JUDGMENT K.N. Singh, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur dated 23-7-1973. 2. The appellant's agricultural land situated in village Panki Gangaganj, district Kanpur, having an area of 3 bighas 14 biswas was acquired for a scheme known as "Kalyanpur Panki Pandu and Green Belt Scheme No. 40" a scheme framed under the provisions of the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, 1945. Preliminary notification under S. 53 of the said Act was issued on July 25, 1959, and the final notification under S. 60 of the Act was issued on 23-12-59. Smt. Sukh Rani, the owner of the plots, filed objection claiming compensation. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded a sum of Rs. 1128/- only at the rate of 80 times of the land revenue of the Bhumidhari plots. As the appellant was not satisfied with the compensation, at her instance, reference was made to the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur, for determining the compensation. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 23-7-73 awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 1/- sqr. yard. Aggrieved, the appellant filed this appeal claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per sqr. yard. During the pendency of the appeal Snit. Sukh Rani died. Thereafter, Babu Lal, her son, has been substituted as the appellant who has prosecuted the appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and the appellant was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sqr. yard which was the prevailing market value of the similar land in the locality. In determining the amount of compensation it is necessary to keep in mind the provisions of S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which lays down that the market value of the land on the date of preliminary notification should be taken into consideration. The scheme for which the land was acquired was formulated under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, 1945. S. 17 of the said Act makes the provisions, of the Land Acquisition Act applicable as modified by that Act, Schedule to the Act contains modification of the Act. Cl. 10 of the Schedule modifies S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The scheme for which the land was acquired was formulated under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act, 1945. S. 17 of the said Act makes the provisions, of the Land Acquisition Act applicable as modified by that Act, Schedule to the Act contains modification of the Act. Cl. 10 of the Schedule modifies S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the amended provisions the market value of the land shall be the market value according to the use to which the land was put on the date the preliminary notification was published. The Kanpur Urban Area Development Act was repealed by S. 58 of the U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, and the scheme framed under the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act was continued and validated under S. 577 of the Adhiniyam. Consequently, the acquisition made under the 1955 Act shall be deemed to he under 1959 Adhinivam. 4. The U. P. Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam. 1959 also contains Schedule II which makes modification in the Land Acquisition Act. Cl. 10 of the Schedule II amends S. 23 of the Act in the matter relating to award of compensation. It lays down that the market value of the land shall be the market value according to the use to which the land was put on the date with reference to which the market value is to be determined under S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thus, the market value of a land acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act is determined on the basis of the market value of the land on the date of publication which contemplates the market value having regard to the potentialities of the land whereas under the Adhiniyani market value is to be determined on the basis of the user of the land. In Om Prakash v. State of U. P., AIR 1974 SC 1202 , modifications made in S. 23 by the Adhiniyam in the Land Acquisition Act was held to be discriminatory and ultra vires. The Supreme Court held that the modifications were discriminators in nature. The effect of the judgment is that in considering the market value of the land the Court is free to consider the potentialities of the land and it is not necessary to restrict the market value on the basis of the user of the land. 5. The Supreme Court held that the modifications were discriminators in nature. The effect of the judgment is that in considering the market value of the land the Court is free to consider the potentialities of the land and it is not necessary to restrict the market value on the basis of the user of the land. 5. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant's land which was acquired for development scheme is situated at Kalyanpur Panki Road on the outskirts, of the Kanpur town which is a fast developing town. There is no dispute that the land is situated near the Panki Power House. In the circumstances there was possibility of the use of the land in the near future as a potential building site. Though on the date of the issue of the preliminary notification the land was put for agricultural purposes, but, it was reasonably capable of being used as building site in the near future. It is well settled as observed in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, AIR 1939 PC 98 , that it is the possibilities of the land and not its realised possibilities that must be taken into consideration while considering the question of market value. In Raghubans Narain Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Government. AIR 1967 SC 465 . it was again held that the market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under S. 23 of the Act means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having due regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In Collector v. Harisingh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472 . In Collector v. Harisingh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472 . the Supreme Court observed that while considering the question of the potential value of a land regard must be had to its condition and situation, the user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put, its suitability for building purposes its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension, whether the nearby town is a developing or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of pressure of building activity towards the land acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof. The market value of the land in dispute has to be determined in the background of the principles laid down in the aforesaid cases. 