JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Court below disposing of a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. By the impugned order the learned Addl. District Judge had enhanced the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer by a sum of Rs. 14,197.89 2. The claimant has valued the appeal at Rs. 29,543/- The contention of the appellant is that the learned Addl. District Judge has not correctly determined the compensation in respect of the land, houses and trees belonging to him. Another contention raised is that the appellant was entitled to solatium which has been illegally denied to him by learned Addl. District Judge. 3. The relevant facts are that in connection with the acquisition of land for the construction of Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, the land of the appellant measuring 23116 Sq. Yards was also acquired under Land Acquisition Act. The Notification under S. 4 was dated 26-6-83 and that under S. 6 was dated 12-10-1966. At the instance of Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Engineering College as well as in pursuance of the notice under S. 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellant delivered possession of the properties acquired on 27-6-83. By an award dated 31-12-1970 the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable to the appellant as follows: For the land he awarded Rs. 30746-80 calculating the same at rates varying between Rs. 50 per sq. yard to Rs. 2 per Sq. Yard. For the trees and wells the compensation was determined at Rs. 1660.21. 4-6. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. the appellant filed an objection claiming that he was entitled to compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 10/- per Sq. Yard. The appellant also claimed compensation in respect of the houses which according to him were standing over the disputed land at the time of acquisition. On the objection of the appellant the Land Acquisition Officer referred the matter to the District Judge under S. 18 of the Act. 7. The learned Ist Addl. District Judge held that the appellant was entitled to compensation in respect of the land at a flat rate of (sic)/- per Sq. Yard and on that basis determined the compensation payable to appellant for the land at 46,232/-. 7. The learned Ist Addl. District Judge held that the appellant was entitled to compensation in respect of the land at a flat rate of (sic)/- per Sq. Yard and on that basis determined the compensation payable to appellant for the land at 46,232/-. For the trees the learned District Judge calculated the compensation at different rates for different varieties with an aggregate of Rs. 3047 for all the trees standing over the land acquired from the appellant. We are here concerned only with the calculation made by learned District Judge in regard to the Guava trees. The learned District Judge observed in his judgment that the appellant was entitled to payment of compensation in respect of Guava trees at the rate of Rs. 153/- per tree. However in calculating the compensation the learned District Judge committed an obvious error holding that the appellant was entitled to payment of only Rs. 1601 /- for 17 Guava trees whereas on the admitted fact 17 Guava trees were standing over the property acquired and on the finding of the learned District Judge as regards the rates the amount works out to Rs. 2601/-. This being an arithmetical or accidental error in calculation an amount of Rs. 1000/- shall be added to the compensation already awarded by the learned District Judge in respect of trees. 8. In regard to the houses the learned District Judge has disallowed the claim of the appellant on the ground that according to the evidence on record the houses were not there when the Executive Engineer of the aforesaid College inspected the site. 9. The net result of the various findings of the learned District Judge was that he awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,197.89 in addition to the amount which had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. For the appellant the first contention raised is that the learned District Judge was clearly wrong in awarding compensation to the appellant for the land at the rate of only Rs. 2 per Sq. Yard. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on this issue, I entirely agree with the appellant that the learned District Judge wrongly awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of only Rs. 2/- per square yard. 12. The learned District Judge has determined the compensation at Rs. 2 per Sq. Yard. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties on this issue, I entirely agree with the appellant that the learned District Judge wrongly awarded compensation to the appellant at the rate of only Rs. 2/- per square yard. 12. The learned District Judge has determined the compensation at Rs. 2/- per square yard relying mainly on Para 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of the State according to which compensation for the land in the adjoining village has been awarded by the Court at the rate of Rs. 1.25 per square yard, for the land lying in the interior and Rs. 2/- per square yard for that adjoining the road. The other circumstance pointed out is that in respect of the land of M. C. Banerji which is lying in Patti Chilla, the adjoining village, he has been awarded compensation in Land Acquisition Case No. 30 of 1968 at the rate of Rs. 3/- per square yard. He observed that as the bulk of the appellant's land lies on the roadside, compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 2/- per square yard would be just and reasonable. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the Court below was clearly wrong in not determining compensation at the same rate at which compensation was awarded to M. C. Banerji. The learned District Judge has himself observed that most of the plots of the appellant form a compact area and adjoin the road. In Para 14 of the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent it has been admitted that Govindpur where the land in question lies, is adjacent to Patti Chilla where land of M. C. Banerji lay. In the Land Acquisition Case No. 30 of 1968 arising out of the same acquisition proceedings M. C. Banerji's land has admittedly been awarded a compensation of Rs. 3/- per Sq. Yard. From a perusal of the Map Paper No. 16-C, it is apparent that the land of the appellant lies mostly on the roadside and there is no material on the record which might indicate that the land of M. C. Banerji was in any way superior to that of the appellant or that it was better situate than that the appellants. 14. 