is the prevailing market value of the acquired land as on 19.2.1990 the date of Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in respect of the three categories of lands? (iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation towards Well? (iv) Whether the claimants are entitled for compensation towards improvements like underground pipe lines, Channels etc.? (v) From which date the claimants are entitled to payment of interest under Sec.34 of The Land Acquisition Act? (vi) Whether the claimants are entitled for a direction under Sec.23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act? (vii) Whether the claimants are entitled to solatium? If so, at what rate? (viii) Whether the claimants are entitled to payment of interest on solatium? (ix) To what result, if any in the appeals? (x) To what result, if any in the cross-objection? 26. As regards the first point for consideration, the land acquisition officer himself in his award No.3 of 1991, dated 7.2.1990 categorised the land, which are the subject matter of the said award into three categories, viz., wet, irrigated dry and manavari dry. The lands have also been assessed as wet, irrigated dry and manavari dry. Therefore, in respect of lands, which are the subject matter of L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 and A.S. No.512 of 1997, the classification, as recorded by the land acquisition officer has also been affirmed by the Court below. In fact the land acquisition officer himself has fixed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.60,000 per acre for wet land; Rs.44,958 per acre for irrigated dry lands and Rs.34,951 per acre towards manavari dry lands. Both the sides, have not advanced contentions challenging the said classification. So also, in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of award No.2 of 1991, the revenue classification is only dry lands though admittedly there are wells. Hence, on the first point, the classification as adopted by land acquisition officer and affirmed by learned Subordinate Judge in the both the L.A.O.Ps. So also, in respect of the land, which is the subject matter of award No.2 of 1991, the revenue classification is only dry lands though admittedly there are wells. Hence, on the first point, the classification as adopted by land acquisition officer and affirmed by learned Subordinate Judge in the both the L.A.O.Ps. deserves to be confirmed in these appeals. The point is answered accordingly. 27. As regards the second point what was the prevailing market value of the acquired land on the date of Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, which date is common in both the appeals. The oral evidence let in by either side is not of much assistance nor the tall claims made by the witnesses could be accepted at all. The witnesses have made tall claims, but without any basis. The only basis on which the market value could be arrived at being Exs.A-2 and A-3 in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 and corresponding document has also been marked in the other L.A.O.P. Apart from Exs.A-1 and A-2, Ex.A-15, A-16 and A-17 are also pressed into service. Under Ex.A-2, dated 23.10.1989, Survey No.223/3 of the same Danishpet Village measuring 60 cents was conveyed for a consideration of Rs.51,000 and this being relied upon by the land owners to contend that the market value works out to Rs.85,000 per acre. 28. The land acquisition officer has rejected the said Ex.A-1 as it is between close relatives. Ex.A-15 dated 7.11.1988 is a sale deed executed by A. Kallannan in favour of Venkatachalam in respect of Survey No.242/2B. Ex.A-16 dated 24.1.1990 is a sale deed executed by Govinda gounder and another in favour of Marimuthu measuring 1.01 acres in Survey No.242/B for a sale consideration of Rs.44,958. Apart from the said exhibits, Exs.A-3 and A-4 both dated 30.10.1989 executed by one C.Velayudham in favour of Thenmozhi marked in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 are being relied upon. Ex.A-15 in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995, which is equivalent to Ex.A-1 in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 is a sale deed dated 7th November 1988 conveying R.S. Nos.242/1B and 242/2 at measuring 1 acre and 19 cents for a consideration of Rs.53,550 which works out to Rs.44,958 per acre. Ex.A-15 in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995, which is equivalent to Ex.A-1 in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 is a sale deed dated 7th November 1988 conveying R.S. Nos.242/1B and 242/2 at measuring 1 acre and 19 cents for a consideration of Rs.53,550 which works out to Rs.44,958 per acre. The survey numbers, namely, 242/1B and 242/2 of Danishpet village, as seen from Ex.B-2, sketch/plan and sub-division there of are far North of the acquired lands further just one acre 19 cents was the subject of matter of conveyance, which extent when compared to the large extent of acquired land is a small piece of land. When small extent of lands are being sold, there will be number of purchasers when compared to large extent of lands for which, there will be only few purchasers. Ex.B-2 in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 is equivalent to Ex.A-16 in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 is a sale deed dated 24th of January, 1990 for a consideration of Rs.50,000 in respect of R.S. No.245/1A measuring 1.43 acres out of 2.93 acres. The said Survey number 245/1 is located further North of R.S. No.244 and on cart track and south of a Pond (kuttai). 