The interpretation of Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and the similarity in the interest payable under both sections.

1. This is an appeal which questions the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 26th April, 2002. The appellants think that the compensation granted at enhanced rate by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is quite on the higher side. The Reference Court found the true market value of the acquired land to be of Rs.82,500/- at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court also granted enhanced compensation for the teak trees and other trees. The other challenge made in this appeal relates to grant of additional component under Section 23(1A) and grant of interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. During the pendency of this appeal, this Court decided an appeal being First Appeal No.143/2003 on 16th August, 2017, in which the acquired land was covered by the same notification and same project and was from the same village as the land involved in this appeal. By the judgment dated 16th August, 2017, this Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Reference Court regarding valuation of the acquired land and the teak trees. But, this Court modified the operative portion of the order passed by the Reference Court in respect of grant of additional component under Section 23(1A) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Such confirmation and modification made by this Court in the judgment dated 16th August, 2017 was based upon the consideration of the sale instances which represented true market value of the acquired land and valuation of the teak trees and other trees and the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in respect of grant of additional component and interest on the enhanced compensation.

3. Shri M.A. Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants graciously concedes that all the issues involved in this appeal are covered by the view taken by this Court in the said judgment dated 16th August, 2017.

4. Shri Anand Parchure, learned counsel for the respondents also accepts the fact that so far as the substantive challenge is concerned, same is covered by the view taken by this Court in the said judgment dated 16th August, 2017. However, he has a difference of opinion as regards the interest to be granted under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. He submits that the modification made by this Court in the operative order passed in First Appeal No.143/2003 in respect of grant of interest at the rate of 9% p.a. was based upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(4) AllMR 513 (F.B.), wherein a view has been taken that the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. can be granted for a period of one year only from the date of award and not from the date of possession, as a result of interpretation made by the Full Bench of this Court, of the provision of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act and in the present case the interest at the rate of 9% p.a. has been granted for a period of one year by resorting to the provision of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore, the view so taken by the Full Bench of this Court would have no bearing upon grant of interest by the Reference Court under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel, however, raises no objection in respect of modification to be done on the additional component portion of the impugned order.

5. If one goes through the provisions of Section 28 and Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, one would require no time to understand that these provisions are in pari materia. They are identical in every sense except for the stage at which the interest is to be granted. Section 34 is about the interest to be granted at the rate of 9% for a period of one year by the Collector at the stage of Section 11 Award, while Section 28 is on the interest to be granted not by the Collector but by a Civil Court which decides the appl