Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. 1. This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th September, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Land Acquisition Court, Barasat, North 24-Parganas in land acquisition case no. LRA-18 of 2002 at the instance of the State Government alleging that the valuation of the acquired land of the referring claimant has not been properly and/or correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge. 2. Bone of contention of the appellant: 3. According to the appellant, the learned Land Acquisition Judge, while assessing the valuation of the referring claimant’s land ought not to have fixed the valuation of the acquired land without taking into account the sale deeds which were produced by the Land Acquisition Collector in the said proceeding. 4. It is also contended by the appellant that considering the largeness of the land acquired by the State, the Land Acquisition Collector ought to have allowed deduction of 33 1/3% from the total land value of the acquired land. 5. It was also contended by the appellant that the Land Acquisition Judge, while assessing compensation payable to the claimants for the land acquired, ought not to have allowed the additional compensation on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession upto the date of the award. 6. According to the appellant such additional compensation could have been allowed on the market value of the land from the date of the notification upto the date of the award. 7. These are the primary grounds on which the legality and/or the validity of the impugned judgment and decree was challenged by the appellant in this appeal. 8. Bone of contention of the referring claimant/cross-objector: 9. The referring claimant has filed a cross-objection challenging the impugned judgment and decree, in connection with this appeal. According to the referring claimant, the valuation of its land acquired by the State was not correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge after taking into account, the valuation of the land which was transacted in the concerned Mouza at the relevant time of issuance of notification under Sections 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. According to the referring claimant, the valuation of its land acquired by the State was not correctly assessed by the Land Acquisition Judge after taking into account, the valuation of the land which was transacted in the concerned Mouza at the relevant time of issuance of notification under Sections 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. It is also contended by the referring claimant that the Land Acquisition Judge was not justified in allowing 20% deduction on the land value on account of largeness of the land acquired by the State even though there is no evidence that the acquiring body either has spent or will have to spend any amount of money towards development of the land acquired for making it fit for use for the purpose for which the land was acquired. 11. It is also contended by the referring claimant that the Land Acquisition Judge was also not justified in assessing the valuation of the tank (pukur) at a rate which is equivalent to ¼ of the rate fixed for assessment of the valuation of the other plots of lands such as bastu, danga, pukurpar and karkhana. 12. It is also contended by the referring claimant that having regard to the fact that the acquisition of the land under Act II of 1948 could not be completed prior to the said Act stood lapsed, such land was ultimately acquired by following the amended provision contained in Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act by issuance of notice under wrong caption of Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act. Since possession of the land of the referring claimant was taken as back as on 12th April, 1989 under Act II of 1948, the Land Acquisition Judge, according to the referring claimant, did not commit any illegality in awarding additional compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession to the date of the award. 13. Thus, we find that both the acquiring body as well as the referring claimant are dissatisfied with the judgment and/or decree passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge; however they challenged the legality of the said judgment and decree passed by the Land Acquisition Judge from different angles. Courts findings: 14. 13. Thus, we find that both the acquiring body as well as the referring claimant are dissatisfied with the judgment and/or decree passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge; however they challenged the legality of the said judgment and decree passed by the Land Acquisition Judge from different angles. Courts findings: 14. Let us now consider as to how far the learned Land Acquisition Judge was justified in assessing the valuation of the acquired land of the referring claimant in the facts of the instant case. Facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal: Here is the case where we find that the area of land which was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, North 24-Parganas, Barast from the referring claimant was 9.9943145 acres out of 13.53 acres. Such land was acquired for the purpose of regularization of Uttar Basudebpur Quarter’s Colony. Initially the acquiring body did not take any step to acquire the said land of the referring claimant under the Land Acquisition Act i.e., Act, I of 1894. The Land Acquisition Collector initially took possession of the said land of the referring claimant by issuance of notification under Section 3 of Act II of 1948 on 12th April, 1989. 