A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE common question posed in these writ petitions relates to grant of interest after the Award is passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) but delay has occurred in taking possession of the land. In view of this commonality, these writ petitions were heard together and we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment. We may first advert to the facts of the two sets of cases. W. P. (C) NO. 5032/2002 ( 2 ) THE petitioner in this case was Bhumidar of a small holding i. e. 1 bigha 2 biswas in Khasra No. 1289-1290, Khata No. 166 in village Rangpuri. The Notifications under Sections 4, 6 and 17 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act ) in respect of village Rangpuri were passed on 27th June, 1996 and 10th January, 1997 respectively. It was mentioned that the land was required by the Government for a public purpose, namely, for the Planned Development of Delhi, development of Vasant Kunj, Phase IV at public expense. Thereafter, notices under Sections 9 and 10 dated 8th October, 1998 of the Act were issued to the land owners. The petitioner appeared and preferred his claim before the LAC. The LAC thereafter passed the Award on 6th January, 1999. ( 3 ) ALTHOUGH the urgency provision contained in Section 17 of the Act was invoked while issuing Notifications on the ground that the land is urgently required, no possession of the land was taken immediately thereafter. Normally, in such cases where land is urgently required possession is taken even before passing of the Award which course of action is permissible under Section 17 of the Act. However, in this case even when the Award was made on 6th January, 1999 possession was not taken immediately thereafter. The petitioner, in these circumstances, wrote a letter dated 10th January, 2000 to the LAC, stating that as per the Award he was awarded compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,35,294. 19 paise but inspite of his approaching the office of the LAC several times, the compensation was not paid to him on the ground that there was no money paid by the acquiring department and that possession of the land had also not been taken. 3,35,294. 19 paise but inspite of his approaching the office of the LAC several times, the compensation was not paid to him on the ground that there was no money paid by the acquiring department and that possession of the land had also not been taken. He further stated that he was willing to deliver possession any moment as the land was lying vacant and requested that compensation be paid to him forthwith. Yet, the needful was not done and therefore a reminder dated 19th January, 2001 was sent, wherein he requested that he may either be paid compensation within one month s period or the land itself be denotified and released from acquisition. After waiting for some more time when his patience exhausted, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in August 2002 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to make payment of compensation, solatium, interest, additional compensation etc. assessed under the Award and also to pay him penal interest at the rate 18 per cent per annum on the awarded amount from the date of Award to the date of payment. Alternative prayer for denotification of the land was also made. ( 4 ) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner was given a cheque in the sum of Rs. 3,35,294/- representing the compensation as determined under the Award, on 6th May, 2004 in the Court. However, at the time of receiving the said amount, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the amount as due to the petitioner was to be paid to him in the year 1999 the petitioner was also entitled to interest on the said amount for delayed period. It is this issue only which remains to be determined and on which arguments were heard. W. P. (C)NO. 3381-3418/2004 ( 5 ) THE petitioners in these cases were the owners of land in village Chak Chilla which was proposed to be acquired by passing Notification under Section 4 of the Act issued on 23rd June, 1989. This was followed by Declaration under Section 6 as well as notices under Section 17 (1) of the Act was issued on 22nd June, 1990 and simultaneously, on the same date, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were also issued. Here also although urgency provision was invoked, possession of the land of the petitioners was not taken. This was followed by Declaration under Section 6 as well as notices under Section 17 (1) of the Act was issued on 22nd June, 1990 and simultaneously, on the same date, notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act were also issued. Here also although urgency provision was invoked, possession of the land of the petitioners was not taken. Award No. 22/1992-93 was pronounced but still, inspite of repeated requests and reminders of the petitioners to take possession of the land and pay the compensation, needful was not done. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed WP (C) No. 888/97 and sought direction to the respondents for making payment of compensation with all statutory benefits or in the alternative to quash the acquisition proceedings. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10th September, 1997 when counsel for the respondents made a statement that the amount of compensation along with other statutory benefits shall be paid to the petitioners within four weeks from the date of the order. Thereafter the respondents made payment to the petitioners as per the Award along with solatium, additional market value. But the interest from the date of Award till payment was not made to the petitioners. The petitioners, in these circumstances, moved an application in the disposed of WP (C) No. 888/97 for necessary directions. However, order dated 31st March, 1998 was passed in this application directing the petitioners to seek appropriate relief in appropriate proceedings as the writ petition had already been disposed of. Thereafter the petitioners moved CCP No. 295/98. Even this CCP was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 15th September, 1999 with liberty to the petitioners to move the appropriate forum, if there be any cause of