1. In all these first appeals since according to learned Counsel for both sides only one question of law is involved for decision, they were finally heard together. The question of law that falls for considerations of this Court is framed thus:

(i) Whether the claimants in the compensation cases i.e. the appellants herein in all these appeals are entitled to interest @ 5% per annum as provided under Section 17 (3) of the Coal - Bearing Areas (Acquisition And Development) Act, 1957 with Rules (for short Act of 1957) irrespective of the fact that during the period of the said delay possession of the suit fields were not taken by the respondent-acquiring body?

2. In support of the appeals, learned Counsel for appellants in all these appeals made the following submissions:

(i) After issuance of Section 9 notification by virtue of Section 10 of the Act of 1957 the land under notification belonging to the appellants vested in the Central Government and the effect of vesting is complete denudation of title, right, power and control in and over the suit property including the one of possession thereof and therefore, the consequences must follow, namely, actual payment of compensation effective from the date of vesting and in the absence of payment of compensation the claimants will be entitled to statutory interest provided by Section 17 (3) of the Act of 1957 @ 5 % per annum for such period of delay.

(ii) According to learned Counsel for appellants it is the case of the appellants that in fact they had given possession immediately after Section 9 notification was published. But then Mr. S.C. Mehadia learned Counsel for respondent countered this submission saying that the date on which possession was taken has been mentioned by the appellants themselves in the memo of appeal which is after publication of Section 9 notification. Advocate Shri Charde for appellants, therefore, argued that this Court should decide the appeals on the premise that possession was taken afterwards.

(iii) Since Section 10 of the Act of 1957 provides that there shall be vesting of suit land upon publication of declaration under Section 9 notification free from all encumbrances the same would include the encumbrances of physical possession of the claimant on the suit land and therefore, de jure and de facto Central Government becomes the owner and possessor of the suit property. Section 12 of the Act of 1957 provides for a power to take possession in case of any resistance and it is not the case of the respondent – acquiring body that any of the claimants or his representative ever obstructed in the process of taking possession and as a matter of fact admittedly till the date of taking of actual possession no action for taking possession after issuance of Section 9 notification was ever taken and thus claimant is deprived of property for which he must get compensation at the point of time when he so deprived and in case of delay he must get the statutory interest provided under Section 17 (3) of the Act of 1957.

(iv) Inviting my attention to Section 13 (5) and Section 17 (1) and (2) of the Act of 1957 he argued that there is obligation to pay compensation to the right person in Sub Section (1). In sub section (2) in case there is refusal on the part of the claimant to accept the amount of compensation or there is dispute about sufficiency of the amount of compensation or there is defect in title or apportionment thereof the obligation is to deposit the entire amount of compensation with the Tribunal. In these cases at hand none of these contingencies indicated in sub Section (2) admittedly exist and therefore, the only option for the respondent/acquiring body was either to pay the compensation and in case of doubt on any count whatsoever to deposit the same with the Tribunal. In these cases the amount was neither paid to the claimants nor deposited with the Tribunal but it remained with the respondent. The provisions of the Act of 1957 do not co