15. Thereafter a notification was issued under Section 4(1a) of Act II of 1948 on 23rd March, 1990 for acquiring the said land of the referring claimant. The said Act, i.e., Act II of 1948 stood lapsed after the midnight of 31st March, 1997. The acquisition proceeding for acquiring the land of the referring claimant under Act II of 1948 could not be completed by the Land Acquisition Collector during the lifetime of the said Act. As a result a further notification was issued under the amended provision with a wrong caption of Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act on 13th June, 2000. The land of the referring claimant was ultimately acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector under the amended provision of Act, II of 1894 by publication of an award on 17th September, 2001 under Sl. Nos.50 and 51. Impact of the amended provisions i.e. Section 9(3A) & Section 9 (3B) of the Land Acquisition Act:- 16. The land of the referring claimant was ultimately acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector under the amended provision of Act, II of 1894 by publication of an award on 17th September, 2001 under Sl. Nos.50 and 51. Impact of the amended provisions i.e. Section 9(3A) & Section 9 (3B) of the Land Acquisition Act:- 16. In this context, we like to mention here that though the acquisition was completed by issuance of notice under Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act but in view of the Special Bench decision of this Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Sabita Mondal (supra) reported in 2011(3) CHN (CAL) 555 such acquisition should be deemed to have been completed as per the provision of Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act. 17. This, we like to mention here only for this reason that there is a marked distinction between assessment of the valuation of the land acquired under Section 9(3A) of the said Act and assessment of valuation of the land acquired under Section 9(3B) of the said Act. The proviso added to Section 9(3A) of the said Act makes it clear that the date of the notice under the said sub-Section shall be the date of reference for the purpose of determining the value of such land under the said Act while on the contrary Section 9(3B) of the said Act provides that the date of publication of the notice under sub-Section IA of Section 4 of the Act II, 1948 shall be the date of reference for the purpose of determining the value of such land under the said Act. 18. Since the acquisition could not be completed under Act II of 1948 even though notice under Section 4 (1a) of Act II of 1948 was issued during the validity period of the said Act, Section 9(3A) is the appropriate provision under which such acquisition proceeding could have been completed. As such, the value of such land should have been determined by following the first proviso added to Section 9(3A) of the said Act. In fact, this provision has been followed by the Land Acquisition Judge in the instant case even though after expiry of the validity period of Act II of 1948, the land Acquisition Collector issued notice under Section 9(3B) of the said Act for acquiring the land of the referring claimant. 19. In fact, this provision has been followed by the Land Acquisition Judge in the instant case even though after expiry of the validity period of Act II of 1948, the land Acquisition Collector issued notice under Section 9(3B) of the said Act for acquiring the land of the referring claimant. 19. Since assessment of the valuation of the land of the referring claimant was made by the Land Acquisition Judge with reference to the date of notification under Section 9(3B) of the said Act, we do not want to elaborate our discussion any further with regard to the non-applicability of Section 9(3B) of the said Act in the facts of the instant case. How to assess: Let us now consider as to how far the learned Land Acquisition Judge was justified in assessing the valuation of the land of the referring claimant in the facts of the instant case. 20. To support the claim of the referring claimant, it produced several sale deeds relating to transaction of land of various description situated within Mouza Basudebpur. Some of such transactions were made relating to land of similar description as that of the referring claimant at the time when possession of the land was taken by the Government and some of such transactions were made either immediately before the notification was issued or immediately after such notification was issued. 21. The Collector has also produced some sale deeds relating to transaction of land during the relevant period but since none of such transactions relates to any land situated within Basudebpur Mouza, the Land Acquisition Judge discarded those sale deeds. 22. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the valuation of the acquired land by making an average of the land value of the land transacted under all the sale deeds produced by the appellant excepting three deeds by which land of different description i.e. land with structure were sold. While assessing the valuation of the acquired land by applying the method of averaging, even the land value within the concerned Mouza at the time of taking over possession of the land of referring claimant was added to the land value of land within the same Mouza at the time of issuance of notification under Section 9(3B) of the said Act. 23. In this context, we will have to ascertain the correctness of such assessment of compensation, made by the Land Acquisition Judge. 24. 23. In this context, we will have to ascertain the correctness of such assessment of compensation, made by the Land Acquisition Judge. 24. Let us first of all decide as to the date which is relevant for the purpose of assessing the valuation of the acquired land. 25. We have already mentioned above that the land was acquired as per the provision of Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act by issuance of a notice by mentioning a wrong provision i.e., Section 9(3B) of the said Act on 13.06.2000. In view of the proviso added to Section 9(3A) of the said Act, the value of the land should have been assessed with reference to the value of the land as on the date of such notice i.e., as on 13th June, 2000. The referring claimant produced two deeds relating to transaction of land of identical description as that of the claimant lying at Mouza Basudebpur within which the acquired land situates. 