29. Ex.A-2 in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 dated 30th October, 1989 (equivalent to Ex.A-3 in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995) is a deed of conveyance by one Velayudham in favour of Thenmozhi for a consideration of Rs.46,800 in respect of lands comprised in R.S. No.387/2B measuring 52 cents. R.S. No.387/2B is far off from the acquired land and North of the Railway Line and Road, which is in a different locality. 30. Ex.A-2, Sale deed dated 23rd October, 1989 sold by R.Manickam in favour of M.Balasubramanian for a consideration of Rs.51,000 in respect of R.S. No.223/3 measuring 60 cents. R.S. No.223/3 is North-east of the acquired land and far off and divided by very many survey fields. Apart from the above sale transactions Ex.A-1 in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 form the basis of the acquired land, not only it could be taken into consideration to assess the market value in the locality. The Survey number 242 and sub-division is next to two of the survey fields acquired and it works out to Rs.44,958 per acre. But it is anterior while it is next to the acquired land. The Survey number 242 and sub-division is next to two of the survey fields acquired and it works out to Rs.44,958 per acre. But it is anterior while it is next to the acquired land. All the above sale deeds are taken into consideration and the documents referred to are several months earlier in point of time to Sec.4(1) Notification and some of them is more than 18 months prior to Sec.4(1) Notification and there is nothing to show that there has been an appreciable increase in the market value of the lands in the locality. 31. The learned Government Advocate and the counsel appearing for the respondents took us through the Judgment in both the L.A.O.Ps., the common documents relied upon by either side in both the O.Ps., as well as the plan and the oral evidence and we had the benefit of considering all the sale transactions relied upon by either side. 32. We have considered the entire documentary and oral evidence, the passage of time and the small extent of the land, which are the subject matter of various sale transactions, their location and relative distance to the acquired land divided by railway line, while arriving at the market value we have taken into consideration of Exs.A-2, A-3, A-4, A-15, A-16 and A-17 as marked in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995 and in particular Exs.B-1 and B-2 respectively dated 7.11.1988 and 24.1.1990 marked in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991 and Ex.A-2 dated 30.10.1989 the contiguous extent of large extent of land as well as all relevant circumstances we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.51,000 per acre for dry manavari; Rs.57,000 per acre for irrigated dry land and Rs.63,000 per acre for wet lands. As seen from the said documents as well as the oral evidence let in by either side, we fix the market value at Rs.51,000 per acre for dry lands; for irrigated dry lands at Rs.57,000 per acre and for wet lands at Rs.63,000 per acre. 33. As regards the claim of compensation towards well, the learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995, while rightly relying upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1995 S.C 186 has rightly disallowed the claim separately for the Well. Well is the source to cultivate the lands. 33. As regards the claim of compensation towards well, the learned Subordinate Judge in L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995, while rightly relying upon the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1995 S.C 186 has rightly disallowed the claim separately for the Well. Well is the source to cultivate the lands. In O.Janardhan Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector, A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 186, the Supreme Court has held thus: “8. Since estimated construction costs of irrigation wells of agricultural lands cannot form the basis for awarding compensation for such irrigation wells independently of the compensation awardable for the agricultural lands for the benefit of which such wells existed, the contentions raised by the learned counsel in support of the appellants claim for grant of enhanced compensation for the irrigation wells with reference to estimated costs of construction of such wells prepared by engineers, do not commend acceptance. 