JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Ali Hussain, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 2 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, CGC appears for the respondent No. 4. 2. The prayer of the writ petitioners in the writ petition is for payment of interest and solatium as per Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred to as the LA Act, 1894. The other prayer of the petitioners is for payment of interest as per Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894. 3. The case in brief is that the petitioners are the owners of land located at Sairang and Sihhmui. The land of the petitioners were acquired vide Award No. 5/2012 for the purpose of construction of a new railway line. The land of the petitioners were acquired @ Rs. 60 per square feet and @ Rs. 40 per square feet vide Award No. 5/2012. 4. The Award No. 5/2012 also made a provision for payment of interest and solatium under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1984 to the land owners, as and when a Civil Court gave a direction for the same. 5. The petitioners being aggrieved by the market rates fixed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl for acquisition of their lands and also due to non-payment of solatium and interest, filed a reference application under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 to the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl. 6. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl referred the matter to the Civil Court, Aizawl for disposal of the reference application. The reference application was registered as LA Case No. 31/2013. During the proceeding of LA Case No. 31/2013, an interim order was passed by the Reference Court, wherein it awarded solatium and interest under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894 for payment to the petitioners on the basis of the compensation paid @ Rs. 60 per square feet and Rs. 40 per square feet. The same was accordingly paid to the petitioners during the proceeding of LA Case No. 31/2013. L.A. Case No. 31/2013 was disposed of by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl vide Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014. 7. 60 per square feet and Rs. 40 per square feet. The same was accordingly paid to the petitioners during the proceeding of LA Case No. 31/2013. L.A. Case No. 31/2013 was disposed of by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl vide Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014. 7. The Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in its Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed in LA Case No. 31/2013 fixed the market rates of the land of the petitioners @ Rs. 200 per square feet and directed the respondent No. 1 to assess the award as per the provisions of Section 26 of the LA Act, 1894. In addition to the above, the Court of the Addl. District Judge-I, Aizawl also directed that the amount awarded by the Civil Court would carry an interest @ 9% per annum on the amount in excess of the awarded amount in Award No. 5/2012. The Court also directed that the 9% interest to be paid under Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894 would have to be paid from the date of pronouncement of the Award No. 5/2012 till payment of such excess amount into the Court. 8. The operative portion of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in LA Case No. 31/2013 is reproduced below:- "For the reasons and finding stated above, the Respondent No.1/Authority shall assess the award @ Rs. 200/- per sq.ft. against the area to be acquired as shown in Award No.5 of 2012 approved/conveyed under Memo No.K.12011/26/2011-REV dated 3.7.2012 of the respective area belonging to the Petitioners in the present case, as per provision of Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In addition to the above, as per Section 28 of the L.A Act, 1894 the amount awarded by the court shall carry interest @ 9% p.a, on the excess of the Award made by the Respondent No.1, from the date of pronouncement of the Award No.5 of 2012 till payment of such excess into Court. The compensation already awarded by the Respondent No.1 by way of Award No.5 of 2012 and paid to the Petitioners by the Respondent No.2 shall be deducted from the above Award made by the Court. The Respondent No.2 is held responsible to satisfy the Award made by the Court as the lands belonging to the Petitioners have been acquired for the Respondent No.2" 9. The Respondent No.2 is held responsible to satisfy the Award made by the Court as the lands belonging to the Petitioners have been acquired for the Respondent No.2" 9. The impugned Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in LA Case No. 31/2013 was put to challenge by the respondent No. 2 before this Court and the appeal was registered as RFA No. 24/2014. 10. In RFA No. 24/2014, the respondent No. 1 also filed Cross Objection No. 1/2015 against the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed in LA Case No. 31/2013. 11. RFA No. 24/2014 and Cross Objection No. 1/2015 were dismissed by this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 18.06.2015. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 filed SLP (C) CC No. 2583/2016, challenging the dismissal of RFA No. 24/2014. However, the above SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court. 12. In view of the fact that the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in LA Case No. 31/2013 had attained finality, the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl assessed the market value of land of the petitioners @ Rs. 200/- per square feet and issued a letter dated 18.05.2016, addressed to the respondent No. 2, which states that the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl had submitted an assessment of compensation on land value @ 30% solatium, 12% interest under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894 and 9% interest plus 15% interest under Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894, amounting to Rs. 70, 81,66,351/-. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl issued another letter dated 5.7.2016 to the respondent No. 2, superseding his earlier letter, stating that he had made a fresh assessment of the land value and award @ 9% interest for non-payment of the compensation amount for the succeeding years amounting to Rs. 44,23,38,826/- only. