I.A. Ansar1, J.- This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Sec­tion 12(2) of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964, against the judgment and decree, dated 16.09.2006, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup (FTC No. 2), Guwahati, in Reference Case No. 12/2003, arising out of land Acquisition Case No. 17/74(Pt). 2. I have heard Mr. G..N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellants, and Mr. RS. Deka, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. There are two grounds, on which this appeal has been pressed for hearing by the appellants, the two grounds being, (i) whether the compensation, which has been determined by the learned Court below, is correct in the face of the materials on record and the law relevant thereto and (ii) whether the interst, which has been awarded @9% per annum, is in accord with the requirements of the law contained in that behalf? 4. Coming to the question of compensa­tion, it may be noted that the petitioner's land, measuring 13 Lechas, has, admittedly, been requisitioned, vide order, dated 06.05.1981, for the purpose of establishment and expan­sion of the Guwahati Medical College Hos­pital, by invoking the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Assam Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 1964 Act') and possession of the said plot of land has been delivered, under Section 4 thereof, to the college authorities on 12.08.1981. There is no dispute that the compensation, payable during the period of requisition, has to be determined by the Col­lector in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 11 and, when the compensation is so deter­mined, an award shall be made by the Col­lector. If a person feels aggrieved by the award so made under Section 11 (4), he may, under Section 12(1)(b), apply to the Collec­tor for making a reference to the Court, the Court, under Section 2(b) having been de­fined to mean a Principal Civil Court of origi­nal jurisdiction and includes the Court of Ad­ditional Judge, Subordinate Judge or Munsif, whom the State Government may appoint, by name or by virtue of his office, to perform, concurrently with any such principal Court under the said Act. It is Section 11 (4), which is material for the purpose of this appeal in the sense that it is Section 11 (4), which em­bodies the scheme for determination of com­pensation. 5. I may, however, pause here to point out that Section 12(2) of the 1964 Act makes it clear that subject to the provisions of 1964 Act, the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act'), shall mutatis mutandis apply in respect of any reference made to the Court under sub­section (1). Because of the fact that it is Sec­tion 54 of the 1894 Act, which provides for appeal, the present appeal is an appeal under Section 54 of the 1894 Act read with Sec­tion 12(2) of the 1964 Act. 6. In the case at hand, it needs to be borne in mind that there is no written agreement be­tween the parties as regards payment of compensation for the land requisitioned and the appellant had claimed compensation @7.5% per annum on the market value of the land at Rs.2,05,000/-, per Katha, for the year 1981-83, Rs.3,00,000/-, per Katha, for the year 1983-86, Rs.4,60,000/-, per Katha, for the year 1986-89, Rs.8,50,000/-, per Katha, for the year 1989-95, and Rs. 12,00,000/- per Katha for the year 1995-98. 7. Let me, now, turn to the scheme of de­termination of compensation in the case of requisition. The scheme for determination of compensation, as embodied under Section 11 (4), is as under: "(4) Where any land is requisitioned under Section 3, there shall be paid subject to the pro­visions of sub-section (5) below, to every per­son interested such compensation as may be agreed upon in writing between such person and the Collector or in the absence of agree­ment, reasonable compensation in respect of - (a) the requsition of such land; and (b) the damage done during the period of requisition of such land other than what may have been sustained by reasonable wear and tear and irresistible force. Provided that in determining the amount of compensation whether in the case of agreement or otherwise, such amount shall not exceed the rent payable under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1961, or the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 or the (Assam Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1953 so far as they may be applicable or of any of the statutory re-en­actment or modification thereof." 8. From a careful reading of what Section 11 (4) of the 1964 Act embodies, it clearly transpires that the compensation, payable to the land owner, in the case of requisition of a land, shall be such as may be agreed upon, in writing, between such a person and the Col­lector. In the case, however, where there is no such agreement, a reasonable compensa­tion has to be determined. In other words, the amount of compensation, which is to be paid in the case of requisition of land, is de­termined either by agreement between the land owner and the requisitioning authority, i.e., Collector, or, in the absence of such agree­ment, reasonable compensation has to be determined by the collector. What is, how­ever, extremely important to note is that the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 11 makes it clear that the amount of compensa­tion, irrespective of the fact as to whether there is any agreement or not, shall not exceed the rent payable under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, or the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Ten­ancy Act, 1955, or the (Assam Temporarily Settled Districts) Tenancy Act, 1953, so far as they may be applicable or of any of the statutory re-enactment or modification thereof. 9. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the land, in question, falls within the ur­ban area and it is the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, which is applicable to the facts of the present case. The scheme for determination of rent, payable under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, is seven and half per cent of the market price of the land and the estimated cost of con­struction of the building with its fittings and fixtures and also the municipal taxes. 10. The scheme for determination of rent, payable under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, is seven and half per cent of the market price of the land and the estimated cost of con­struction of the building with its fittings and fixtures and also the municipal taxes. 10. In support of their case, the appellant proved four Sale Deeds and three Lease Deeds, P W-1, who had purchased one of the plots of lands, covered by the said four Sale Deeds, and who, by constructing a go down over the said land, leased out the land by ex­ecuting three Lease Deeds, has deposed that he (PW-1) receives rent for the leased out premises @Rs.5.75/- per square feet. In his cross-examination, PW-1 has, however, admitted that the rent was fixed by way of agree­ment. According to the evidence of the ap­pellant, the land, in question, is adjacent to the land ofPW-1. 11. As far as PW-2 is concerned, he is a registered valuer, whose report is relied upon by the appellant. According to this witness, the market value of the land of the appellant, in the year 1981-82, was Rs.3,25,000/- per Katha, Rs.4,50,000/- in 1986-87, Rs. 9,00,000/- in 1989-90 and Rs. 16,00,0007-per Katha in 1995-96. The valuer claimed that hefore preparing the valuation report, he consulted the sale deeds of the neighbouring lands of Japorigog and Ulubari and he also visited the land of the appellants. But, in his cross-examination, PW2 admitted that the land of the appellants and the land of the four Sale deeds are at a distance of about 3/4 Kilometres. 12. The learned Court below has noted that report of the said registered valuer can­not be taken as a basis to hold that the value of the requisitioned land would be the same as that of the land covered by the said four Sale deeds, for, the land is not situated in the same area, where the land, covered by the said four Sale deeds is situated. This finding cannot be held to be unfounded or wholly unreasonable. 13. The appellant also examined Ram Chandra Das, Senior Office Superintendent, M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. (in short, 'the SAI Ltd.'), Guwahati, and Manaranjan Sarma, an employee of Industrial Finance Corporation of India (in short, 'the Corpora­tion'). This finding cannot be held to be unfounded or wholly unreasonable. 13. The appellant also examined Ram Chandra Das, Senior Office Superintendent, M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. (in short, 'the SAI Ltd.'), Guwahati, and Manaranjan Sarma, an employee of Industrial Finance Corporation of India (in short, 'the Corpora­tion'). Both these persons proved their re­spective Sale deeds and, according to the evi­dence of Ram Chandra Das, the SAI Ltd. purchased, in the year 1996, the land, at Ulubari, Guwahati, for a consideration amount of Rs. 17.5 lakhs. So far as the said Corpo­ration i s concerned, it had purchased 3 Bighas 4 Kathas 4 Lechas of land, in the year 1987, for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs. From their evidence, it transpires that the plot of land, which forms the subject-matter of controversy in this ap­peal, was located within the area of Dental College, Guwahati, which is at a distance of about 1 Kilometre from the land, which the SAI Ltd. and the Corporation had purchased. 14. The learned District Judge's discus­sions on the evidence on record, and the find­ings arrived at, for the purpose of determin­ing the requisiton-rent, read as under: "In this case, the petitioners in their peti­tions have claimed requisition compensation for their land on the market value at Rs.2,05,000/-per Katha for 1981 -83, Rs.3,00,000/- from 1983-86, Rs.4,60,000/- per Katha from 1986-89, Rs.8,50,000/- per Katha from 1989-95, and Rs. 12,00,000/- from 1995-2000. But in the their evidence, they have claimed more value for their land than what they have claimed in their claim petition. The petitioners are relying on the wit­nesses and the evidence and the documents produced by them. They are also relying valua­tion report prepared by the registered valuer. On perusal of the evidence, oral as well as docu­mentary, I found that the land purchased by PW5, Manaranjan Sarma, Industrial Finance Corporation, is situated by the side of Guwahati - Shillong Road, and this witness testified that he land of the petitioners is situated at a dis­tance of about 1 Kilometer from the G.S. Road. Similarly, from the evidence of Ram Chandra Das of Steel Authority of India Ltd., it is found that the land purchased y them is situated at Ulubari, which is at a distance of V2 Kilometre from the GS Road. Similarly, from the evidence of Ram Chandra Das of Steel Authority of India Ltd., it