9. Irrigation wells for which enhanced compensation is sought in the present appeal are admittedly those which existed in the acquired agricultural lands for which enhanced compensation is awarded by the Civil Court, and the High Court. Question of granting further enhanced compensation for the acquired agricultural lands by this Court in this appeal does not arise since this Court has ordered that consideration of this appeal shall be restricted to claim of the appellants for grant of enhanced compensation for their irrigation wells”. 34. However, in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge of Sankari has awarded Rs.1,08,700 towards well, which award is contrary to law laid down by the pronouncement of the Supreme Court and therefore, the award of compensation for the well has to be disallowed and accordingly it is set aside. 35. As regards the improvement, namely laying of cement pipe line and channel in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge has awarded Rs.2,00,000 and assessed the market value of the land as dry land, there is no reason at all to interfere with the compensation awarded in this respect and in fact no arguments were advanced by the learned Additional Government Pleader in this respect. As there is no challenge to the award of compensation towards pipe line, building underground channel etc. and other structures, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation by the learned Subordinate Judge. 36. As there is no challenge to the award of compensation towards pipe line, building underground channel etc. and other structures, we are not inclined to interfere with the award of compensation by the learned Subordinate Judge. 36. Taking up the next point, Mr.B.T. Seshadri appearing for the respondent/ cross-objector pointed out that the lands were taken possession by the respondent/ beneficiary even during 1959/1960 and therefore, interest should be awarded from the said date. In L.A.O.P. No.1 of 1995, the learned Subordinate Judge has awarded interest under Sec.34 of the Land Acquisition Act from 15.10.1959 onwards at the rate of 9%, further directing that payments made towards lease amount shall be adjusted and the balance be paid, besides directing payment of 12% as additional amount and also awarded 15% interest after one year from the date of taking possession. While in L.A.O.P. No.116 of 1991, the learned Subordinate Judge directed payment under Sec.23(1-A) from 18.3.1960 and also directed payment of interest at 9% from 1.6.1958 till 31.5.1969 and thereafter granted interest at 15% from 18.3.1960 onwards, while directing adjustment of payments already made to lease. It is rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader that payment towards lease to the land owners by the Government Seed Farm is in terms of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Requisition and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1956. It is contended that compensation payable under the Said State enactment and of the land owners, who have grievance with respect to non-payment of compensation for theperiod ending with Sec.4(1) Notification, they have to work out their remedy before the competent forum only and not by way of interest under Sec.34 of The Land Acquisition Act 1894. 37. According to the learned Government Advocate, liability to interest, if any, in the present case commences from the date of Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act alone and not for any period earlier thereto. As earlier possession is not referable to present acquisition, but it is under a different provision. If the land owners are having any grievance in respect of non-payment of lease or compensation for deprivation of their possession earlier to Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, it is rightly contended that the owners have to work out their remedies, if any, under the Tamil Nadu Requisition and Acquisition Act under which possession was taken. 38. If the land owners are having any grievance in respect of non-payment of lease or compensation for deprivation of their possession earlier to Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act, it is rightly contended that the owners have to work out their remedies, if any, under the Tamil Nadu Requisition and Acquisition Act under which possession was taken. 38. Though Mr.B.T. Seshadri sought to sustain the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge in the respective awards, ultimately in view of the later pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Budh Singh and others, (1995)6 S.C.C. 233 , necessarily has to admit that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judges in the respective awards cannot be sustained. 