JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. The sole question which falls for consideration in this revision petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India is whether the interest payable to a landowner under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will also be admissible to the solatium awarded under Section 23(2) of the Act in consideration of the compulsory nature of the Acquisition ? 2. The controversy arose when the land of the claimant-respondents measuring 1.98 acres covered by C.S. Plot No. 3824, 3832 & 3841 under Khatian No. 1624 of Mouza D.C. Nagar, Sadar Sub-Division was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of “Army Project”. According to the petitioner, after completing the land acquisition proceeding, the Land Acquisition Collector, West Tripura awarded a compensation @ Rs.16,000/- per acre for Viti land, @ Rs.19,000/- per acre in respect of bastu land and @ Rs.12,500/- per acre for tilla land. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, the claimant-respondents sought for, and were allowed a reference before the Land Acquisition Judge, Agartala under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the award. However, the LA Judge ultimately dismissed the reference by the judgment dated 22-6-1993. This prompted the claimant-respondents to prefer an appeal before this Court being First Appeal No. 26 of 1993. This Court by the judgment dated 20-7-2001 enhanced the awarded amount to Rs.30,000/- per acre for all categories of the acquired lands together with interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum on the market value of the land. This Court also held that the claimant-respondents were entitled to solatium @ 30% on the market value of the land. It is the contention of the petitioner-authorities that Executing Court had calculated the land value after taking into consideration the interest on solatium from the date of possession of the lands, which is impermissible. Aggrieved by this, this revision petition is now preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. The main contention of Mr. It is the contention of the petitioner-authorities that Executing Court had calculated the land value after taking into consideration the interest on solatium from the date of possession of the lands, which is impermissible. Aggrieved by this, this revision petition is now preferred by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution. 3. The main contention of Mr. A. Lodh, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claimant-respondents are not entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act with respect to the solatium awarded under Section 23(2) of the Act and that even if such a claim is ultimately held to be admissible under the law, such interest cannot be paid prior to 19-9- 2001 in the light of the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 as construed by the Apex Court in Gurpeet Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 457 and can be paid only with effect from 19-9-2001. He strenuously urges this Court to modify the impugned judgment to the extent indicated above. On the other hand, Mr. S. Dev, the learned senior counsel for the claimant-respondents, supports the impugned judgment and submits that interest on solatium has been held to be payable under Section 34 of the Act in terms of the judgment of the Apex court in Sunder case (supra). 4. For better appreciation of the controversy, it will be beneficial to refer to the provisions of Sections 23 and 34 of the Act, which read thus: “23. 4. For better appreciation of the controversy, it will be beneficial to refer to the provisions of Sections 23 and 34 of the Act, which read thus: “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation.—(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration— first, the market-value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1); secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land. (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 of 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 the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation.—In computing the period referred to in this subsection, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. * * * 34. Payment of interest.— When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 1[nine per centum] per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited: Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within 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 compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expiry.” 5. Section 23 of the Act comprises of three heads for assessment of compensation payable to a landowner, namely, (i) matters to be considered in determining compensation under Section 23(1), (ii) interest payable to the landowner under Section 23(1-A) calculated at the rate of 12% per annum on the market value, which is to be in addition to the market value of the land determined under Section 23(1) and (iii) solatium payable under Section 23(2) calculated @ 30% on the market value of the land in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition, which is also to be in addition to the market valued determined under Section 23(1). Section 34 of the Act says that when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or after taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount with interest at the rate of 9 per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. Section 34 of the Act says that when the amount of compensation is not paid or deposited on or after taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount with interest at the rate of 9 per centum per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited. The proviso thereto, however, enhances the rate of interest liable to be paid by the acquiring authority to 15% per annum on the amount of compensation if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken. The term “compensation” is nowhere defined in the Act. The question as to whether the term “market value” and the term “compensation” are interchangeable is no longer res integra. Section 23(1) refers to six factors for guiding the Collector in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the landowner. The determination of the market value of the land sought to be acquired is one of the exercises to be undertaken by the Collector while assessing the quantum of compensation as evident from the firstly of Section 23(1) of the Act, which categorically refers to determination of “the market value of the land”. In this context, I may reproduce below the observation of the Law Commission report submitted in 1957, which was referred by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Shri Ram Mehar and others, (1973) 1 SCC 109 : “We are not also in favour of omitting Section 23(2) so as to exclude solatium of 15% for the compulsory nature of the acquisition. It is not enough for a person to get the market value of the land as compensation in order to place himself in a position similar to that which he could have occupied had there been no acquisition; he may have to spend a considerable further amount for putting himself in the same position as before. As pointed out by Fitzgerald the community has no right to enrich itself by deliberately taking away the property of any of its members in such circumstances without providing adequate compensation for it. This Principle has been in force in India ever since the Act of 1870. As pointed out by Fitzgerald the community has no right to enrich itself by deliberately taking away the property of any of its members in such circumstances without providing adequate compensation for it. This Principle has been in force in India ever since the Act of 1870. The Select Committee which examined the Bill of 1893 did not think it necessary to omit the provision but on the other hand transferred it to Section 23.” 6. From the forgoing paragraph, it is abundantly clear that the concept of “compensation” is different from the expression “market value”. This is also evident from the Headings of Section 23, which uses the Headings, namely, “Matters to be considered in determining compensation”. The question as to whether the Headings prefixed to a section or a group of section can be referred to in construing an Act of the Legislature was discussed in JUSTICE GP SINGH’s “Principles of Statutory Interpretation”, 14th Edn, pp 183 wherein he observed that the view is now settled that the Headings or title prefixed to sections or group of sections can be referred to in construing an Act of the Legislature. The great jurist then quotes Justice Lahoti’s observation in Raichurmatham Prabhakar Rawatmal Dugar, (2004) 4 SCC 766 (which incidentally also quoted him): “14. The view is now settled that the headings or titles prefixed to sections or group of sections can be referred to in construing an Act of the legislature. But conflicting opinions have been expressed on the question as to what weight should be attached to the headings or titles. According to one view, the headings might be treated as preambles to the provisions following them so as to be regarded as giving the key to opening the mind of the draftsman of the clauses arranged there under. According to the other view, resort to heading can only be taken when the enacting words are ambiguous. They cannot control the meaning of plain words but they may explain ambiguities. (See Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 9th Edn., 2004, pp. 152 and 155.) In our opinion, it is permissible to assign the heading or title of a section a limited role to play in the construction of statutes. They may be taken as very broad and general indicators of the nature of the subject-matter dealt with there under. 152 and 155.) In our opinion, it is permissible to assign the heading or title of a section a limited role to play in the construction of statutes. They may be taken as very broad and general indicators of the nature of the subject-matter dealt with there under. The heading or title may also be taken as a condensed name assigned to indicate collectively the characteristics of the subject-matter dealt with by the enactment underneath; though the name would always be brief having its own limitations. In case of conflict between the plain language of the provision and the meaning of the heading or title, the heading or title would not control the meaning which is clearly and plainly discernible from the language of the provision there under.” 7. Thus, in the absence of any conflict between the Headings and the plain language of Act, which is the case here, there is no reason for not regarding the Headings as giving the key to the interpretation of the clauses ranged under it. This view is reinforced by the decision of the Apex Court in Shri Ram Mehar case (supra), which is as follows: “7. …… If market value and compensation were intended by the legislature to have the same meaning it is difficult to comprehend why the word “compensation” in Section 28 and 34 and not “market value” was used. The key to the meaning of the word “compensation” is to be found in Section 23(1) and that consists (a) of the market value of the land and (b) the sum of 15% on such market value which is stated to be the consideration for the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Market value is therefore only one of the components in the determination of the amount of compensation. …..” 