action for the same. The petitioners thereafter moved an application before the respondents for payment of statutory benefits. This request not having been acceded to, these writ petitions are filed seeking a direction for payment of interest on the amount of compensation, solatium and additional market value from the date of Award till payment i. e. from 18th June, 1992 till 3rd November, 1997. The petitioners thereafter moved an application before the respondents for payment of statutory benefits. This request not having been acceded to, these writ petitions are filed seeking a direction for payment of interest on the amount of compensation, solatium and additional market value from the date of Award till payment i. e. from 18th June, 1992 till 3rd November, 1997. ( 6 ) IT would be clear from the narration of aforesaid factual matrix, in both the sets of cases, that the petitioners claim interest on the ground that there was no reason not to make the payment of the compensation after the Award was announced and the respondents could not delay taking over of the possession of the land even when the petitioners had offered them to take possession and thereby delay the payment of compensation. On the other hand, this claim of the petitioners is resisted on the ground that even if the Award is made, amount of compensation becomes payable only from the date when the possession is taken and as per the provisions of the Act when payment of compensation is not made even after taking the possession, only then interest is payable. Thus, according to the respondents, no interest is payable for the period prior to taking of the possession of the land when the Award is made. It is, this question, as noticed in the beginning, which is required to be determined in these proceedings. ( 7 ) MR. C. B. VERMA, appeared for the petitioner in W. P. (C) No. 5032/2002 and Mr. B. P. Gupta argued on behalf of the petitioners in W. P. (C) Nos. 3381-3418/2004. On behalf of the LAC, the matter was argued by Ms. Geeta Luthra, Mr. Sanjay Poddar. Mr. Gaurav Sarin made his submissions appearing for DDA. ( 8 ) IT was contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that on the pronouncement of the Award, the petitioners became entitled to get the compensation as per the said Award and if the compensation was not paid for whatever reason the petitioners were entitled to interest thereon. Mr. Gaurav Sarin made his submissions appearing for DDA. ( 8 ) IT was contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that on the pronouncement of the Award, the petitioners became entitled to get the compensation as per the said Award and if the compensation was not paid for whatever reason the petitioners were entitled to interest thereon. It was submitted that prior to the amendment of 1967 in the Act, there was no time limit for making a declaration under Section 6 of the Act or for making an Award under Section 11 or taking possession of the land notified under Section 4 of the Act whereas the market value of the land was to be paid to the land owners of their acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom brought an amendment in the Act in the year 1967 by the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation)act, 1967, to the effect that if there is a difference of more than three years between the date of Notification under Section 4 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Act, then the land owners are entitled to get interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the market value after the period of three years from the date of Notification under Section 4. There was further amendment in the Act in 1984 providing for time bound Declaration under Section 6 of the Act by virtue of proviso to Section 6 (1) of the Act which reads as under: "6. Declaration that land is required for a public purpose- Provided that no declaration in respect of any particular land covered by a notification under section 4, sub-section (1), - (i) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Ordinance, 1967 but before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 shall be made after the expiry of three years from the date of the publication of the notification; or (ii) published after the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, shall be made after the expiry of one year from the date of the publication of the notification. " ( 9 ) EFFECT of failing to make necessary Declaration within stipulated period is that the Notification under Section 4 would lapse. " ( 9 ) EFFECT of failing to make necessary Declaration within stipulated period is that the Notification under Section 4 would lapse. Even for the above said period of three years, during which the acquisition proceedings were to be concluded, the legislature introduced Section 23 (1-A) giving further relief to the poor farmers/land owners to the effect that in addition to compensation for the land, a further amount at the rate of 12 per cent on the market value shall also be payable to the land owners from the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act to the date of Award of the LAC or the date of taking possession whichever is earlier. Thus, the intention was to complete the acquisition proceedings within time bound period and after Notification under Section 4 of the Act, such proceedings had to be culminated in passing of the Award within a maximum period of three years. The argument was that the Scheme of the Act unambiguously provided that the land owners, whose land was sought to be acquired, were to be given compensation within this period. Although no period was specified within which possession was to be taken after the passing of the Award, the legislature intended that possession would be taken immediately after the passing of the Award and precisely for this reason no time is fixed for this purpose. Otherwise, the legislature would have provided for time bound period for taking possession also as was done for Section 6 Declaration and the Award by amending Section 6 and Section 11a of the Act respectively. ( 10 ) IN support of their submissions that interest is required to be paid, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment in the case of Smt. Lila Ghosh (Dead) through