26. One of such transactions was made on 6th March,, 2000 i.e., immediately before the land of the referring claimant was acquired. The said deed which relates to a transaction relating to bastu land was admitted into evidence as Ext. 4A wherefrom we find that the value of the said land per cottah was Rs.1,07,122/- 27. Another deed (being Ext. 4F) which was executed relating to a transaction of a danga land within the same Mouza on 13th October, 2000 i.e. immediately after the land was acquired shows that the valuation of the said land per cottah was Rs.85,090/-. The other deed (being Ext. 4) which was executed relating to a transaction of a bastu land within the same Mouza on 23rd November, 2000 i.e., immediately after the date of acquisition of the land of the referring claimant shows that the valuation of the said land was Rs.1,0,9008/- per cottah. 28. In view of the provision contained in Section 9(3A) of the said Act, we can safely rely upon these three deeds as those deeds relate to transaction held at the time which were nearer to the date of issuance of notification under Section 9(3B) of the Land Acquisition Act, for assessing valuation of the acquired land of the referring claimant. 29. 29. Since the other deeds which were admitted into evidence from the side of the referring claimant relate to the transactions held either during the year 1988 or during the period of 1998 or 1999 i.e., nearer to the date of taking over possession of the land of referring claimant, we can safely discard these deed in view of the proviso added to Section 9(3A) of the said Act. 30. Since the valuation of the land under these three deeds were not exactly uniform, we feel that there is no other way of assessment of the valuation of the acquired land save and except by adoption of the method of averaging the valuation of the land mentioned in the said three deeds. 31. By applying the said method of averaging, we find that the value of the land in Basudebpur Mouza at the relevant time was Rs.100406.00 per cottah. 32. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State that the Land Acquisition collector while assessing the valuation of the land of the referring claimant. was not justified in discarding the sale deeds which were produced by the acquiring body. We find that all these deeds which were produced by the acquiring body relate to a transaction in respect of the land lying at a Mouza i.e., Osmanpur Mouza which is different from the Mouza where the land of the referring claimant situates. 33. We, thus, hold that the learned Land Acquisition Judge was justified in discarding the deeds, produced by the acquiring body while assessing the value of the land of the referring claimant. 34. A controversy arose as to how far the learned Land Acquisition Judge was justified in valuing the plots of lands which were classified as pukur and/or doba at the rate which was equivalent to ¼ of the valuation of the bastu and/or danga land held by the referring claimant. 35. Let us now find out as to what will be valuation of the land classified as doba or tank. 36. Since the character of acquired land belonging to the referring claimant was different from each other, there cannot be uniformity in valuation of such land. Value of the land classified as bastu, danga, karkhana, pukurpar, will be more than the value of the land classified as doba and pukur. 37. Though Mr. 36. Since the character of acquired land belonging to the referring claimant was different from each other, there cannot be uniformity in valuation of such land. Value of the land classified as bastu, danga, karkhana, pukurpar, will be more than the value of the land classified as doba and pukur. 37. Though Mr. Dutta tried to justify such findings of the learned Land Acquisition Judge by submitting that the value of the tank and/or doba cannot be more than ¼ of the value of the solid land, but in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority Vs. Gobinda Chandra Makal & Anr. Reported in AIR 2011 SC 3834 and also the Division Bench Decision of this High Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Ganesh Chandra Mitra & Ors. Reported in AIR 1972(CAL) 333, we hold that in the absence of proper material, the Court will have to determine the value of the tank in a logical and scientific manner and under such circumstances it would not be unreasonable for the Court to value the tank at half of the value of the solid land. Applying the said principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as by this Hon’ble Court we hold that the plots of land which were classified as a pukur/ tank and doba should have been assessed at the rate which was equivalent to half of the value of the solid land of the referring claimant. Thus, we hold that the value of the land classified as pukur/ tank and doba will be Rs.50203/- per cottah. 38. Justifiability of deduction of 20% from the total land value on account of development costs: 39. Let us now consider the justifiability of the contention of Mr. Dutta with regard to deduction of 33. 1/3% from the total land value as the land acquired by the State was vast in area. He contended that considering the largeness of the land acquired, the learned Land Acquisition judge, while assessing the value of the acquired land, should have allowed 33 1/3% deduction on the entire land value. In support of such contention Mr. Dutta has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- 1. In the case of H.P Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi & Ors. Reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1840. 2. In support of such contention Mr. Dutta has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:- 1. In the case of H.P Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi & Ors. Reported in (2004) 2 SCC 1840. 