Judgment :- P. Sathasivam,J. Since all the appeals arise from a common order passed by Principal Subordiante Judge, Tirunelveli dated 31-08-1995, made in L.A.O.P.Nos.120 to 126/92, the Appeals are being disposed of by the following common Judgment. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, aggrieved by the common order of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli dated 31-08-1995, preferred A.S.Nos.289 to 295/96. Not satisfied with the amount fixed by the Sub Court, the claimants therein preferred A.S.Nos.206 to 212/99, wherein they prayed for enhanced compensation to a restricted amount of Rs.1,000/- per Cent. They also claimed additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act; interest on the enhanced compensation under Section 28; and interest under Section 34 of the Act. 3. Heard Mr. J. Viswanathan, learned Government Advocate for Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli; Mr. T.S.R. Venkataramana, learned counsel for respondents/land owners; and Mr. A. Baskar, standing counsel for Tamil Nadu Electricity Board/requisitioning body. 4. First we shall consider the appeals filed by Land Acquisition Officer/Revenue Divisional Officer. A total extent of 4.44.0 hectares (10.97 acres) were acquired by the Government for construction of Power House 110/11 K.V. Sub Station, V.M. Chatram. First Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was published on 27-10-1982. Since the proceedings of the first notification lapsed, again it was published in the Gazette on 20-9-1989. After enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award fixing market value at the rate of Rs.1002/-per Cent. Not satisfied with the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, at the instance of the land owners, the matters were referred to Sub Court, Tirunelveli which resulted in L.A.O.P.Nos.120 to 126/92. As stated above, the learned Subordinate Judge, by the common order, fixed market value at the rate of Rs.1500/-per Cent and also granted other statutory amounts. It was brought to our notice by learned counsel for the claimants that the learned Subordinate Judge, basing reliance on Ex. R-2-Sale deed dated 17-10-1989, filed by the Land Acquisition Officer, fixed market value at the rate of Rs.1,500/-per Cent, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer was not justified in filing the appeals, namely, A.S.Nos.289 to 295/96. On this short ground, those appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer are liable to be dismissed. 5. On this short ground, those appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer are liable to be dismissed. 5. Now let us consider the other aspects, namely, enhanced claim, additional amount and interest. Learned counsel for the claimants by drawing our attention to Topo sketch (Ex.R-1), would contend that the property under Ex. C-9 is too far away and lies south of the road; on the other hand, Ex. C-1 property share the boundary with the acquired property and has the same Tharam". According to him, the actual value of Ex. C-1 property is Rs.4,000/-per cent, but the actual consideration paid by purchaser was only Rs.2,500/-. Accordingly, the claimants restricted their claim at Rs.2,500/-per Cent. Since the Sub Court has fixed at the rate of Rs.1,500/-, the claimants in their appeals restricted their claim and paid court-fee for it in the Appeals for the difference of Rs.1,000/-per Cent. Accordingly, they prayed to fix Rs.2,500/- per Cent and enhance the award by another Rs.1,000/-per Cent. In the light of the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants, we verified the survey numbers, extent, actual location etc., of the lands covered under Exs.C-1 to C-9 and Exs.R-2 and R3 from Topo Sketch-Ex. R-1. There is no basis to arrive a conclusion that the land south of the road are un-developed and comparatively lesser in value. Even according to the claimants, the market value of Ex. C-1 property is Rs.4,000/-per Cent and it was stated only for stamp duty purposes. As observed earlier, the verification of all the details relating to Exs.C-1 to C-9, Exs.R-2 and R-3 in the Topo Sketch, the prevailing market value on the date of Section 4 (1) Notification, namely in 1989, we are satisfied that the amount of Rs.1,500/-per Cent fixed by the learned Subordinate Judge is just and reasonable and it satisfies all the criteria and procedure as provided in Section 23 of the Act. We are unable to accept the claim of the appellants/claimants praying for further amount of Rs.1000/- percent in addition to the amount determined by the Sub Court; accordingly we reject the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants. 6. We are unable to accept the claim of the appellants/claimants praying for further amount of Rs.1000/- percent in addition to the amount determined by the Sub Court; accordingly we reject the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants. 6. Coming to the claim for severance compensation which was rejected by the Sub Court, there is no serious argument advanced and in the absence of acceptable material in the form of evidence, we concur with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Subordinate Judge. 