LR. Shri Tapas Chandra Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal 2003 X AD (SC) 314. They also referred to two Division Bench orders of this Court, namely, (a) order dated 15th October, 1993 passed in CWP No. 3095/1992 and (b) order dated 11th October, 1996 passed in CWP No. 4723/1995. ( 11 ) THE respondents, on the other hand, submitted that it was not the fault of the respondents that possession was not taken. They also referred to two Division Bench orders of this Court, namely, (a) order dated 15th October, 1993 passed in CWP No. 3095/1992 and (b) order dated 11th October, 1996 passed in CWP No. 4723/1995. ( 11 ) THE respondents, on the other hand, submitted that it was not the fault of the respondents that possession was not taken. According to them, after the Notifications in the aforesaid cases were issued, many land owners challenged those Notifications by filing writ petitions in this Court, wherein stay of dispossession was granted. Although these petitioners had not filed any such writ petitions, in view of stay order in other cases, there was no purpose in taking possession of part of the land belonging to the present writ petitioners which could not be put to any use. It was further submitted that the amount was not payable from the date of Award but from the date when possession of the land was taken. Since before possession is taken, the amount does not become due, there is no question of payment of interest thereon. It was also submitted that the Act, which is a complete code in itself, provided for the contingencies when interest was payable and, therefore, dehors the provisions of the said Act no interest was payable. As for such a contingency where after the Award possession is not taken, no provision is made for payment of interest from the date of Award, such interest was not payable. It was further submitted that in these cases since provisions of Section 17 of the Act were invoked, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. L. Jain (D) by LRs. Vs. DDA and Ors. reported as JT 2004 (3) SC 272 , interest was payable only from the date of possession and not from the date of Award. The respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Net Ram and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 86 (2000) DLT 606 as per which interest was not payable, dehors the provisions of the Act in land acquisition matters. The respondents also relied upon the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Net Ram and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 86 (2000) DLT 606 as per which interest was not payable, dehors the provisions of the Act in land acquisition matters. ( 12 ) AFTER giving our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid submissions made by the parties and going through the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments noted above as well as Full Bench judgment of this Court in Net Ram (supra), we are of the opinion that the petitioners have no case for grant of interest for the period for which they are making this demand, namely, from the date of Award till the date when possession was taken from the petitioners pursuant to the said Award. ( 13 ) IT may be observed in this behalf that the settled position in law, as per the aforesaid judgments, is that the Act is a complete code in itself. It specifically incorporates provisions for payment of interest in Sections 28 and 34 of the Act thereof. These provisions also lay down the circumstances under which interest is to be paid to the persons entitled to receive compensation. Thus, as per the provisions of this Act, the land owners whose land is acquired shall receive interest only in the situations contemplated by Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. There is no scope for direction to pay interest dehors the provisions of the Act. The Full Bench of this Court in Net Ram (supra) settled this issue beyond any pale of doubt by holding that direction to pay interest while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in manner not contemplated either under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act cannot be given. The Full Bench came to this conclusion on the interpretation of two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India Vs. Budh Singh and others reported as (1995) 6 SCC 233 and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dharam Das reported as (1995) 5 SCC 683 . Some other judgments of the Supreme Court were also referred to in this context. Budh Singh and others reported as (1995) 6 SCC 233 and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Dharam Das reported as (1995) 5 SCC 683 . Some other judgments of the Supreme Court were also referred to in this context. Extracting paras 4 to 6 of the judgment, wherein this aspect is discussed in detail, would suffice our purpose: "para 4: The Act is complete Code and lays down detailed procedure for acquisition of land, payment of compensation including solatium and additional market value. It is to be noted that under Section 34 interest @ 9% from the date of taking over the possession till payment for the first year @ 15% for subsequent years if payable. Section 28 is the only other provision which deals with the award of interest. The said provision empowers the Court to award interest on the excess awarded amount over and above the amount awarded by the Collector. Sections 28 and 34 read as follows: "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. 