39. In Union of India v. Budh Singh and others, (1995)6 S.C.C. 233 , the Supreme Court laid down that Court has no power to impose any condition to pay interest in excess of the rate and manner prescribed by the statute as well as for a period anterior to the publication of Sec.4(1) notification under the Act. In that respect the Supreme Court held thus: “3. The only question that arises for decision is whether the respondents- owners of the lands are entitled to interest at 18% per annum from 15.3.1963, the date on which possession was initially taken, till 15.11.1984, preceding the date on which the notification under Sec.4(1) was published. It is a jurisdictional issue and the finding in this behalf touches and trenches into the jurisdictional power of the Court, acting under the Act regarding award of interest. The payment of interest under the Act is squarely covered by the provisions of the Act. The Government, while exercising its power of eminent domain, are entitled to have the notification under Sec.4(1) published in the State Gazette. They are also entitled, in case of urgency, to exercise the power under Sec.17(4) of the Act and thereon declaration under Sec.6 published and would issue notice to the owner of the land under Sec.9. On expiry of 15 days thereof, the Government is entitled to take possession from the owner. The award would be made under Sec.11 thereafter. In case urgency clause under Sec.17(4) was not invoked, the procedure of inquiry under Sec.5-A shall be gone through and thereafter declaration under Sec.6 be made. The declaration gives conclusiveness to the public purpose. On expiry of 15 days thereof, the Government is entitled to take possession from the owner. The award would be made under Sec.11 thereafter. In case urgency clause under Sec.17(4) was not invoked, the procedure of inquiry under Sec.5-A shall be gone through and thereafter declaration under Sec.6 be made. The declaration gives conclusiveness to the public purpose. After conducting an inquiry in Chapter III of the Act, the land acquisition officer makes the award under Sec.11 and gives notice to the owner of the land under Sec.16 and on deposit of the compensation makes payment thereof under Sec.31 of the Act. In case, after taking possession, if the amount is not paid, the provision is made for payment of interest under Sec.34 of the Act which reads thus: ”34. Payment of interest: When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. 4. Under the proviso after the Amendment Act, if the amount is not paid before 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 compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry. 5. The other provision relevant for this purpose is Sec.28 of the Act, which empowers the reference Court or the High Court for awarding interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of payment as referred to herein before. Thus, it could be seen that the statute covers the entire field of operation of the liability of the State to make payment of interest and entitlement thereof by the owner when land has been taken over and possession in consequence thereof, the land owner was deprived of the enjoyment thereof. Thus, it could be seen that the Court has no power to impose any condition to pay interest in excess of the rate and manner prescribed by the statute as well as for a period anterior to the publication of Sec.4(1) notification under the Act. Thus, it could be seen that the Court has no power to impose any condition to pay interest in excess of the rate and manner prescribed by the statute as well as for a period anterior to the publication of Sec.4(1) notification under the Act. The parameter for initiation of the proceedings is the publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) of the Act in the State Gazette or in an appropriate case in District Gazette as per the local amendments. But the condition precedent in publication of the notification under Sec.4(1) in the appropriate gazette. That would give legitimacy to the State to take possession of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Any possession otherwise would not be considered to be possession taken under the Act. In fact, a situation has been envisaged under Sec.48(2) of the Act, namely, that when proceedings under the Act were initiated and in the midstream the proceedings were dropped, the owner who has been deprived of the enjoyment of the property, the statute prescribes the remedy of determination of the amount of compensation due to the owner for the damages suffered by the owner in consequence of the notice of the proceedings under the Act. The statute also imposes liability on the State to reimburse the costs incurred by the owner to defend the proceedings under the Act. The Act is a self-conscience cannot be extended in awarding interest, contrary to the provisions of the statute“. 40. While applying the above pronouncement, we hold that interest, if any, could be ordered to be paid only from the date of Sec.4(1) Notification under Sec.34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award of the learned Subordinate Judges in both O.Ps. are modified and accordingly the point is answered against the land owners and in favour of the land acquisition officer. 41. As regards the next point, namely, direction to pay additional amount in terms of Sec.23(1-A), the said provision came to be introduced by Central Act 16 of 1984. In this case, Notification under Sec.4(1), which is the relevant date on which the market value has to be arrived at, has been issued on 19.2.1990. 42. 41. As regards the next point, namely, direction to pay additional amount in terms of Sec.23(1-A), the said provision came to be introduced by Central Act 16 of 1984. In this case, Notification under Sec.4(1), which is the relevant date on which the market value has to be arrived at, has been issued on 19.2.1990. 