JUDGMENT S.D. Khare, J. - This is an appeal filed by the State of U. P. against Ram Kishore and others against a decree passed by the District Judge, Moradabad, on 26th March, 1955, allowing compensation to the respondents on the basis of market value of the land on the date of the notification, viz., 23rd November, 1952. 2. An area of land measuring 2.80 acres situate in village Chandausi, district Momdabad, was acquired under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act, 26 of 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 4,740/- only as compensation for the land. The proprietors of the land, feeling aggrieved by the award, made an application before the Compensation Officer for a reference being made to the District Judge. Their claim was that they were entitled to receive compensation at the market rate prevailing on the date of the notification under Section 9 of the Act. The State did not put in appearance in the court of the learned District Judge, who, after considering the evidence, adduced by the proprietors of the land, awarded Rs. 15,163/6/- as compensation to Sahu Ram Kishore and Rs. 1,366/12/3 to Radhey Shyam and Soloney Shyam. 3. The learned District Judge substantially enhanced the rate of compensation because this Court had held in the case of H.P. Khandewal v. State of U.P., 1954 ALJ 673 that the provision with regard to fixation of composition under Section 11 of the Act, cording to which it had to be determined at the rate prevalent on that date of the notification or on 1st September, 1939, whichever might be lower were invalid. Once both the provisos to Section 11 of the Act were declared to be invalid, the court below had no option but to allow compensation at the market rate. 4. The Constitution of India was amended with retrospective effect by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the provision regarding compensation as contained in the Act could not be questioned in any court of law. The result was that the view expressed by this court in H.P. Khandewal's 1954 A.L.J. 673 case ceased to be good law. 4. The Constitution of India was amended with retrospective effect by the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the provision regarding compensation as contained in the Act could not be questioned in any court of law. The result was that the view expressed by this court in H.P. Khandewal's 1954 A.L.J. 673 case ceased to be good law. It was held in the cases of S. Borrow v. State of U.P., AIR 1958 Allahabad 154 and State of U.P. v. H. H. Maharaja Brij jendra Singh, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 14 that after the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution the principles regarding the award of compensation as contained in Section II of the Act could no longer be questioned in a court of law, and, therefore, compensation had to be awarded on the basis of the provisions as contained in the Act. 5. In the present case compensation had been calculated by the learned District Judge on the basis of the Market value as it obtained on the date of the notification under Section 9(2) of the Act. Now in view of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and the two decisions S. Borrow v. State of U.P. and State of U.P. v. H.H. Maharaja Brijendra Singh referred to above, the compensation shall have to be calculated on the basis of Section 11 of the Act, that is to say, the compensation payable will be with reference to the market value of the property as it obtained on 1st September, 1939. 6. The appeal is allowed. The decree passed by the court below is set aside and the case is remanded to the court of the District Judge, Moradabad, with a direction that he shall decide the quantum of compensation on the basis of Section 11 of the Act. The parts will be at liberty to lead fresh evidence. In the circumstances the case the parties shall eir own costs.