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. (Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within 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 that 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. "para 5: There is no dispute to the position that apart from Sections 28 and 34 which deal with payment of interest to persons entitled to receive compensation, there is no other provision envisaging payment of interest. Collector, Land Acquisition is liable to pay interest on statutory rates to such persons only when possession has been taken over before the payment of the entire compensation to them under Section 34. In Union of India v. Budh Singh, (1995) 6 SCC 233 , the Apex Court had the occasion to deal with Sections 28 and 34 and it was observed that these were the only provisions which deal with the payment of interest to land owenrs. While considering the scope and ambit of these sections, the Apex Court observed: "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 Section 4 (1) notification under this Act. "para 6: Similar view was expressed in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Das, (1995) 5 SCC 683 . It was held that when the statute provides for payment of interest to the land owners, a Court has no power to award interest in a manner other than the one prescribed by the statute. It was specifically observed that there is no other provision empowering the Court to award interest on equitable grounds as equitable consideration has no role to play in determination of the compensation and the manner of awarding interest as enjoined under the Act. The same has to be administered in the manner laid in the Act and in no other way. As a concomitance the equity jurisdiction of the Court is taken out and the Act enjoins the Court to grant interest as per the statutory rates specified in the Act. The same has to be administered in the manner laid in the Act and in no other way. As a concomitance the equity jurisdiction of the Court is taken out and the Act enjoins the Court to grant interest as per the statutory rates specified in the Act. A plea was taken in a case before Apex Court in a matter relating to Jammu and Kashmir Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1968 which omitted provision for payment of solatium and interest, that inspite of the absence of the provision for solatium and interest in the said Act the State was bound to pay solatium and interest to the land owners on equitable grounds. The Apex Court negatived the contention. It was observed that there was no substance in the plea that by legislative omission to pay solatium the State enriches itself unjustly at the expense of the private party. (See Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi and Ors. , (1996) 5 SCC 44 ). In Ashok Nagar Plot Holders Association v. State of U. P. , (1997) 10 SCC 77 , the Apex Court again observed that liability to pay interest to the claimant arises only in accordance with Section 34 of the Act. As the Act is self-contained Code, common law principles of justice, equity and good conscience cannot be extended in awarding interest, contrary to or beyond provisions of the statute. " ( 14 ) IT may be mentioned that the Court specifically considered the aforesaid two Division Bench judgments relied upon by the petitioner and held that those judgments did not indicate the correct position in law. In fact perusal of the Full Bench judgment would show that the matter was referred to the Full Bench in view of reservation expressed by another Bench of this Court about the correctness of the view taken in the aforesaid two judgments and it is in these circumstances the Full Bench had examined the issue. After explaining the law in the manner extracted above, this is what the Full Bench observed about the two Division Bench judgments: "para 7: In view of what has been indicated above, conclusion is irresistible that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is no scope for direction to pay interest in a manner not contemplated by either Section 28 or 34. That being the position, decisions rendered by this Court in Sher Singh and Ram Pat cases (supra), and in C. W. P. 1483/96 do not indicate the correct position in law. " ( 15 ) WE may note that this issue surfaced once again before the Supreme Court recently in the cases of Smt. Lila Ghosh (Dead) through LR. Shri Tapas Chandra Roy Vs. The State of West Bengal 2003 X AD (SC) 314 and R. L. Jain (D) by Lrs. Vs. DDA and Ors. reported as JT 2004 (3) SC 272. ( 16 ) AS per the scheme of the Act, in normal cases, the acquisition proceedings are initiated by issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Act and objections invited under Section 5a of the Act. If Government does not find merit in the objections Declaration under Section 6 of the Act is issued followed by notices under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act to the land owners/persons interested for submitting their claims. This is followed by passing of the Award under Section 11 of the Act. Possession is taken after the Award is passed and if the compensation as per the Award is not paid, interest becomes payable under Section 34 of the Act. However, if, while acquiring the land, urgency provision as contained in Section 17 is invoked then the Government can take possession of the land even before the formal Award is drawn by paying 80 per cent of the estimated compensation under Section 17 (3a) of the Act. What would be the position of payment of interest in such cases, is the poser. ( 17 ) THE case of Lila Ghosh (supra) posed a peculiar situation where property was requisitioned and possession taken on 24th December, 1975 [or 1979 ?]. Thereafter Section 4 Notification was issued in July, 1982 which was published on 5th August, 1983. However, thereafter the Government did not take any further steps which compelled the land owners to file a writ petition. On 22nd May, 1985 the Declaration under Section 6 was issued and Award came to be passed on 16th September, 1986. One of the questions involved was about the rate of compensation to which the land owners were entitled to. That issue does not concern us. However, another question which arose for consideration was as to from what date interest was payable. One of the questions involved was about the rate of compensation to which the land owners were entitled to. That issue does not concern us. However, another question which arose for consideration was as to from what date interest was payable. The Reference Court had directed payment from the date of taking possession but the High Court held that interest was payable only from 8th December, 1986. Before the Supreme Court contention of the land owners was that they were entitled to interest from the date of taking possession i. e. 24th December, 1975 [or 1979 ?] as provided under Section 34 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat reported as (1991) 1 SCC 262 . On the other hand, the respondents argued that interest