ORDER : 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in First Appeal No. 692 of 2019. 4. The limited issue involved in this appeal is about the liability to pay interest whether commences from the date of taking possession or only from the date of award. The Court while issuing notice on 13.01.2021 noted thus: “Counsel for the petitioners submits that the High Court has glossed over the crucial fact that in the present case, urgency clause was invoked. In that event, in light of the exposition of this Court in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. vs. D.D.A. and Others, (2004) 4 SCC 79 , the interest ought to be payable from the date of taking possession. Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also on the special leave petition, returnable in four weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. Liberty is granted to serve standing counsel for the State of Maharashtra.” 5. It is discerned from the judgment of the Reference Court dated 22.11.2021 that the interest was ordered to be paid from 04.04.1997 when possession was taken until 03.04.1998 for the first year at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum from 04.04.1998 till the date of payment, i.e. 08.09.2004. The relevant part of the operative order of the Reference Court reads thus: “.....(iv) The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall also pay interest to the petitioner on the difference of market value @ Rs. 9% per annum from 04.04.1997, (possession taken) to 03.04.1998 for the first year and thereafter @ Rs. 15% per annum from 04.04.1998 till the date of payment i.e. 08.09.2004 (as Form ‘CC’) under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.” 6. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has not specifically dealt with this aspect whilst overturning the said direction issued by the Reference Court. 7. 15% per annum from 04.04.1998 till the date of payment i.e. 08.09.2004 (as Form ‘CC’) under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.” 6. The High Court in the impugned judgment and order has not specifically dealt with this aspect whilst overturning the said direction issued by the Reference Court. 7. It is well-settled that the normal rule is that if on account of acquisition of land a person is deprived of possession of his property, he should be paid compensation immediately and if the same is not paid to him forthwith, he would be entitled to interest on the compensation amount from the date of taking possession of the land till the date of payment thereof as expounded in R.L. Jain (D) by LRs. vs. D.D.A. and Others, (2004) 4 SCC 79 (in particular paragraph 17.1). 8. Accordingly, we partly allow this appeal and modify the impugned order passed by the High Court and instead, restore the direction issued by the Reference Court, reproduced above. 9. In other words, the appellant would be entitled for interest on or from date when the possession of the land was taken i.e. 04.04.1997 at the rate specified by the Reference Court. 10. Nothing more needs to be done in this appeal. 11. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 12. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.