Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the above mentioned 13 appeals, as the same arise out of the common acquisition. 2. R.F.A. Nos. 1548 to 1557, 1585 and 1995 of 1994 have been filed by the State seeking reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the land owners. 3. R.F.A. No. 1101 of 1994 has been filed by the land owner seeking enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. 4. The facts have been extracted from R.F.A. No. 1585 of 1994. 5. Briefly, the facts are that land measuring 7.37 acres, situated in Village Kakdoli Hukmi, was acquired vide notification dated 19.6.1990 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act) for construction of road leading to Kakdoli Hukmi and Shayam Kalan. The same was followed by notification dated 30.10.1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short, `the Collector) assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 30,016/- per acre for chahi land; Rs. 15,000/- per acre for Roshali land and Rs. 12,000/- per acre for bhur/barani land. Aggrieved against the same, the land owners filed objections which were referred to the learned Additional District Judge, Bhiwani, who keeping in view the material placed on record by the parties, upheld the award of the Collector but awarded interest @ 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession of the land and @ 15% per annum for the subsequent period till realisation of the amount. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that acquisition in the present case was carried out vide notification dated 19.6.1990. However, while upholding the award of the Collector, the learned Reference Court had gone wrong in granting interest to the land owners from the date the possession of the land was taken, which was allegedly taken in March, 1976. He submitted that the land owners having been paid compensation assessed on the basis of value as was there on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act had not suffered any loss for the intervening period. If they were to be granted interest from the date the possession of the land was taken, the value of the land should have been assessed on that date. 7. If they were to be granted interest from the date the possession of the land was taken, the value of the land should have been assessed on that date. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the land owners submitted that the land owners in the present case were deprived of their property nearly 14 years prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and for this intervening period, they were certainly entitled to be compensated. As far as determination of compensation is concerned, the value of the acquired land is required to be determined on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act and not on any date prior thereto. Reliance was placed upon a judgment of this Court in Gulzar Singh v. Punjab State and another, 1990(1) Shimla Law Journal 94. 8. In R.F.A. No. 1101 of 1994, filed by the land owner seeking enhancement of compensation, it was submitted that sale deed (Ex. P4), which was pertaining to 6 biswas of land sold at an average rate of Rs. 80, 000/- acre was illegally ignored by the learned court below, merely on the ground that the same was for a small piece of land. If the learned court was of the view that the sale deed was for a small piece of land, a reasonable cut could be applied while placing reliance thereupon. He further submitted that even categorisation of the land is also required to be done away with and the entire land should be valued at the same rate. 9. In response to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the land owners in the aforesaid appeal, learned counsel for the State submitted that the land pertaining to the sale deed, which is sought to be relied upon by the land owners, i.e., Ex. P4, is not located on any site plan on record. In fact, there is no site plan on record. Unless the land pertaining to sale deed (Ex. P4) is compared vis-a-vis the acquired land, no reliance can be placed thereon. As far as categorisation of the land is concerned, it was submitted that the same was done as per the entries in the revenue record. There is no material on record to impugne those findings. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. P4) is compared vis-a-vis the acquired land, no reliance can be placed thereon. As far as categorisation of the land is concerned, it was submitted that the same was done as per the entries in the revenue record. There is no material on record to impugne those findings. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. As far as claim made by the land owner in R.F.A. 1101 of 1994 is concerned, the same cannot be accepted as such for the simple reason that there is no site plan on record to locate the land forming part of sale deed (Ex. P4) vis-a-vis the acquired land. In the absence thereof, it is not possible at all to compare the value between two chunks of land. Even otherwise, the acquisition in the present case is for the purpose of construction of a road leading to Kakdoli Hukmi and Shayam Kalan, which will be a small strip of land in length with smaller width. The value of the plot sold at one end, which may be close to the village/city, cannot possibly be relied upon to determine the value of the entire chunk. Accordingly, as far as the claim for enhancement of compensation is concerned, the same is rejected. 12. As far as grant of interest from the date, possession of the land was taken till the issuance of notification under Section 4 is concerned, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below. The facts which have come on record are that possession of the land was taken in March, 1976, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.6.1990, meaning thereby the land owners were deprived of their right to free enjoyment of the property for a long period of 24 years. Section 28 of the Act, which provides for payment of interest on compensation is extracted below : "28. Section 28 of the Act, which provides for payment of interest on compensation is extracted below : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess compensation :- (1) 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 : Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of 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 the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry." 13 A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the Reference Court has been authorised to direct for payment of interest on the compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of possession of the land to the date of payment. For any period in excess of one year therefrom, the interest is to be calculated @ 15% per annum. 