could run only from the date of Award. The Supreme Court answered this issue by holding that interest under Section 34 of the Act was payable only if the compensation, which is payable, is not paid or deposited before taking possession. The question of payment or deposit of compensation will not arise if there is no acquisition proceedings and if the possession is taken prior to the acquisition proceedings a party may have a right to claim compensation or interest. This would take care of the situation where possession, as in that case, was taken when the property was requisitioned and Section 4 Notification came to be issued much thereafter in July 1982. Although we are not confronted with such a situation, this judgment of the Supreme Court becomes relevant for us as while deciding the aforesaid issue, the Supreme Court dealt with the question of payment of interest in such like situations as well. The Court clarified that where proceedings are taken under the Act, interest could be paid either under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act and under these Sections it could start running from the date compensation is payable and that would normally be from the date of the Award with the exceptions to pay interest from the date of possession in those cases where proceedings are taken under Section 17 invoking urgency clause and possession taken before passing of theAward. In such cases, compensation becomes payable from the date of possession by virtue of provisions of Section 17 and thus interest also becomes payable from the date of possession. The manner in which this legal position is explained may be found in para 19 which makes the following reading: "para 19: Even though the authority in Shree Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Ltd. appears to support the claimants, it is to be seen that apart from mentioning Sections 28 and 34, no reasons have been given to justify the award of interest from a date prior to commencement or acquisition proceedings. A plain reading of Section 34 shows that interest is payable only if the compensation, which is payable, is not paid or deposited before taking possession. The question or payment or deposit or compensation will not arise if there is no acquisition proceedings. In case where possession is taken prior to acquisition proceedings a party may have a right to claim compensation or interest. But such a claim would not be either under Section 34 or Section 28. In our view interest under these Sections can only start running from the date the compensation is payable. Normally this would be from the date of the Award. Of course, there may be cases under Section 17 where by invoking urgency clause possession has been taken before the acquisition proceedings are initiated. In such cases, compensation, under the Land Acquisition Act, would be payable by virtue of the provisions of Section 17. As in cases under Section 17 compensation is payable interest may run from the date possession was taken. However, this case does not fall into this category. " ( 18 ) IN R. L. Jain s case (supra), the legal position was explained by the Supreme Court after taking note of catena of judgments of its own court, including the cases referred to above by us as well as various High Courts. It was concluded that the normal rule was that if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his land he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he would be entitled to interest thereon from the date of dispossession till the date of payment thereof. It was concluded that the normal rule was that if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his land he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith he would be entitled to interest thereon from the date of dispossession till the date of payment thereof. It also clarified that if the land owner was dispossessed prior to the issuance of preliminary Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the Government merely takes possession of the land but the title thereof continues to vest with the land owner and, therefore, the land owner can take recourse to law to recover the possession of his land and for wrongful use and occupation of the premises by the Government he is only entitled to get rent and damages for such period the Government retains possession of the property. It was also clarified that where acquisition proceedings are initiated subsequently, the LAC may, in such cases, determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the land owner is entitled to, in addition to the compensation amount payable to the land owner for the acquisition of the property. Such a course of action was permissible under Section 48 of the Act. The Court, thus, clearly explained that in so far as payment of interest is concerned, the land owner shall be entitled thereto from the date of taking possession, if compensation is not paid. ( 19 ) WE may cull out the following principles from the cumulative reading of the aforesaid judgments: (A) in case a land owner is deprived of his land and possession is taken without resort to provisions under the Act, he remains the owner of the land. In such a case he has a right to file suit for possession. He can also claim damages or rent for the period Government remains in unlawful possession. (B) in cases where possession is taken prior to acquisition proceedings a party may have a right to claim compensation or interest but such a claim would not be either under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act. He can also claim damages or rent for the period Government remains in unlawful possession. (B) in cases where possession is taken prior to acquisition proceedings a party may have a right to claim compensation or interest but such a claim would not be either under Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act. (C) in those cases where possession is taken prior to the acquisition proceedings and after taking possession acquisition proceedings are initiated on invoking Section 4 of the Act and further provisions relating to acquisition, the claim for damages etc. can be filed before the LAC who can determine, for the period for which the Government remained in wrongful occupation of the