8. Market value is therefore only one of the components in the determination of the amount of compensation. …..” 8. Inasmuch as Section 34 of the Act also refers to “compensation” and not the “market value” for entitling a landowner to payment of interest @ 9% per annum on the market value of the acquired land if the same is not paid or deposited on or before taking the possession thereof and another 15% per annum on the market value of the same if the same or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year on which possession is taken, there is no difficulty, in my judgment, in holding that solatium is the necessary component of the compensation referred to Section 34 for the purpose of payment of interest and the enhanced interest to the landowner. In this view of the matter, I hold that the interest and the enhanced interest contemplated under Section 34 of the Act is payable not only on the market value of the acquired land but also on the solatium payable under Section 23(2) of the Act. If that is the case, I fail to understand as to how a cutoff date can fixed for payment of interest on the solatium and not on the market value; this, in my opinion, is the statutory right of the respondents. It is quite possible that that the petitioner is resisting the payment of interest on solatium simply because the amount which ultimately will become payable would be quite considerable the interest accrued thereon over a period of time inevitably got accumulated. This cannot, in my opinion, be a ground for denial of the statutory right of the respondents to receive the compensation due to clamant-respondents. Inaction/lethargy, callousness or the complacency on the part of the officials of the petitioner-authorities in their inaction loom large, for which the claimant-respondents cannot be faulted. Why should they suffer and be penalized due to the inaction/callousness and incompetence of the officials of the petitioner-authorities? The petitioner-authorities should rather probe the actual reason for this sorry state of affairs, detect the officials responsible for the same and punish them or recover the interest payable to the claimant-respondents from their salaries to deter and prevent future recurrence. Why should they suffer and be penalized due to the inaction/callousness and incompetence of the officials of the petitioner-authorities? The petitioner-authorities should rather probe the actual reason for this sorry state of affairs, detect the officials responsible for the same and punish them or recover the interest payable to the claimant-respondents from their salaries to deter and prevent future recurrence. The petitioner-authorities cannot simply take advantage of the failure/refusal on the part of their officials to release the compensation within one year of taking possession of the acquired land or at any rate within two years thereafter. 9. Section 31 of the Act provides that on making an award under Section 11, the Collector shall tender payment of the compensation awarded by him to the person interested entitled thereto according to the award, and shall pay it to them unless prevented by some one or more of the contingencies such as (i) they shall not consent to receive it, or (ii) if there be any dispute as to the title to receive the compensation or as to the apportionment of it, in which case the Collector should deposit the amount of compensation in the court in which reference under Section 18 would be submitted. In my opinion, on reading Section 31 and Section 34 in juxtaposition, the inference is irresistible and the conclusion inescapable that payment of the compensation can brook no delay and must be paid or deposited by the acquiring authority within one year of taking possession of the acquired land on the pain of paying interest @ 9% percent on the amount compensation if no such payment is made and the interest is further enhanced to 15% per annum on the same if the payment or deposit is not made from the date of expiry of the said period of one year. It is not the case of the petitioner-authorities that they were prevented by the three contingencies referred to in Section 31(2) of the Act. Thus, if the petitioner-authorities, deliberately or otherwise, have refused to pay or deposit the compensation amount, the claimant-respondents cannot be penalized for none of their fault; they will only have themselves to blame. It was apparently with a view to avoid such future liability for non-payment of interest that Section 34 of the Act was engrafted by the Legislature in the statute book. It was apparently with a view to avoid such future liability for non-payment of interest that Section 34 of the Act was engrafted by the Legislature in the statute book. Thus, reference made to Sunder Singh (supra) and Gurpeet Singh case (supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner to resist the payment of interest to the respondents even prior to 19-9-2001 is misplaced. 10. The offshoot of the foregoing discussion is that there is no merit in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed. The petitioner-authorities shall now execute the impugned judgment and order dated 6-7-2013 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura in Ex(M) No. 35 of 2006 arising out of Misc. LA No. 133 of 1992 without further loss of time. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs.