Bharucha, J. -- This appeal has been referred to a bench of three Judges by reason of the contrary views taken by two Benches of two learned Judges in Special Talzsildar (LA) PWD Schemes, Vijayawada v. M.A. Jabbar [(1995) 2 SCC 142] on the one hand, and in Asstt. Commissioner, Gadag Sub-Division, Gadag v. Mathapathi Basavwl1lewwa [(1995) 6 SCC 355] on the other. The referral order also makes a reference to State of H.P v. Dharam Das [(1995) 5 SCC 683], but no reasoning can be discerned therein.

We are required to consider the provisions of section 23(A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the context of the following facts : possession of land bearing survey no 311/3, admeasuring 2 acres and 16 guntas, situated at village Hirenandi, Gokak taluk, Belgaum district, Karnataka, was taken by the respondents from the appellants, who were the owners thereof, on 1st June 1977, for the purposes of the construction of an inigation channel. On 8th March, 1991, a notification was issued under section 4(1) of the Act in relation to the said land. It was followed by a notification under section 6. The provisions of section 17 were thereafter applied. On 6th February, 1993, an award was made and compensation was awarded to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 10,000/per acre. On a reference made by the appellants, the District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer and the State preferred appeals before the High Court. Therein, compensation was reduced to Rs. 41,400/- per acre. The decree so passed was put in execution. Before the executing Court, the question of additional compensation under section 23(1-A) arose. The executing Court granted the appellants additional compensation under section 23(1-A) from the date on which possession of the land was taken, namely, 1st June, 1977, to the date on which the section 4 notification was issued, namely, 8th March, 1991. The High Court before whom a revision petition was presented by the LAO, took the view that the appellants were entitled to the additional compensation from the date of the section 4 notification, namely, 8th Mach, 1991, to the date of the award, namely, 6th February, 1993. Against this order of the High Court, this appeal has been filed.

Section 23( 1-A) reads thus:

"23(1-A). In additional to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case, award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (I), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

Explanation -- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court, shall be excluded." It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are entitled to compensation for the period 1st June, 1977 to 8th March, 1991, i.e., from the date on which possession of the said land was taken till the date of publication of the section 4(1) notification.

He finds sustenance for this contention in the decision of this Court in Mathapathi Basavannewwa's case [(1995) 6 SCC 355] where a similar contention was upheld. The provisions of section 23( 1-A) were analysed but, said the Court, 'strict construction leads to unjust result, hardship to the owner and defeats legislative object.' In its view, therefore, the expression 'whichever is earlier' in section 23(1-A) had to be construed in that backdrop and the claimant was entitled to the additional amount from the date of taking possession. Since advance possession was taken before the publication of the notification under section 4(1), 'the claimants, by necessary implication, are entitled to the