Judgment : R. Raghunandan Rao, J. The land of the 1 st respondent, to an extent of 1105 square meters, in R.S.No.143/4A8 of Vuyyuru Village and Mandal, Krishna District, was acquired for the purpose of widening the national highway by the National Highway Authority of India. 2. A notification under Section-3(A) of the National Highway Act, 1956 [for short “the NH Act, 1956”] was issued on 30.07.2017. The notification under Section-3(D) of the NH Act, 1956, was published on 01.06.2018 and on 15.06.2018 in the newspapers. Thereafter, an award was passed, under Section-3(G) of the NH Act, 1956, on 31.08.2019. Under this award, the compensation of Rs.1,81,23,250/- was determined to be paid and the same was also paid on 01.07.2022. There was no dispute regarding these dates. However, there is a dispute as to the date on which the possession of the land was taken. According to the 1 st respondent, the possession of the land was taken on 01.06.2018. This is disputed by the acquisition authority who contends that the possession of land was taken only on 21.10.2022, after the payment of compensation. 3. The 1 st respondent contending that interest was payable to her on the compensation amount, on account of delay in payment of compensation, had approached this Court by way of W.P.No.25098 of 2022. A Learned Single Judge of this, by an Order dated 12.09.2022, had disposed of the Writ Petition, holding that the possession of the land had been taken over on 01.06.2019 and directed payment of interest from 01.06.2019 to 01.07.2022 @15% per annum. 4. Aggrieved by this Order, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present Writ Appeal. 5. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.S. Varma, learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, had fairly conceded that the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors , (2019) 9 SCC 304 would be applicable and there would be liability for payment of interest on the appellants. However, he would contend that since the compensation was paid on 01.07.2022, prior to the appellants taking possession of the land on 21.10.2022, no interest needs to be paid. Tarsem Singh & Ors , (2019) 9 SCC 304 would be applicable and there would be liability for payment of interest on the appellants. However, he would contend that since the compensation was paid on 01.07.2022, prior to the appellants taking possession of the land on 21.10.2022, no interest needs to be paid. He would further contend that the Learned Single Judge, without considering the counter affidavit filed by the appellants, contending that the possession of the land was taken on 21.10.2022, had directed payment of interest, from 01.06.2019 till 01.07.2022. 6. Sri Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Prathiwada Varun Kumar, learned counsel for the 1 st respondent, would contend that the possession of the land was taken on 01.06.2018. He would also contend that even otherwise, interest would be payable from the date of publication of the Section-3D notification, which was on 01.06.2018. He would contend that compensation would be payable from the date of vesting of the land with the State and delay in payment of compensation would have to be compensated by payment of interest. He would contend that the liability to pay interest, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short “the LA Act, 1894”] and under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [for short “the Act, 2013”] arises from the date on which the land is vested in the State. He would contend that the starting point for the calculation of interest starts from the date of notification under Section-3D, as that is the date on which the land is vested with the State. 7. Section-3(J) of the NH Act, 1956, stipulates that the provisions of the LA Act, 1894, would not be applicable. Certain affected persons, affected by non-payment of interest, had approached the Courts, which resulted in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Union of India & Anr Vs. Tarsem Singh & Ors (2019) 9 SCC 304 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after considering the fact that no interest would be payable under the provisions of the NH Act, 1956, even on delayed payment of compensation, had held that Section-3(J) of the NH Act, 1956 was violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India and declared it to be unconstitutional. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after considering the fact that no interest would be payable under the provisions of the NH Act, 1956, even on delayed payment of compensation, had held that Section-3(J) of the NH Act, 1956 was violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India and declared it to be unconstitutional. Apart from this, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India also held, after considering the view of the Government, that interest would have to be granted, under the provisions of the NH Act, 1956, even in cases that arise between 1997 to 2015, in terms of Sections- 23(1)-(A) & (2) of the LA Act, 1894. 8. Section 23(1)-(A) of the LA Act, 1894 stipulates that the interest @9% per annum would be payable for delay in payment of compensation up to the first year from the date of possession being taken and a further interest @15% per annum for delay beyond the first year. Applying the said principle, the interest that would be payable to the 1 st respondent, in the present case, would be @9% per annum for the first year of delay and @15% thereafter calculated from the date on which possession is taken. 9. Sri Venkata Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has now raised a contention that the interest should be calculated not from the date of taking possession but from the date on which the notification under Section-3D of NH Act, 1956, is issued as the lands stands vested with the State from the date of such notification. We are afraid that we are unable to accept this contention in view of fact that it is only upon loss of possession that the land loser would lose the enjoyment of the land. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate to apply the principles set out, in the LA Act, 1894 that interest should be calculated only from the date of loss of possession. The Act, 2013 also stipulates a similar provision under Section-80 of the said Act, 2013. 10. In that view of the matter, we hold that the 1 st respondent would be entitled to interest from the date of loss of possession. However, the question of whether such loss of possession occurred on 01.06.2018 or on 21.10.2022 has not been resolved. 11. 10. In that view of the matter, we hold that the 1 st respondent would be entitled to interest from the date of loss of possession. However, the question of whether such loss of possession occurred on 01.06.2018 or on 21.10.2022 has not been resolved. 11. The 1 st respondent contends that she lost possession on 01.06.2018, in paragraph No.8 of her affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The State, on the other hand contends that the possession was taken only on 21.10.2022, as can be seen from the counter affidavit filed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. It is the contention of the Revenue Divisional Officer that it is only then that notices for taking over of the possession of the land had been issued. 12. The aforesaid question of facts cannot be determined by us at this stage, on the basis of pleading on both sides, without any further documentation being available. 13. In the circumstances, this Writ Appeal is allowed setting aside the Order of the Learned Single Judge and the matter is remanded back to the competent authority for a determination as to the date on which the possession of the land had been lost by the respondent. 14. Upon completion of such exercise, the respondent would be entitled to interest, on the period of delay in paying the compensation to the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above Judgment, had directed payment of interest, in accordance with the provisions of the LA Act, 1894, as the acquisition of land, in that case had taken place when the 1894 Act was in force. In the present case, the acquisition of land was undertaken when the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is in force. Accordingly, the interest, if any, payable for the period of delay, ascertained, as directed above, shall be in terms of Section-80 of the Act, 2013. 15. Needless to say, this exercise, including payment of interest, if any, shall be completed within a period three months from the date of receipt of this Order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any shall stand closed.