is found that the land purchased y them is situated at Ulubari, which is at a distance of V2 Kilometre from the GS Road. But the land of the petitioners is situ­ated at a distance of about one to one and half Kilometre from the GS Road. The registered valuer has also admitted in the cross-examina­tion that the land of the four deeds is situated at a distance of 3-4 Kms. from the land of the petitioners. On perusal of the evidence, I found that the land purchased by the witnesses is situ­ated near the GS Road, which is a busy commercial area and the value of the land is much higher near the OS Road and the land of the petitioners, which is situated at a distance of about 1-1.5 Kms. from the GS Road. I do not find any justification to put the same value of the land situated near the GS Road with that of the land belonging to the petitioners, which is situated inside the Dental College. The learned Collector fixed the market value of the land at Rs.35,000/- per Bigha. There is nothing in the record to show as to how the learned Collector put the aforesaid value and, in my view, he fixed the market value arbitrarily without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the market value would be much higher than what has been fixed by the learned Collector. If, we consider the market value of the land near the GS Road and the land of the petitioners, I think, the value of the land, claimed by the peti­tioners in the Claim petitions, is justified and proper. Accordingly, the market value is as­sessed at the following value rates : Rs. 2,00,000/- per Katha in the year 1981-83 Rs. 2,50,0007-per Katha in the year 1983-86 Rs. 4,00,000/- per Katha in the year 1986-89 Rs; 6,50,000/- per Katha in the year 1989-95 Rs.9,00,000/- per Katha in the year 1995-2000 Rs. 12,00,000/- per katha in the year 2000-05 Requisition-rent at the rate of 7.5 per cent on the market value of the land as fixed above be awarded to the petitioners." 15. I have carefully gone through the anaylysis of the evidence on record by the learned Court below. 12,00,000/- per katha in the year 2000-05 Requisition-rent at the rate of 7.5 per cent on the market value of the land as fixed above be awarded to the petitioners." 15. I have carefully gone through the anaylysis of the evidence on record by the learned Court below. The learned Court be­low has correctly pointed out that the regis­tered valuer has admitted that the land, cov­ered by the four Sale deeds, are located at a distance of about 3/4 Kilometers from the land of the petitioners (i.e., the appellants herein). In such circumstances, the market price of the land, which the registered valuer had taken into account, could not have been relied upon as the land was situated far away from the land of the appellant 16. On a close scrutiny of the evidence on record and the appreciation thereof by the learned Court below, I do not find that there is any infirmity in the conclusion reached by the learned Court below, as regard the mar­ket price of the land and the compensation payable. In such circumstances, as far as the reasonable compensation, fixed by the learned Court below, is concerned, the same cannot be said to be suffering from any infirmity, le­gal or factual. 17. Coming to the question of interest, it needs to be mentioned that Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court, in P.C. Goswami Vs. Collector of Darrang: AIR 1982 SC1214, has submitted that in the case at hand, learned Court below has ordered 9% interest to be paid; whereas, the 1894 Act makes provisions for 15% interest if the amount, awarded as compensation, is not paid within a year of the award and it is the 1894 Act, which shall apply to the facts of the present case so far as the rate of interest is concerned. 18. In P.C. Goswami (supra), the Supreme Court has pointed out that in matters of pay­ment of solatium, no discrimination can be made on the basis of the provisions of the 1964 Act vis-a-vis the 1894 Act inasmuch as there is no justification for discrimination be­tween an acquisition under one Act and an acquisition under another Act. The relevant observations, appearing, in paragraph 7, in this regard, read as under: "7. There is, however, one contention ad­vanced by Mr. Nandi, which, in our opinion, deserves to be accepted. The relevant observations, appearing, in paragraph 7, in this regard, read as under: "7. There is, however, one contention ad­vanced by Mr. Nandi, which, in our opinion, deserves to be accepted. He contends that in the matter of payment of solatium, no discrimi­nation can be made between acquisitions un­der the Assam Act and those made under the Land Acquisition Act. Section 4(3) of the Assam Act itself says that if a land is acquired under that Act, the State Government shall be empow­ered to apply to such land any of the provi­sions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In a judgment (judgment dated April 1, 1980 in Civil Appeal No. 848/1977, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1438 ) entitled State of Kerala, Vs. T.M. Peter) given by this Court very recently to which Mr. Nandi has drawn our attention, it was held that there is no justification for discriminating be­tween an acquisiton under one Act and an ac­quisition under another Act in so far as pay­ment of solatium is concerned. This should be more so in respect of an acquisition to which the State Government is empowered to extend the provision of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. Naunit lal has not been able to controvert this position in view of the judgment to which we have referred above. We accordingly direct that the State Government shall pay to the appellant solatium at the rate of 15% on the compensa­tion awarded to him by the High Court. Except for this modification, the decree passed by the High Court is confirmed. The order or remand passed by the High Court will stand." 