' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---This is an appeal from the judgment dated 11-11-1991 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, partly modifying the judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra, in a matter arising out of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The relevant facts are as follows:
2. Land measuring 14 'Kanals situate within the municipal limits of Mansehra was acquired by the Provincial Government for the construction of a Commercial Training Institute. The notification under section 4, Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 12-12-1979. The Collector announced his award on 11-11-1980. He determined the price of the land at Rs,21,228.40 per Kanal. The appellants who were the owners of the land were not satisfied with the award and at their instance the Collector made a reference under section 18 of the said Act to the Senior Civil Judge, Mansehra. After considering the evidence led before him the learned Senior Civil Judge, by his judgment dated 14- 2-1990, re-determined the price of the land at Rs,30,000 per Kanal. He also directed that the owners should be paid compound interest at the rate of eight per centum per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date the Collector took possession of the acquired land till the payment of compensation to the appellants.
3. From the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge the Provincial Government filed an appeal before the High Court. A Division Bench in the High Court affirmed the finding of the learned Senior Civil Judge on the price of the acquired land and dismissed the appeal on 24-2-1991. The Provincial Government then filed a review application pointing out that the award of compound interest at the rate of eight per centum per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation was in conflict with the provisions of section 28, Land Acquisition Act, as in force in the Province. The High Court found substance in the contention; accordingly, it accepted the review application and directed that in conformity with the said section the owners should be paid simple interest at the rate of six per centum per annum. From the judgment of the High Court the owners have come in appeal to this Court.
4. Before examining the contention raised on behalf of the appellants it will be of advantage to take notice of the two amendments made in section 28, Land Acquisition Act. The said section before the amendments read as follows:-- "If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court."
' This section was amended by Act, III of 1969. The amendment raised the rate of interest to 8 per centum per annum and provided that the interest would be compound in nature. In the N.-W.F.P., section 28 was further amended by Ordinance No, V of 1983. The amendment recast the section to read as follows:-- "If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay simple interest on such excess at the rate of six per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court."
' It will be noticed that the section as it stood after the amendment altered not only the nature of the interest from compound to simple but also reduced its rate from eight to six per centum per annum. Consequently, after the promulgation of the Ordinance the Courts could, in the event they raised the amount of compensation, award only simple interest and that too at the rate of six per centum per annum on the enhanced amount. As will be noticed the learned Senior Civil Judge announced his judgment by which he enhanced the compensation on 14-2-1990, that is, when section 28 already stood recast by the Amending Ordinance.
5. On behalf of the appellants it was contended that as the land was acquired by the Provincial Government long before the promulgation of the Ordinance they were entitled to compound interest at the old rate on the enhanced amount. This contention is clearly without any merit. Under section 28 the interest is to be paid on the enhanced amount of compensation; consequently, unless there is a determination that the amount of compensation as found by the Collector is less than what ought to have been awarded, the question of paying any interest to the owner does not arise. The owner cannot, therefore, claim any vested right in either the rate or nature of interest allowable under the law prior to the said determination. The High Court was thus right in holding that the interest payable to appellants was to be regulated by section 28 as it stood on the day when the Senior Civil Judge announced his judgment.
6. Section 4 of the Amending Ordinance of 1983 makes the position further clear. It read as follows:- - "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 28 , as amended by this Ordinance, the interest already accrued on the amount awarded, immediately before the commencement of this Ordinance, shall not be affected and shall be payable as if this Ordinance had not come into force."
In this section the expressions -- 'the interest already accured' and 'the amount awarded' are of significance. They indicate that only such cases were intended to be kept out of the purview of the recast section 28, where there had already been a determination on the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Collector and interest had accured on the enhanced amount before the Ordinance came into force. By necessary implication no protection from the operation of the recast section 28 was afforded to cases where no finding with regard to the insufficiency of the amount fixed by the Collector had been recorded and for that reason no accrual of interest had yet taken place. In the circumstances the appellants cannot claim that as the acquisition of the land was prior in point of time to the recasting of section 28 they were entitled to receive interest at the rate in force prior to the promulgation of the Amending Ordinance of 1983.
7. This appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.