14. A similar view was considered by this Court in Gulzar Singhs case (supra), wherein it was opined that the land owners were entitled to interest from the date of dispossession of the land and not from the date of issuance of notification, in case such dispossession is prior to the issuance of the notification. In that case, the possession of the land was taken on 24.12.1974, whereas the notification was issued on 30.10.1975. 15. Similar view was expressed by Orissa High Court in Collector, Cuttack v. Anasuya Debi, AIR 1979 Orissa 189, whereby following a Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Revenue Divisional Officer Guntur v. Vasireddy Rama Bhanu Bhupal, AIR 1970 AP 262, it was opined that interest is payable on equitable principle on the compensation amount from the date when the owner was deprived of his possession. 16. An identical issue came up for consideration before Delhi High Court in Umrao Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1975 Delhi 188, where the facts noticed are that symbolic possession of the land was taken on 15.6.1963, whereas the notification under Section 22(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 was issued on 13.8.1964. The dispute was as to whether the land owners therein were entitled to interest from the date symbolic possession of the land was taken by the authorities before issuance of formal notification. The issue was dealt in the following paragraphs : "13. Section 28 of the Act, which has been reproduced above, does not make any distinction between physical possession and symbolic possession and as soon as the Collector has proceeded under Section 16 or 17 of the Act (as the case may be) and has taken possession of the land, the date from which the liability to pay interest arises under Section 28 of the Act becomes fixed. Interest under Section 28 of the Act is awarded on compulsory acquisition in lieu of possession and for being deprived of the amount of compensation since the taking of the possession. The Supreme Court in Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, AIR 1961 SC 908, observed in paragraph 19 that when a claim for payment of interest is made by a person whose immovable property has been acquired compulsorily, he is not making claim for damages properly or technically so- called; but he is basing his claim on the general rule that if he is deprived of his land he should be put in possession of compensation immediately; if not in lieu of possession taken by compulsory acquisition interest should be paid to him on the amount of compensation. In Uttar Pradesh Government v. H.S. Gupta, AIR 1957 SC 202, the Supreme Court awarded interest on the amount of compensation which was restored by the Supreme Court and which though deposited had not been paid to the claimant on account of various interim orders. In M/s T. N. K. Govindaraju Chetty v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, AIR 1968 SC 129 the court observed in paragraph 9 that interest was in truth compensation for loss suffered on account of deprivation of property and the source of the obligation imposed by the statute to pay interest arises because the claimant kept out of his money. 14. In M/s T. N. K. Govindaraju Chetty v. Commr. of Income-tax, Madras, AIR 1968 SC 129 the court observed in paragraph 9 that interest was in truth compensation for loss suffered on account of deprivation of property and the source of the obligation imposed by the statute to pay interest arises because the claimant kept out of his money. 14. In view of the said rule of law and the construction of the statutory provision, there is no scope for holding that the interest is payable only on physical dispossession and not upon symbolic dispossession under the Act. Surely the claimant has been deprived of his title and rights in the land and the market value has been paid to him as on the date of Section 4 notification only and no more. He could not legally derive any profits or exercise any rights of ownership or possession of the land as against the Government after its taking possession of it under Section 16. He is therefore, certainly entitled to obtain the interest, which the law allows to him and which the court had a awarded to him at six percent, per annum from the date of the taking of the possession of the land to the date of payment of the amount of compensation awarded. The impugned order must accordingly be reversed." 17. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by different courts including by this Court in Gulzar Singhs case (supra), it can safely be held that as land owner was unable to derive any profits or exercise right of ownership or possession of the land after he was dispossessed much prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, he is certainly entitled to be compensated for that in terms of interest which is permissible in law. Section 28 of the Act merely talks about payment of interest from the date possession of the land is taken by the Collector. In the facts of the present case, it is admitted that possession was taken in March, 1976, when the road was laid, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.6.1990. 18. Section 28 of the Act merely talks about payment of interest from the date possession of the land is taken by the Collector. In the facts of the present case, it is admitted that possession was taken in March, 1976, when the road was laid, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.6.1990. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find that any illegality has been committed by the learned court below in granting interest to the landowners on the amount of compensation from the date, they were physically dispossessed from the land. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.