19. Resisting the submissions, made by Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, that the rate of interest ought to have been awarded as prescribed by the 1894 Act, Mr. Deka, learned Gov­ernment Advocate, submits that as far as the acquisition of land is concerned, a person may be entitled to reeceive interest in terms of the 1894 Act, but, so far as the rate of interest, in the case of requisition of land, is concerned, the rate of interest, as prescribed by Section 13 of the 1964 Act, which shall be applicable, the rate of interest, in respect of requisition, being 6% per annum from the date of award till the date the award is paid. 20. 20. For the purpose of resolving the con­troversy, Section 13 of the 1964 Act is re­produced below: "13. Payment of interest - When the amount of any compensation payable under this Act is not paid or deposited within thirty days from the date of the award, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the award until it shall have been so paid or deposited." 21. From a bare reading of the provisions of Section 13, it becomes clear that Section 13 makes no distinction between the rate of interest, payable on the awarded amount, whether the interest is payable on an amount in respect of a land, which is requisitioned, or in respect of the land, which is acquisitioned. Section 13, therefore, applies to both requi­sition as well as acquisition of land. 22. In the light of the decision, in P.C. Goswami (supra), which Mr. Sahewalla re­lies upon, there can be no escape from the conclusion that in respect of acquisition of land, the State Government cannot make any discrimination whether it acquires the land under the 1964 Act or under the 1894Act. In either case, the rate of interest has to be one and the same. This apart, even sub-section (3) of Section 6 of the 1964 Act makes the provisions of the 1894 Act applicable to the acquisitions, which may be made under the 1964 Act. 23. From the scheme of the two Acts, namely, the 1894 Act and the 1964 Act, what transpires is that, in the case, in the case of acquisition of land, rate of interest, as pre­scribed by Section 28 of the 1894 Act, would apply. Should there be a distinction between the rate of interest, when land is acquired and when land is requisitioned ? In this re­gard, it may be, once again, pointed out that it is Section 13 of the 1964 Act, which makes provisions for payment of interest, and Sec­tion 13 makes no distinction or difference be­tween the rate of interest, payable on an awarded amount, when the land is requisi­tioned, or when the land is acquired, irrespec­tive of the fact whether the land is requisi­tioned or acquisitioned, the rate of interest remains uniform. Logically, therefore, when the rate of interest, in the case of acquisition of land, in Assam, is governed by the provi­sions of the 1894 Act (irrespective of the fact as to whether the laid is acquired under the 1964 or 1894 Act), there is no reason as to why Section 28 of the 1894 Act, where under the rate of interest is payahle in a case of acquisition, be not invoked in, and/or applied to, the case of requisition too. 24. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, it becomes clear that it is the rate of interest, as prescribed by Sec­tion 28 of the 1894 Act, which would apply to a case of 'requisition' too even if the 'req­uisition ' is made under the provisions of the 1964 Act. Section 28 reads as under: "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 amount. 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." 25. From a bare reading of Section 28, it becomes clear that if interest is not paid within a period of one year from the date, on which possession of the land is taken, interest at the rate of 15%, per annum, shall be payable, from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of excess, or the part thereof, which has not been paid before the date of expiry. 26. 26. In the case at hand, no compensation has been paid by the State, though the pos­session of the land was taken over in the year 1981. Considered in this light, it becomes clear that the appellant is entitled to receive interest @15%, per annum, from the date of requisition of the land, until the date, when the total amount of compensation, as deter­mined by the learned District Judge, is paid to the appellant. If the appellant has already received the amount, as determined by the order, impugned in this appeal, the interest shall be accordingly determined and paid by the respondents within a period of three months from to-day. 27. In the result and for the reasons dis­cussed above, this appeal partly succeeds. While the total compensation, as determined by the learned Court below, is not inlerefered with, the rate of interest, which the learned Court below has ordered to be paid, shall stand modified as indicated above. 28. With the above observations and modifications, made in the impugned judg­ment/decree, as regards rate of interest, this appeal shall stand disposed of. 29. No order as to costs.