6. The Tribunal has, itself, observed that the land was fit for use as building site and as such its market value should be determined keeping in view its potentialities. The Tribunal, further, observed that the land was situated near Abadi, factory, and grove and as such, it was potential building site. There is, thus no escape from the conclusion that even though the appellant had been using the land for agricultural purposes but, it had potentialities of building site and as such, the market value should be determined on that basis. 7. No exemplar in the shape of sale deed of the land situated in the village Panki Gangaganj has been filed. The appellant filed certified copies of two registered sale deeds, one executed by Sadho Ram on 30-4-66 transferring the land, situated in village Panki Gangaganj. having an area of 2 bighas for Rs. 8000;-. This sale deed shows that the market value of similar land situated in village Panki Gangaganj (the village where the plots in dispute are situated) was Rs. 4000/- per bigha. The Tribunal has discarded this exemplar on the ground that it relates to the year 1966 whereas the preliminary notification in the instant case was issued in July 1959. Another sale-deed (Ex. 31 relied upon was executed by Brij Mohan Lal Misra on 27-11-63 transferring an area of 1000 sqr. yards situated in village Kalyanpur which adjoins village Panki Gangaganj for a consideration of Rs. 8000/-. According to this sale-deed the prevailing rate of land comes to Rs. 8/- per Sqr. Yard. Another sale-deed (Ex. 31 relied upon was executed by Brij Mohan Lal Misra on 27-11-63 transferring an area of 1000 sqr. yards situated in village Kalyanpur which adjoins village Panki Gangaganj for a consideration of Rs. 8000/-. According to this sale-deed the prevailing rate of land comes to Rs. 8/- per Sqr. Yard. Apart from these two sale deeds no other exemplar was filed by the appellant. The Tribunal rightly observed that these sale-deeds could not be taken into account as safe-guide in determining the market value of the land in dispute as the price of the land has all along been increasing every year. 8. The appellant then placed reliance on an award given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 26-10-68 (E 1) in respect of the land situated in village Mohsinpur alias Musawanpur which is about a mile away from the land in dispute. In that case the preliminary notification was issued on 29-12-62 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 2400/- per bigha as compensation. The appellant placed reliance on another award dated 5-5-66 (Ex. 4) in respect of village Muzaffarpur which is situated few miles away from the plots in dispute. The preliminary notification in respect of the land involved in that award was issued in 1948 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per bigha. None of the exemplars including the sale-deeds and awards furnish any guide to determine the market value but the sale deeds as well as the awards show that the market value of the land was not less than Rs. 2/- per sqr. yard. In case of the sale deed, Ex. 2, dated 21-4-66 the land situated in the village Panki Gangaganj had been sold at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per bigha. Under Ex. 3 dated 27-11-63 the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 8/- per sqr. yard in village Kalyanpur which is an adjoining village. Thus, the price of the land was in no way less than Rs. 2/'- per sqr. yard. Giving allowance to the increase in the price of land which may have taken place since July 1959 to 1963, it would be reasonable to determine the market value at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per sqr. yard. The Tribunal has awarded at Rs. 2/'- per sqr. yard. Giving allowance to the increase in the price of land which may have taken place since July 1959 to 1963, it would be reasonable to determine the market value at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per sqr. yard. The Tribunal has awarded at Rs. 1/- only which does not appear to be reasonable and justified having regard to the situation of the land and its potentialities. 9. I, therefore, hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per sqr. yard. 10. Learned counsel then urged that the Tribunal committed error in rejecting the appellant's claim for grant of 15/- per cent solatium. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's claim for solatium placing reliance on the proviso to S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959. As already discussed the amendments in S. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act by Schedule II of the Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam has been declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court and as such the said proviso cannot be pressed into service to deny solatium to the appellant. S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act lays down a mandatory provision directing the Court to award 1; per cent solatium on the compulsory nature of acquisition. Since the appellant's land was compulsorily acquired, he is entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% on the amount of compensation awarded to him. 11. Learned Standing Counsel has, however, urged that S. 23(2) was not in operation in U. P. with effect from 1954 as it was deleted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (22 of 1954). It is true that S. 23(2) was deleted in its operation to the State of Uttar Pradesh. The provision was, however, restored by the Land Acquisition (U. P. Amendment) Act (28 of 1972), which was enforced on 3-7-72. Thus after 3-7-72 solatium can be awarded to a claimant whose land may have been compulsorily acquired. In the instant case the land had been acquired in 1959 prior to the deletion of S. 23(2). The Tribunal determined the compensation on 27-3-1976 at the time when S. 23(2) had been restored in State of Uttar Pradesh. Since, the reference for determining the compensation was pending before the Tribunal when the U. P. Act 28 of 1972 came into force, the appellant was entitled to solatium. The Tribunal determined the compensation on 27-3-1976 at the time when S. 23(2) had been restored in State of Uttar Pradesh. Since, the reference for determining the compensation was pending before the Tribunal when the U. P. Act 28 of 1972 came into force, the appellant was entitled to solatium. I, therefore, hold that the appellant was entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent awarded to him. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds and it is, accordingly allowed. The judgment and decree of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellant shall get compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per sqr. yard and he will further be entitled to 15 per cent solatium on the amount of compensation.- The appellant is further entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per cent on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date the possession was taken. The appellant is entitled to the costs of this appeal.