JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Nos. 2 and 4. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 153/2016 whereby, the claim of the appellants for payment of interest and solatium as per Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (L.A. Act) was allowed while the claim for payment of interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act was rejected. 3. Brief facts essential for disposal of the writ appeal is that the appellants are owners of land located at Sairang and Sihhmui. Their lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of new railway line vide Award No. 5/2012 @ Rs. 60/- and Rs. 40/- per sq. feet. Being aggrieved, they filed an application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act seeking reference of the Award. The application was registered as L.A. Case No. 31/2013 and was taken up by the learned Civil Court (L.A. Judge) on being referred to by the Collector. Consequently, the L.A. Judge vide judgment and order dated 27.08.2014 disposed of Reference Application by enhancing the market value of the land at Rs. 200/- per sq. feet. Further, interest @ 9% per annum on the excess amount of the Award was also awarded as per Section 28 of the L.A. Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the N.F. Railway filed R.F.A. No. 24/2014 before this Court and the Collector filed Cross-Objection No. 1/2015. Both the appeal as well as the Cross Objection was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.06.2015. The N.F. Railway preferred further appeal before the Supreme Court vide SLP(C) CC No. 2583/2016 which again was dismissed. Consequently, the Collector made an assessment on the compensation amount to be paid to the petitioners and conveyed the same to the N.F. Railway vide letter dated 18.05.2016. However, in super-session of the said assessment, the Collector made another assessment and conveyed the same to the N.F. Railway vide letter dated 05.07.2016. Consequently, the Collector made an assessment on the compensation amount to be paid to the petitioners and conveyed the same to the N.F. Railway vide letter dated 18.05.2016. However, in super-session of the said assessment, the Collector made another assessment and conveyed the same to the N.F. Railway vide letter dated 05.07.2016. As per the said Communication dated 05.07.2016, the Collector made an assessment on the land value with 9% interest on the excess compensation but without interest and solatium under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred W.P. (C) No. 153/2016. The writ petition was finally heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment and order dated 15.05.2017 in the manner as already indicated herein above. Accordingly, the appellants have preferred the instant appeal. The appeal was taken up on 06.11.2019 and was dismissed on the ground that the appellants had for the first time raised the issue of payment of interest on solatium to which they are entitled and not before the earlier proceeding before the Writ Court. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred SLP(C) No. 6066/2020 before the Apex Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 was pleased to set aside the order dated 06.11.2019 after coming to a finding that the reasoning given by the Writ Appellate Court was erroneous and not consistent with record. In other words, the Apex Court held that the appellants have indeed raised their claim for interest on solatium in their writ petition before the learned Single Judge or the Writ Court. Accordingly, the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. That is how the Writ Appeal is once again laid before us. 6. The short point to be considered in this appeal is therefore as to whether the appellants are entitled to receive further interest on the interest and solatium under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) in terms of Section 28 of the L.A. Act. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that the learned Single Judge in granting solatium and interest to the appellants under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act declined to grant interest as provided under Section 28 of the L.A. Act. He submits that under the L.A. Act, compensation which can be paid to a land owner for acquiring his/her land has 3 (three) components. He submits that under the L.A. Act, compensation which can be paid to a land owner for acquiring his/her land has 3 (three) components. Firstly, it is the market value of the land and secondly, it is the interest payable under Section 23 (1-A) and thirdly, solatium under Section 23 (2) of the L.A. Act. Interest on the excess amounts of compensation determined by the Court is also payable under Section 28 of the L.A. Act. The interest would be @ 9% per annum from the date of which possession is taken over the land up to the date of payment or the excess amount to the Court. Provided further that if the excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the expiry of a period of 1 (one) year from the date of which possession is taken, interest @ 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of 1 (one) year. He therefore submits that the payment of interest on the amount assessed under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act being an integral part of the compensation entitled to a land owner, the same cannot be denied to the appellants and therefore, the impugned judgment and order should be interfered with by this Court. In support of his submission Mr. A.R. Malhotra learned counsel relies upon the following authorities: (1) Sunder vs. Union of India, (2001) 7 SCC 211 (2) Bhanushankar Oghadbhai Mehta (Dead) by Legal Representatives vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation Limited and Another, (2018) 13 SCC 722 (3) Union of India and Another vs. Pushpavathi and Others, (2018) 3 SCC 28 (4) Ravi Prakash Sharma vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2019) 15 SCC 301 (5) Zothansanga and Others vs. District Collector and Others, R.F.A. No. 7/2019, dated 09.12.2021 (6) R. Zathanga and Others vs. Union of India and Others, W.P. (C) No. 6/2022, dated 21.03.2022 7. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC on the other hand submits that the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned judgment and order has not committed any wrong. She submits that the original Award was passed on 05.07.2012 and the same was put to challenge in R.F.A. No. 24/2014 along with Cross Objection No. 1/2015 and both the Appeal and the Cross Objection was dismissed. She submits that the original Award was passed on 05.07.2012 and the same was put to challenge in R.F.A. No. 24/2014 along with Cross Objection No. 1/2015 and both the Appeal and the Cross Objection was dismissed. Thereafter, the matter went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by the N.F. Railway. Therefore, the matter having attained finality, it is not open for the appellants to make a claim for payment of interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act at this stage. She therefore submits that the writ appeal may be dismissed. 8. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General also adopts the argument of Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC and submits that the appellants have waived their right to claim interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act since they have not questioned the judgment and award of the L.A. Judge passed in L.A. Case No. 30/2013. He therefore submits that the writ appeal should be dismissed. 9. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the materials available on records. As already stated herein above, the issue to be decided is as to whether the appellants will be entitled to payment of interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act in respect of the interest computed under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the same Act. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment and order has held that the appellants are entitled to payment of interest as per Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act with the assessment of the market value at enhanced rate of Rs. 200/- per sq. feet. As for the interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act, the learned Single Judge held that as no direction was given by the Reference Court and at the same time, the same having not been challenged by the appellants at any time and the order of the Reference Court having attained a finality, declined to grant the prayer. Therefore, the question is as to whether failure on the part of the appellants to claim payment of interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act in respect of the interest payable under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act would foreclose their right to receive the same. 10. Therefore, the question is as to whether failure on the part of the appellants to claim payment of interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act in respect of the interest payable under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act would foreclose their right to receive the same. 10. In Sunder (supra), the question referred to the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court was as to whether the State is liable to pay interest on the amount envisaged under Section 23 (2) of the L.A. Act and further, in calculating the interest as mentioned in Section 28 of the L.A. Act, the amount of solatium envisage in Section 23 (2) of the Act should be included in or excluded from the sum on which the interest is liable to be paid. Affirming the question in favor of the land owner and against the State, the Apex Court by quoting the reasoning given by the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana vs. Kailashwati, AIR 1980 P&H 117 held that person entitled to the compensation awarded is entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. Paragraph 10 of the judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the above referred case is abstracted below for ready perusal: “Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of section 28 of the act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of Section 28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well.” 11. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well.” 11. The Apex Court also relied upon the decision rendered in Sunder (supra) in a subsequent case i.e. Bhanushankar Oghadbhai Mehta (Dead) by Legal Representatives (supra) by holding that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Sunder (supra), the entitlement of land owners to interest and solatium is automatic. The Apex Court in Union of India and Another vs. Pushpavathi and Others (supra) held that the dispute in relation of non award of interest can be raised by an aggrieved person only by taking recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution in a writ petition and that reference under Section 18 or Section 28A(3) cannot be considered to be an alternative statutory remedy available to the landowner for getting the question of non-award of interest payable under Sections 28 or/and 34 of the Act decided by the Civil Court. 12. Applying the above ratio to the instant case, it may be seen that although the appellants may have not raised their specific grievance immediately after the Award was passed but the fact remains that they have claimed for payment of interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act by filing a writ petition. As such, the appellants cannot be deprived of the benefits of getting interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act. 13. It is further noticed that in cases of similar nature i.e. R. Zathanga and Others (supra) and Zothansanga and Others (supra), which in fact are under the same award i.e. Award No. 5/2012, this Court found the petitioners/appellants entitled to be paid interest under Section 28 of the L.A. Act and accordingly, the District Collector concerned was directed to make the assessment. We find the two decisions to squarely cover the case of the present appellants as well. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is interfered with in so far as interest in respect of Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act under Section 28 of the same Act is concerned. 14. We find the two decisions to squarely cover the case of the present appellants as well. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is interfered with in so far as interest in respect of Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act under Section 28 of the same Act is concerned. 14. In the result, the District Collector, Aizawl is directed to calculate the interest payable to the appellants under Section 28 of the L.A. Act on the enhanced amount of compensation awarded under Section 23 (1-A) and (2) of the L.A. Act for the period with effect from the date of taking possession of the land of the appellants i.e. 03.09.2013 up to the date on which payment was made for the other components i.e. 07.09.2017. Such assessment be made within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and thereafter, the same be forwarded to the N.F. Railway (respondent Nos. 2 and 4), who shall make necessary arrangements of the fund required within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the assessment and deposit the same before the Collector within the given time. The amount deposited before the Collector shall then be released to the appellants immediately. With the above observations and directions, writ appeal stands allowed.