7. Now we shall consider whether the claimants are entitled additional amount at 12 per cent from the date of possession to the date of payment/award. The learned Subordinate Judge has granted additional amount from the date of 4 (1) Notification to the date of award. It is the case of the claimants that provisions under Section 30 of Act 68/1984 make the Act retrospective. The following dates put-forth by the counsel for the claimants are relevant: "1. 30-04-1982 Bill for Act 68/84 introduced in Parliament. 2. 27-10-1982 (I) First Sec.4 (1) notification issued by Government of Tamilnadu. 3. 06-04-1983 Possession of the land taken by T.N.E.B. 4. 27-04-1983 Sec.4 (1) notification lapsed, but T.N.E.B continued to be in possession. See page 1 of the Award. 5. 24-09-1984 Act 68/84 notified and come into force. Sec.30 of the Act deal with Transitional possession says Act apply to all pending proceedings "Act shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied also to on to" 6. 20-09-1989 (II) Second Sec.4 (1) notification issued to acquire the land which is already in possession of the T.N.E.B from 06-04-1993. 7. 20-01-1992 Award passed by RDO." The above details would show that the acquisition proceedings started only after the Bill was introduced in the Parliament including the fact that the possession was taken after the Bill was introduced in the Parliament, the relevant date being 30-4-1982. In view of the amending Act 68/1984 and sub-Section (1-A) of Section 23 and also of the fact that possession of the land was taken by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 6-4-1983, we are of the view that the claimants are entitled to additional amount from the date of taking possession of the land. In this regard, it is useful to refer Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. In this regard, it is useful to refer Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. "Section 23 (1-A) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market-value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of land, whichever is earlier." In the light of the specific references to "the date of taking possession of the land, which is earlier " and of the Amendment Act 68/1984 in particular, as well as the fact that the Bill was introduced in Parliament as early as 30-04-1982, we agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the claimants and hold that the claimants are entitled additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent on the market value from the date of taking possession of the land. To that extent, the order of the learned Subordinate Judge is to be modified. 8. Coming to the claim of interest under Section 34 of the Act, it is true that interest specified under Sections 28 and 34 are distinguished and different. As rightly pointed out, interest specified in Section 34 is by way of liquidated compensation for occupying a land by the acquisition authority without paying for the same, whereas Section 28 provides for payment of interest on the excess amount awarded by the Sub Court, while so, Section 34 is punitive in nature. It gives an extra compensation by way of additional interest to the land owner for entering into the property without paying for it. In the cases on hand, possession of the land was taken over by the requisitioning body, namely, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board on 6-4-1983. We are satisfied that the claimants are entitled to payment under Section 34 also and this is clear from a reading of Section 30 of the Amendment Act 68/84. As rightly pointed out, the Government is bound to pay the said amount as it entered into the property and enjoyed it before the completion of the acquisition proceedings. 9. We are satisfied that the claimants are entitled to payment under Section 34 also and this is clear from a reading of Section 30 of the Amendment Act 68/84. As rightly pointed out, the Government is bound to pay the said amount as it entered into the property and enjoyed it before the completion of the acquisition proceedings. 9. Coming to payment of cost as per Section 27, though an argument was advanced relying on subsection (2) of Section 27 which makes it mandatory for the Collector that he shall pay the cost if the value is not upheld. In view of the fact that the learned Subordinate Judge, after taking note of the nature of the claim, directed both parties to incur cost of their own, we are not inclined to disturb the same. 10. In the light of our discussion, we pass the following order: i) The Appeals, namely, A.S.Nos.289/96 to 295/96 filed by the Land Acquisition Officer are dismissed; ii) The claimants are entitled additional amount at the rate of 12 per cent for the excess amount as granted by the Court from the date of taking possession to the date of payment of such excess into Court; iii) The claimants are entitled interest as per Section 34 of the Act for the excess amount fixed. In other respects, the decree of the Sub Court is confirmed. iv) A.S.Nos.206 to 212/1999 are allowed in part. 11. Considering the fact that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as claimants have filed separate appeals and of the fact that decree has been modified to a limited extent, we direct both parties to bear their own costs in all these appeals.