ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The only issue in these cases is whether interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was payable to the respondent landholders. According to the respondents, their land had been taken possession of by the appellants between 1968 and 1970. However, acquisition proceedings were initiated only on 2-2-1999 by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The land acquisition officer b determined the compensation payable to the appellants at Rs 28,000 per acre. The land acquisition officer, however, rejected the respondents claim for grant of interest under Section 34 of the. Act on account of the appellants possession of the respondents land for the period prior to the date of the acquisition. 3. The respondents preferred a writ petition before the High Court. The C High Court allowed the writ petition and directed payment of interest under Section 34 of the Act on the awarded amount commencing from the period 1968/1970 till the date of payment. The Division Bench dismissed the appellants appeal. 4. Before us, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has d submitted that the issue formulated by us at the outset has been decided in favour of the appellants by a Bench of three Judges of this Court in RL Jain v. DDA1. In that case, pursuant to a previous acquisition, possession had been taken of the acquired land and compensation was paid. The acquisition was challenged by the landowner and was set aside. Fresh acquisition proceedings were thereafter started. The landowner was again paid compensation pursuant to the second acquisition proceedings. The landowner claimed payment of interest on the compensation paid from the date of possession was taken pursuant to the first acquisition. This Court interpreted the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and in particular Section 34 to hold that: (1) if possession is taken prior to notification of Section 4(1) of the f Act, it was dehors the Act. (2) the phrase "so taking possession" in Section 34 could under no circumstances mean such dispossession of the owner of the land which has been done prior to publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 5. In view of this categorical and clear statement of the law, these appeals g must be allowed. 6. (2) the phrase "so taking possession" in Section 34 could under no circumstances mean such dispossession of the owner of the land which has been done prior to publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 5. In view of this categorical and clear statement of the law, these appeals g must be allowed. 6. However, in the decision in RL Jain easel, this Court also held that: (SCC pp. 93-94, para 18) "Where possession is taken prior• to the issuance of the preliminary notification, ... it will be just and equitable that the Collector may also determine the rent or damages for use of the property to which the landowner is entitled while determining the compensation amount payable to the landowner for the acquisition of the property. The provisions of Section 48 of the Act lend support to such a course of action. For delayed payment of such amount appropriate interest at prevailing bank rate may be awarded." 7. The appellants contend that there is no question of any further compensation being paid to the respondents. It is urged that had the notification under Section 4(1) been issued in 1968/1970, then the respondents would have got the market value as on that date and with interest thereon. It is submitted that the subsequent increase in market rate took care of any loss that the respondents may have suffered by reason of the taking possession between 1968/1970. It is also submitted that there was no such claim for rent or damages to the property raised by the respondents before the Collector. 8. In view of the fact that there was an apparent conflict of judicial decisions on the issue of the interpretation of Section 34 till it was resolved in R.L. Jain easel, we do not think it appropriate to deprive the respondents of their rights, if any, to receive rent or damages from use of the property prior to the date of acquisition. The issue whether the market rate granted under the award pursuant to the acquisition proceedings would amount to such compensation is not determined by us at this stage. Accordingly, we dispose of the appeals by setting aside the decision of the High Court on the ground that no interest on the awarded amount was payable under Section 34 in respect of possession taken prior to the notification under Section 4(1). Accordingly, we dispose of the appeals by setting aside the decision of the High Court on the ground that no interest on the awarded amount was payable under Section 34 in respect of possession taken prior to the notification under Section 4(1). However, we remand the matters back to the relevant Land Acquisition Authority in Karnataka (Haveri Division) before whom the respondents will be at liberty to raise a claim for rent or damages for any use of the property as claimed prior to the date of acquisition. The Collector will determine the dispute if so raised after notice to the State Government. 9. Pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, we had directed the appellants to deposit the interest amount under Section 34 as directed by the High Court, with the High Court. This was done by the appellants. In view of our decision, they will now be at liberty to withdraw the amount. 10. The appeals are allowed accordingly.