ORDER
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. The State of Madhya Pradesh is invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is aggrieved against an order passed by the 2nd Addl. District Judge, Gwalior. A copy of this order has been placed on the record as annexure P-l. The brief facts for the purposes of this petition be noticed as under.
2. The State of Madhya Pradesh acquired land for construction of Sind Mahua Canal. A notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). This was issued on 4th March, 1989. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 12th September, 1989. The Collector gave its award on 30th October, 1991. The total amount which was payable under the award was determined as Rs. 5,61,190/-. The break up of this amount is as under :-
(a) Market value Rs. 3,48,560/-
(b) Interest @ 12% U/s 23-A (1) Rs. 1,08,062/-
(c) Solatium @ 30% Rs. 1,04,568/-
Total : Rs. 5,61,190/-
3. The State deposited Rs. 6,17,310/-. This amount included the interest which had accrued in between.
4. The claimants preferred a writ petition in this Court. This bears No. 679 of 1992. According to them they were entitled to interest from the date they were dispossessed. This date according to them was 3rd February, 1985.
5. This petition No. 679 of 1992 came to be disposed of on 23rd July, 1992 directing the parties to seek a remedy before the Land Acquisition Officer. This was done. An application was filed before the Land Acquisition Collector. On this order annexure P-8 came to be passed. It was concluded that the claimants would be entitled to interest amounting to Rs. 5,67,804/-. The State felt aggrieved against this order. The Collector referred the matter to the reference court under Section 18 of the Act. A preliminary objection was raised that reference at the asking of the State was not competent. This matter was considered by the reference court. The reference court concluded that State of Madhya Pradesh had no locus standi to seek a reference. Copy of this order has been placed on the record as annexure P-14. Against this order first appeal bearing No. 52 of 1993 was preferred. This was dismissed on 28th March, 1994. It was held that State of Madhya Pradesh cannot seek a reference. It was however, observed that the State can if so advised prefer a writ petition in this Court. It is under these circumstances the present writ petition came to be filed.
6. The question as to whether the land owner is entitled to the interest from the date of dispossession or only from the date when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, be examined. This date i.e. date of dispossession is earlier to the issuance of Section 4 of the notification. This is 3rd February, 1985.
7. This matter has since been considered by the Supreme Court in the case reported as State of H. P. and Ors. v. Dharamdas, (1995) 5 SCC 683. In the above case, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 27th of February, 1986. The possession was however taken from the land owners in the year 1972. The High Court allowed 12% interest over and above the interest which was payable under Section 23(1)(A)(1) of the Act. This was challenged. The Supreme Court of India was of the view that this interest of 12% over and above the interest allowed under Section 23(1)(A)(1) would not be permissible. It however, made clear that the claimants would be entitled to interest in terms of Section 23(1)(A)(1) from the date of taking possession till the making of the award. The Supreme Court took note of the earlier decision given in the case reported as Mir Fazeelath Hussain v. Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, (1995) 3 SCC 208. It was observed as under :-
“The controversy is no longer res integra. It is settled law by catena of decisions of this Court. In Mir Fazeelath Hussain v. Special Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition, a Bench of three Judges, to which one of us B. L. Hansaria, J. was a member, dealt with the power of the Court to grant interest on equitable consideration and held thus : (SCC pp. 213-14)
“10. It has also been submitted by Shri Madhava Reddy that higher rate of interest may be ordered to do equity between the parties. We are unable to concede, as, had the present been a case of non-awarding of any interest, we would have done so, because, interest in such case may become payable on equity, for it is meant to make good the loss suffered by a person due to delayed payment. This view has been reiterated recently by this Court in Kalimpong Land and Building Ltd. v. State of W. B. in which payment of interest was ordered, even when acquisition was under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, which statute has made no specific provision, unlike Act at hand, for payment of interest but equity has no role when the question relates to rate of interest. Whether the rate of interest should be 6% or 9% is not a matter which would require invocation of court’s equitable jurisdiction. The same has to be governed by statutory provision. Had the rate of interest been too low, we could have perhaps on equity granted some relief. But 6% has been the rate for a very long period insofar as the Act is concerned as the enhancement came only in 1984 whereas the Act is of 1894. So, we are not satisfied if equity demands granting of relief in question.”
Similar view was taken by this Court in several decisions. It is settled legal position that when the statute deals with payment of interest to the claimants either under Section 31 or Section 28 of the Act, the Court has no power to award interest in a manner other than the one in which the statute prescribes payment. It is seen that in a case where decision has been taken exercising the urgency power under Section 17(4) of the Act and the award was made subsequent to the taking over possession, obviously the claimant would be entitled to payment of interest under Section 31 from the date of taking possession till the amount is deposited pursuant to the award of the Collector under Section 11. On reference, if the compensation is enhanced under Section 28 of the Act and the proviso thereto the claimants would be entitled to the rates of interest specified therein. Apart from these two provisions, there is no other provision under the Act empowering the Court to award interest on equitable grounds, in addition to statutory rates of interest prescribed under the Act. Equitable consideration has no role to play in determination of the compensation and the manner of awarding interest as enjoined under the Act. The Act is to be administered in the manner laid in the Act and in no other way. As a concomitance, the equity jurisdiction of the Court is taken out and the Act enjoins the Court to grant interest as per the statutory rates specified in the Act.”
8. In view of the above state of law the claimants would be entitled to interest from the date possession was taken over. This would be in terms of Section 23(1)(A)(1) of the Act.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents submit that the claimants would also be entitled to interest in terms of Section 34 of the Act. There can be no dispute with the proposition that Section 34 of the Act would equally be attracted in case there is late payment of compensation amount. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Supreme Court in the case reported as State of Punjab and Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Randhawa and Anr., AIR 1992 SC 473. In paras 5 and 6, it was observed as under :-
“Reading the two provisions together, it follows that the amount referred to in Section 23(1)(A)(1) is not a part of the market value and, therefore, calculation of solatium would not take into account that amount.”
“Similarly in calculating interest under Section 34 of the Act, for the first year 9 per cent and for subsequent years 15 per cent is payable on the amount awarded as compensation. Interest runs on the sum payable as compensation excluding the interest component. Thus when interest for the 2nd year of default is to be calculated at 15 per cent, the interest of 9 per cent for the amount would not be added to the compensation for calculating the interest.”
10. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to the benefits of Section 34 apart from the amount payable in terms of Section 23(1)(A)(1). The interest would be payable at the rate which was payable from time to time. Now it is payable at the rate of 9%. Earlier this was payable at the rate of 6% and still earlier at the rate of 4%.
11. It is accordingly held :-
(i) The claimants are entitled to interest as per the decision reported as State of H. P. and Ors. v. Dharamdas, (1995) 5 SCC 683.
(ii) The claimants would also be entitled to interest as per the provisions of Section 34 of the Act.
12. Let the amount be released within three months. Petition is disposed of accordingly.