JUDGMENT Dev Darshan Sud, J.- Both these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment as they arise out of the same judgment of the learned Reference Court. 2. In RFA No.209 of 2000, titled: Land Acquisition Collector & Another vs. Chhota Ram, the enhanced compensation has been worked out at Rs.35,160/-. His land holding is only 6 Biswas i.e. 222 square meters. 3. In RFA No.337 of 2000, titled: Land Acquisition Collector & Anothr vs. Shiv Ram, the total enhanced compensation worked out to Rs.48,940/-. His land holding is 9 Biswas i.e. 333 square meters. 4. The only point urged before me by the learned Advocate General is that the award of interest prior to the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) is illegal and cannot be sustained. On the principle of law, this submission cannot be faulted with. At the same time, the ratio of the judgment in Land Acquisition Officer & Asstt. Commissioner Vs. Hemanagouda, (2005) 12, SCC 443 cannot be ignored. The right of the land holders to recover use and occupation charges/damages for utilization of the land prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act cannot be denied. 5. In the award passed bythe Land Acquisition Collector, he accepts that the possession of the land was taken in March, 1982 and the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.12.1993. Even the Collector awards interest from 1.3.1982. 6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not deem it to be a case in which I should be interfering in the appeal because remanding the case for decision afresh on the question of use and occupation/damages of the land of the appellants, which is subject matter of acquisition, would be putting them back by another period of 26 years. Considering the size of the holdings which is meager and enhanced compensation which is also a very meager sum, interest of justice would be served in case the award is not interfered and the awarding of interest from the date of taking possession should be considered as an adequate compensation for the use and occupation of the land of the respondents-claimants herein by the State without recourse of law. 7. No other point has been urged before me. 8. 7. No other point has been urged before me. 8. These appeals are accordingly dismissed. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.