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl in his letter dated 5.7.2016 also stated that 15% was not calculated to the assessment, as the Court had awarded only interest @ 9% per annum on the excess amount awarded. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl also excluded the 30% solatium and 12% interest as per the letter dated 5.7.2016 on the ground that there was no explicit order from the Reference Court for payment of the same. 13. The Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl also excluded the 30% solatium and 12% interest as per the letter dated 5.7.2016 on the ground that there was no explicit order from the Reference Court for payment of the same. 13. The petitioners' counsel submits that the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in LA Case No. 31/2013 has categorically stated that the award is to be assessed @ Rs. 200/- per square feet as per the provision of Section 26 of the LA Act, 1894. He submits that in view of the above observation and direction made by the Reference Court, interest and solatium as per Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894 has to be included by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl while making assessment for the excess amount to be paid to the petitioners. 14. The petitioners' counsel also submits that though the Railways i.e. respondent No. 2 have submitted the 9% interest only on 9.08.2016, they have calculated the interest only up to till 31.05.2016. He thus submits that the remaining 2 months interest @ 9% should be paid to the petitioners as per Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894. 15. The petitioners' counsel also submits that as the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl had already issued a letter dated 18.05.2016, whereby he had already made assessment for payment of solatium and interest to the petitioners, the said official became functus officio and could not have issued the subsequent letter dated 5.7.2016. The petitioners' counsel thus prays for setting aside the letter dated 18.05.2016 and prays for a direction for making payment of solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation rate of Rs. 200/- per square feet. 16. Mr. Ali Hussain, counsel for the Railways submits that as per the provision of Section 23 of the LA Act, 1894, the Court has to award solatium and interest. As the Reference Court had not made any mention for payment of solatium and interest in the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed in LA Case No. 31 of 2013, the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl did not commit any mistake in not awarding the said solatium and interest to the petitioners. 17. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. 17. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, CGC for the respondent No. 4 echo the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No. 2. 18. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 19. The Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge-I, Aizawl in LA Case No. 31/2013 has directed assessment of the award by the respondent No. 1 @ Rs. 200/- per square feet as per the provision of Section 26 of the LA Act, 1894. 20. Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894 is reproduced below:- "23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation- (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 on 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 sub-section, 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 compulsory nature of the acquisition." 21. Section 26 (1) and (2) of the LA Act is also reproduced below: "26 : Form of awards.- (1) [Every award under this part shall be in writing signed by the Judge, and shall specify the amount awarded under clause first of sub-section (1) of section 23, and also the amounts (if any) respectively awarded under each of the other clauses of the same sub-section, together with the grounds of awarding each of the said amounts. (2) Every such award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2, clause (2), and section 2, clause (9), respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).]" 22. The Apex Court in the case of Sunder v. Union of India reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 has held at paragraph 19 as follows:- "19. Section 26 does not say that the award would contain only the amounts granted under sub-section (1) of Section 23. The special mention of that sub-section in Section 26 is only for the purpose of directing that the grounds or reasons for awarding the amount under each of the clauses in the sub-section shall be specified in the award. It is unnecessary to mention any reason or ground in any award as to why the sums indicated in sub-section (1-A) and sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act were granted, because they are only the sequels or concomitant adjuncts of the determination of the total amount indicated in sub-section (1). No judicial exercise is required to quantify the sums mentioned in sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) because the section itself specifies the percentage to be worked out for the purpose of adding to the total amount arrived at under sub-section (1). Otherwise Section 26 is not intended to show that the compensation awarded would be bereft of the additional amount and the solatium envisaged under subsection (1-A) or sub-section (2). This can be clearly discerned from the commencing words of Section 26 itself. They are: "Every award under this Part shall be in writing signed by the Judge." What is referred to therein is Part III of the Act which comprises of a fasciculus of twelve provisions starting with Section 18 and ending with Section 28-A of the Act. There can be no doubt that all the three heads specified in the three sub-sections in Section 23 are the sums to be "awarded by the court". Hence the words "every award under this Part" cannot be treated as the award after delinking the amounts awarded under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) of Section 23." 23. In the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457, the Apex Court at paragraph 37 has held as follows :- "37. Hence the words "every award under this Part" cannot be treated as the award after delinking the amounts awarded under sub-section (1-A) or sub-section (2) of Section 23." 