42. In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2002)1 S.C.C. 142 : A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2951, the Supreme Court laid down that for the purpose of calculating the amount to be awarded under Sec.23(1-A) the date of publication of the Sec.4(1) is the starting point and the terminal point being the date of the award or the date of taking possession which ever is earlier. But in the present case, the date of taking possession was anterior to Sec.4(1) Notification. Therefore, that terminal is not available. But in this case, award came to be passed on 7.2.1992 and from the date of passing of award, we hold that the land owners are entitled to additional compensation under Sec.23(1-A) for the period, namely, from 19.2.1990 to 7.2.1992. 43. In Siddappa Vasappa Kuri v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2002)1 S.C.C. 142 : A.I.R. 2001 S.C. 2951, the Supreme Court has held thus: ”6. It is, as we see it, clear from Sec.23(1-A) that the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded thereunder, at the rate of 12 per centum per annum on the market value, is the dateof publication of the Sec.4 notification. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. In the present case, possession of the land having been taken prior to the publication of the Sec.4 notification, that terminal is not available. The only available terminal is the date of the award. The High Court, therefore was in no error in holding that the appellants were entitled to the additional compensation under Sec.23(1-A) for the period 8.3.1991 to 6.2.1993. 7. Sec.23(1-A) admits of no meaning other than the meaning that we have placed upon it. There is no room here for any construction other than that given above. It is only where a provision is ambiguous that a construction that leads to a result that is more just can be adopted. 7. Sec.23(1-A) admits of no meaning other than the meaning that we have placed upon it. There is no room here for any construction other than that given above. It is only where a provision is ambiguous that a construction that leads to a result that is more just can be adopted. Having regard to its clear terms, Sec.23(1-A) must receive the only construction it can bear. We are of the view, therefore, that the law has been correrctly laid down in the decision in Special Tahsildar (LA), P.W.D. Schemes v. M.A. Jabbar, and that it has not been correctly laid down in Assistant Commissioner, Gadag Sub-Division v. Mathapathi Basavannewwa and, for that matter in State of H.P. v. Dharam Das." The award of additional amount under Sec.23(1-A) is answered thus. 44. Being a compulsory acquisition, the claimants are entitled to solatium. Sec.23(2) came to be amended even during the year 1984. Notification was issued under Sec.4(1) of the Act in the present case on 19.2.1990. Therefore, the land owners are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition. 45. On the point as to whether the claimants are entitled to interest on solatium, the recent pronouncement of the larger Bench of Supreme Court in Sundar v. Union of India, (2001)7 S.C.C. 211 is on the point. Hence solatium also, the claimants/ landowners are entitled to interest. Therefore, following the Supreme Court, we held the land owners are entitled to payment of interest on solatium as well. 46. In the result, (a) We fix the market value of the acquired land as here under: (i) in respect of Dry lands at Rs.51,000 per acre; (ii) in respect of irrigated dry lands at Rs.57,000 per acre; (iii) in respect of wet lands at 63,000 per acre. (b) We affirm the award of compensation in respect of improvements like underground pipe line, other structures or buildings awarded by the Courts below. (c) We set aside the award of compensation in respect of wells; (d) We direct payment of solatium at 30% with interest from the date of Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. (b) We affirm the award of compensation in respect of improvements like underground pipe line, other structures or buildings awarded by the Courts below. (c) We set aside the award of compensation in respect of wells; (d) We direct payment of solatium at 30% with interest from the date of Notification under Sec.4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. (e) We direct payment of additional amount at 12% per annum under Sec.23(1-A) of the Act for the period from 19.2.1990, the date of Sec.4(1) Notification till 7.2.1992, the date of passing of award on the total value. (f) We direct payment of interest from 19.2.1990, at 9% p.a. for a period of one year from the date of Sec.4(1) Notification and at the rate of 15% p.a. after the expiry of one year till payment of compensation while giving credit to all payments already made from time to time. 47. With the above directions, both the appeals are allowed in part, cross-objection is dismissed and all connected pending C.M.P.s are also dismissed. The parties shall bear their respective costs in these appeals.