2. In the case of K. Vasundara Devi Vs. Revenue Additional Officer (LAO) reported in AIR 1995 AIR 2481 and 3. In the case of Kaushalya Devi Bogra & Ors. Vs. the Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad & Anr. reported in AIR 1984 AIR 892. 40. We find that in those judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in case vast area of land is acquired by the State, deduction of 33 1/3% from the total value of the land towards development cost is justified. However, in the present case we find that 20% has been deducted from the land value considering the largeness of the area of the land acquired. Relying upon those decisions mentioned above, Mr. Dutta contended that the learned Land Acquisition Judge, committed an illegality by not deducting 33 1/3% from the total land value, in the present case. 41. In this regard, we have also considered the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme court cited by Mr. Debayan Bera, learned Counsel appearing for the referring claimant:- 1. In the case of Atma Singh (dead) Through LRS and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr reported in (2008 )2 SCC 568. 2. In the case of Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality Vishakapatnam reported in (1991)4 SCC 506 . In those judgments it was uniformly held by the Hon’ble Supreme court that there was no uniform rule for deduction of 33 1/3% from the total land value of the land acquired in case vast properties are acquired. 42. It was held therein that deduction of any amount is justified when it is found that some money is required to be spent for development of the acquired land for making it fit for use for the purpose for which it was acquired. 42. It was held therein that deduction of any amount is justified when it is found that some money is required to be spent for development of the acquired land for making it fit for use for the purpose for which it was acquired. It was held therein that the deduction on account of development is permissible under two circumstances: firstly, appropriate deduction can be made towards the value of the loss of area required to be utilized for roads, drains and common facilities like park etc; secondly, further deduction can be made towards the cost of development i.e. cost of leveling the land, cost of lying roads and drains erection of electrical poles and water lines etc. It was also held therein that deduction of development costs depends upon as to how much cost is to be incurred towards development depending upon the nature of development, conditions and nature of the land and the value of the land required to be set apart for construction of roads & sewerage for drawing up electricity line, setting up parks & water supply system etc. under the Building Rules. 43. We have already indicated above that the major part of the land of the referring claimant was solid land i.e., either bastu or danga, karkhana or pukurpar. Records relating to the proceeding shows that the acquired land was situated in a developed area where valuable factories sheds stand. The acquired land was well connected with bus routs and it is also situated nearer to the railway Station. Bank, good number of schools, hospitals, several place of amusements are also situated within one kilo meters distance from the acquired land. Bally Bridge and Dakshineswar Kali Temple are situated within 5 Kilometers distance from the acquired land. There was no evidence from the acquiring body that any development has been made by the Government after acquiring the land of the referring claimant. No evidence was led by the acquiring body showing that any money is required to be spent for development of the acquired land. Such being the evidence on record, we can safely hold that while assessing the value of the acquired land no amount of money is required to be deducted even though the land acquired was vast in area. 44. Justifiability of grant of additional compensation from the date of possession: 45. Let us now consider the other contention of Mr. Such being the evidence on record, we can safely hold that while assessing the value of the acquired land no amount of money is required to be deducted even though the land acquired was vast in area. 44. Justifiability of grant of additional compensation from the date of possession: 45. Let us now consider the other contention of Mr. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel who submitted that the learned Land Acquisition Judge was not justified in awarding additional compensation at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession upto the date of the award. Mr. Dutta contended that such additional compensation could have been paid from the date of the notification under Section 9(3B) of the said Act upto the date of the award in view of Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act. In support of such contention, Mr. Dutta has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. reported in 2002(1) SCC 142 . 46. On perusal of the said judgment we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the provision of Section 23 (1A) held therein that starting point for the purpose of calculating the amount to be awarded towards additional compensation will be the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the terminal point for the purpose is either the date of award or the date of taking over possession whichever is earlier. It was also held therein that when possession of the land is taken prior to publication of Section 4 notification, the terminal point having not been available, the only available terminal point will be the date of the award. Thus, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court such additional compensation can be awarded for the period between the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the date of the award, when possession is taken prior to publication of award. 47. We, however, are unable to accept such contention of Mr. Dutta as we find that the decision which was cited by him in this regard has no application in the facts of the instant case. 47. We, however, are unable to accept such contention of Mr. Dutta as we find that the decision which was cited by him in this regard has no application in the facts of the instant case. Here is the case where we find that the land was not acquired after publication of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Here is the case where we find that acquisition was completed by following the provision of Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act In this context, the proviso which was added to sub-Section (1A) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is relevant which is set out hereunder:- “Provided that in respect of the acquisition of the land related to in sub-Section (3A) and sub-Section (3B) of Section 9, in addition, market value of the land, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of 12 % per annum of such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of taking over possession of the land to the date of award of the Collector”. 48. The decision which was cited by Mr. Dutta as mentioned above has no application in the facts of the instant case as the Hon’ble Supreme Court while pronouncing the said decision had no occasion to consider the effect of the aforesaid proviso which was added to Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act by way of amendment in 1997. Since the acquisition in the present case has been completed by following the amended provision of Section 9(3A) of the Land Acquisition Act, we, in view of the proviso as added to Section 23(A) of the said Act, hold that the additional compensation should be paid @ 12% per annum on the entire market value of the land from the date of possession upto the date of the award. We thus, do not find any illegality in the impugned order in this regard. 49. Justifiability of grant of interest from the date of the date of notification 50. We, however, hold that the interest at the rate of 9% on the entire compensation which was granted for one year from the date of notification is not justified as the referring claimant is duly compensated by way of grant of additional compensation for the period starting from the date of possession. We, however, hold that the interest at the rate of 9% on the entire compensation which was granted for one year from the date of notification is not justified as the referring claimant is duly compensated by way of grant of additional compensation for the period starting from the date of possession. If statutory interest is directed to be paid from the date of possession and/or date of notification, the land loser will get double benefit for the same period i.e., once by way of additional compensation and then again by way of interest for the same period. We feel that grant of interest @ 9% per annum for one year starting from the date of the award is just and proper. 51. We, thus, hold that the referring claimant is not entitled to get interest on the entire compensation that is (land value plus solatium plus additional compensation) either from the date of possession or from the date of the notification, rather it is entitled to receive interest for one year at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this award i.e. 17th September, 2001 and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum on the entire compensation till the entire amount is paid less the amount which is already paid to the referring claimant and/or withdrawn by it from the security deposit. 52. The referring claimant/cross-objector has already withdrawn substantial amount from the deposit which was deposited by the acquiring body by way of security in terms of the order of the Court. The balance amount still remains in fixed deposit made in terms of the order of the Court. Court’s order 53. Hence ordered that the appeal and the cross-objection are disposed of modifying the decree of the Land Acquisition Judge to the following extent:- 1. The valuation of solid lands are hereby fixed at Rs.1,00,406.00 per cottah. 2. The valuation of tank and doba are fixed at Rs.50,203.00 per cottah. 3. The referring claimants/cross-objectors are entitled to get soaltium @30% on the entire market value. 4. The referring claimants/cross-objectors are entitled to get Additional Compensation @ 12% per annum on the entire market value from the date of possession (12.04.1989) to the date of the award (17.09.2001). 5. The valuation of tank and doba are fixed at Rs.50,203.00 per cottah. 3. The referring claimants/cross-objectors are entitled to get soaltium @30% on the entire market value. 4. The referring claimants/cross-objectors are entitled to get Additional Compensation @ 12% per annum on the entire market value from the date of possession (12.04.1989) to the date of the award (17.09.2001). 5. The referring claimants/cross-objectors are entitled to get interest on the entire compensation @ 9% per annum for one year from 17.09.2001 and thereafter @ 15% per annum on the entire compensation. 54. We, thus, permit the referring claimant/cross-objector to withdraw the balance amount which is still in deposit with the bank. The learned Registrar General of this Court is thus directed to encash the fixed deposit and pay the same to the referring claimant/cross-objector subject to compliance of the necessary formalities by the referring claimant/cross-objector. The acquiring body viz. the Collector, Land Acquisition, Barasat, North 24-Parganas, is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation to the referring claimant/cross-objector, within three months from date. 55. The impugned judgment and/or decree is modified to the above extent. 56. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are thus, allowed to the extent as indicated above. 57. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are thus, disposed of. 58. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.