23. In the case of Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457, the Apex Court at paragraph 37 has held as follows :- "37. In Sunder v. Union of India this Court posed the question, as to what is meant by "the compensation" awarded. The Court concluded : (SCC p.230, para 23). "We make it clear that the compensation awarded would include not only the total sum arrived at as per sub-section (1) of Section 23 but the remaining sub-sections thereof as well. It is thus clear from Section 34 that the expression 'awarded amount' would mean the amount of compensation worked out in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 23, including all the sub-sections thereof." 24. A reading of the provision of Section 23 (1-A) and (2) and Section 26 of the LA Act, coupled with the law laid down by the Apex Court clearly requires the respondent No. 1 to have awarded interest and solatium as per Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894 on the amount awarded by the Reference Court. 25. The Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 passed in LA Case No. 31/2013 having clearly spelt out the fact that the assessment of compensation had to be done in pursuant to Section 26 of the LA Act, 1894, the mention of Section 26 of the LA Act, 1894 in the Judgment and Order dated 27.08.2014 in LA Case No. 31/2013 clearly took into its fold the direction for payment of interest and solatium under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894. Accordingly, this Court finds that the reasoning given by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl in his letter dated 5.7.2016 denying payment of interest and solatium to the petitioners under Section 23 of the LA Act, 1984 is not sustainable and accordingly, the said decision is hereby set aside. 26. With regard to the question of payment of interest @ 9% and 15% per annum to the petitioners as per Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894, this Court finds that the said payment of interest could not have been done in violation of the statutory provision of law. 26. With regard to the question of payment of interest @ 9% and 15% per annum to the petitioners as per Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894, this Court finds that the said payment of interest could not have been done in violation of the statutory provision of law. This Court in its Order dated 31.10.2016, pertaining to the present case, had held that interest @ 15% per annum under Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894 could not be given to the petitioners as no such direction had been given by the Reference Court. This has not been challenged by the petitioners at any time. In the said Order dated 31.10.2016, the further observation made by this Court was with regard to whether interest under Section 28 could be calculated till the date enhanced amount was deposited in the Court. 27. Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894 is reproduced below:- "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 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.]" 28. The statutory law thus states that interest could be awarded only from the date of taking possession of the land. The statutory law thus states that interest could be awarded only from the date of taking possession of the land. As the petitioners have been given interest from the date of pronouncement of the Award No. 5/2012, which is earlier in time than the date of possession of the land, as admitted by all the parties, this Court is of the view that unjust enrichment cannot be allowed in violation of the statutory provisions of law. However, as the amount awarded under Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894 has already been deposited and taken by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to pass any order with regard to the amount already taken. However, this Court is not inclined to exercise its discretion and allow the additional interest of 2 (two) months @ 9% per annum under Section 28 of the LA Act, 1894, as a direction for interest can be made only from the date of taking possession of the land. In the case of Ritesh Tiwari v. State of Haryana, reported in 2010 10 SCC 677 , the Apex Court has held that if an order is bad in inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate the action which was not lawful at its inception, for that the illegality strikes at the root of the order. It would be beyond the competence of any authority to validate such an order. It would be ironical to permit a person to obtain benefits in violation of the law. In the case of C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran, reported in 2006 1 SCC 228 , the Apex Court has held that a right in law exist only and only when it has a lawful origin. 29. In view of the reasons stated above, the respondent No. 1 is directed to make assessment of the compensation payable to the petitioners @ Rs. 200/- per square feet by including interest as per Section 23(1-A) of the LA Act, 1894 and solatium as per Section 23 (2) of the LA Act, 1894. 30. The respondent Nos. 2 and 4 shall thereafter make payment of the said assessed amount to the petitioners by depositing the said amount in the office of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl. 30. The respondent Nos. 2 and 4 shall thereafter make payment of the said assessed amount to the petitioners by depositing the said amount in the office of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl. The assessment should be made by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the respondent No. 2 shall make payment within a further period of 2 (two) months. The respondents shall also deduct the solatium and interest already paid to the petitioners while depositing the amount assessed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl. 31. Consequently, the letter dated 5.07.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector, Aizawl is hereby set aside to the extent that it excludes payment of interest and solatium to the petitioners as per Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the LA Act, 1894. 32. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.