land, such a claim while fixing the compensation for acquisition of the land. (D) once the possession of the land is taken pursuant to the initiation of acquisition proceedings under the Act, the entitlement of interest on the compensation payable to the land owner shall be governed only by the provisions under the Act, namely, Sections 28 and 34 thereof. (E) the Act is a complete code in itself and no interest dehors the provisions of the Act is payable to the land owners. ( 20 ) HAVING summarized the legal position on the subject, let us revert to the facts of the present cases. In the instant cases, provisions of Section 17 were invoked. In such a case, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lila Ghosh (supra) as well as R. L. Jain (supra) interest is payable from the date of possession. Following this principle, the petitioners would not be entitled to interest from the date of Award but only from the date possession was taken. ( 21 ) WHEN the possession of land is generally taken in acquisition proceedings under the Act? In normal cases, as mentioned above, possession is taken after the Award is made. By this time exact amount payable to the owner stands determined in the Award and if the compensation is not paid at the time of taking possession, for delayed period land owner becomes entitled to interest. On the other hand, cases where urgency clause contained in Section 17 is invoked, possession is taken even prior to passing of the Award as land is urgently required. On the other hand, cases where urgency clause contained in Section 17 is invoked, possession is taken even prior to passing of the Award as land is urgently required. Although as on date of taking possession the exact compensation payable is not determined as there is no Award fixing compensation, the land owner is only paid 80 per cent of the estimated compensation. However since by invoking urgency provisions possession is taken even before passing of the Award, Section34 mandates payment of interest from the date of possession as the land owner is divested of his land much before Award is rendered and he is to be compensated for intervening period i. e. from the date of possession till the date of Award as well. If the respondents act as per the aforesaid scheme in both types of acquisitions there would not be any problem. However, in the instant case, although urgency clause was invoked, possession was not taken before passing of the Award by invoking Section 17 (1) of the Act which enables the Government to take possession after the expiry of 15 days from the date of issuing of notice under Section 9 of the Act. Not only this, possession was not taken even after the Award was made. The reason given by the respondents is that many writ petitions were filed challenging the acquisition and/or invocation of urgency provisions contained in Section 17 of the Act and stay orders were passed by the Court in those cases and, therefore, it was not feasible or prudent to take possession of small parcel of land in respect of which no writ petitions were filed, as land could not be put to use by taking such small and scattered parcel of land. On the other hand, such a situation acts to the detriment of those who do not challenge the acquisition proceedings and are willing to hand over the possession by taking compensation under the Act. They are left high and dry. Normally when the Government intends to acquire the land by invoking Section 17 of the Act, it should not be an excuse for the Government not to take possession of such land, the owners whereof have not challenged the acquisition. They are left high and dry. Normally when the Government intends to acquire the land by invoking Section 17 of the Act, it should not be an excuse for the Government not to take possession of such land, the owners whereof have not challenged the acquisition. Once acquisition proceedings are initiated and action is taken under the Act the Government may have to face such situations where some land owners may challenge the acquisition proceedings. Thus, while defending such proceedings the Government is also expected to take possession of the land of all those land owners who have accepted the acquisition by paying them requisite compensation well in time. It was argued by learned counsel for the respondents that such land owners do not suffer as they continue to enjoy possession. That may be so, but this legal position is also well known that after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, land owner cannot deal with his land. However, we cannot help the petitioners as for such a contingency, no provision is made in the Act providing for payment of interest from the date of the Award, if no possession is taken, in cases falling under Section 17 of the Act. As per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Net Ram (supra), interest cannot be granted dehors the Act or in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. We may note that although the legislature has provided a time bound schedule for the completion of acquisition proceedings after issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in so far as Declaration under Section 6 of the Act or passing of the Award under Section 11 is concerned. However, the legislature has not provided any time limit for taking possession of the land after the Award is passed. Courts cannot fill the gaps and it is for the legislature to take care of such a situation by making adequate provision. In so far as legal position is concerned, as already pointed out above, law is well settled that the Court cannot grant interest in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dehors the provisions of the Act. In so far as legal position is concerned, as already pointed out above, law is well settled that the Court cannot grant interest in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, dehors the provisions of the Act. As the present situation is not covered either by Section 28 or Section 34 of the Act which are the only provisions providing for payment of interest, this Court has no option but to reject the claim of the petitioners for payment of interest. ( 22 ) THE writ petitions are accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.