14. Further, the land of M. C. Banerji was acquired earlier by Notification dated 11-10-1962 and the acquisition was for the same purpose. The judgment of the Court given in Land Acquisition Case No. 30 of 1968 is on record and it clearly shows that he has been awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 3/- per Sq. Yard. The learned District Judge was hence unjustified in not awarding compensation to the appellant also at the same rate of Rs. 3/- per Sq. Yard. 15. He was clearly in error in treating the averments made in the written statement as regards the rate as substantive evidence and on that basis awarding compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 2/- per Sq. Yard. 16. The learned District Judge was again in error in rejecting the exemplar filed by appellant, namely, the sale deed of 1965 in respect of land measuring 7 biswas 5 dhoors i.e. 1095 Sq. Yards on the demonstrably wrong premise that the land lay in Mumfordganj. By that sale deed only 3 biswas of the entire plot was sold for Rs. 3,000/-. This exemplar was rejected by learned District Judge on the supposition that it was in respect of land situate in Mumfordganj whereas in fact from a perusal of the sale deed it is apparent that the land sold was situate in Mehdauri which is adjacent to village Govindpur or in close vicinity thereof. This is a patent misreading of the evidence on record. The purchaser no doubt was a resident of Mumfordganj but the land lay in Village Mehdauri. The rate works out to Rs. 7.30 per sq. yard and not 2.99 as calculated by the court below. Granting allowance for the fact that this sale deed was of the year 1965 relating to a smaller piece of land the exemplar still serves as a reasonable basis for calculating the compensation at the rate at least of Rs. 3/-per Sq. Yard in the case of appellant. 17. In any case, as mentioned above having regard to the rate at which compensation payable to M. C. Banerji was determined the appellant was clearly entitled to compensation in respect of the land acquired from him at the rate of Rs. 3/- per Sq. 3/-per Sq. Yard in the case of appellant. 17. In any case, as mentioned above having regard to the rate at which compensation payable to M. C. Banerji was determined the appellant was clearly entitled to compensation in respect of the land acquired from him at the rate of Rs. 3/- per Sq. Yard and the Court below was wrong in holding to the contrary, as a result the appellant becomes entitled to enhancement of compensation of the land straightway by Rs. 23116/-. 18. Coming to the issue of compensation in respect of the houses I find that the Court below has misdirected itself as to the relevant point of time with reference to which the matter had to be decided. The mere fact that when the executive Engineering of the College inspected the premises somewhere in 1970 the house of the appellant was not in existence could not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the house had come into existence after the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. There is on record a certificate issued by the Principal of Motilal Nehru Engineering College dated 21-5-1970 in which among the properties which were stated to be in existence over the land in dispute on 3rd Jan. 1968 was also a house. 19. Further in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent there was not even a whisper that the house in question had come into existence subsequently. The appellant has been claiming compensation in respect of the house among other properties right from the beginning and it was for the respondent to plead that the same had come into existence later on, that is. after the Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition, Act Further there is nothing in the appellant's cross-examination which might indicate that the house was constructed afterwards. 20. In the circumstances, the appellant was also entitled to compensation for the house, which assess at Rs. 2,600/-. The appellant has stated on oath that there was a pucca house valued at Rs. 2,600/- There is no evidence to the contrary. 21. The Court has also committed yet another arithmetical mistake in the last para of the judgment as a result of which the compensation even according to the court below stands reduced by a sum of Rs. 3,800.20. 2,600/- There is no evidence to the contrary. 21. The Court has also committed yet another arithmetical mistake in the last para of the judgment as a result of which the compensation even according to the court below stands reduced by a sum of Rs. 3,800.20. The mistake committed by Court below is that from the gross amount of Rs. 50,427/- which he assessed as the total compensation due to the appellant in respect of land and other properties, a sum of Rs. 34567.90 was deducted by it as representing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, whereas only Rs. 30746.80 was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as compensation for the land. The rest of the amount comprised in the figure of Rs. 34,567- 90 consisted of interest which had been added by Land Acquisition Officer. Consequently, the Court below should have deducted the amount of Rs. 30746-80 and not Rs. 34,567-90 from Rs. 50,427/- while computing the additional compensation to which the appellant was entitled for the land. As a result of this mistake the appellant becomes entitled to payment of a further sum of Rs. 3,822-20 on account of compensation calculated at Rs. 2/- per Sq. Yard. 22. The net result of the aforesaid discussion therefore is that the appellant has become entitled to receive the following additional amounts by way of compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Court below : 1. For the land Rs. 23,116/-. 2. For the Guava tree Rs. 1,000/-. 3. For the houses Rs. 2,600/-. 4. On account of the mistake in the calculation of amount of compensation payable to the appellant for land even at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. yard Rs. 3,822-20. Total of items 1 to 4 = Rs. 30,543/-. 23. I now turn to the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant which was that in consequence of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 (Central Act No. 68 of 1984 amending S. 23 of the Act), the appellant has clearly become entitled to payment of solatium under S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, even though the provision for payment of solatium did not exist either at the time of giving of the award or even disposal of the reference under S. 18 of the Act. In this connection, reliance was placed on a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, reported in (1985) 1 SCC 231 : AIR 1985 SC 382 . 24. Having heard learned counsel for the parties. I am clearly of the opinion that the appellant is also entitled to payment of solatium under S. 23(2) (as amended by the said amending Act of 1984) at the rate of 30%. 25. S. 15(b) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 amends S. 23 of the principal Act as follows : "In sub-sec. (2), for the words "15 per centum" the words - "30 per centum" shall be substituted". 26. S. 30(2) of the Amending Act is also significant, in that it discloses the extent to which the legislature intended the benefit of the Amending Act to reach even those claimants in whose cases awards had already been rendered, or reference answered, or orders passed by the High Court or the Supreme Court in appeals against any award made under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April. 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill. 1982 in the House of People and before the commencement of the Amending Act. This provision indicates that even in matters which had become closed, the claimants became entitled to apply for payment of solatium. The extent of retrospectivity disclosed by this provision leaves no room for doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium was intended to reach also all those claimants in whose cases the compensation had been quantified and finalised even prior to the coming into force of the amendment. The case of the appellant stands on a higher footing in that it is still at the stage of quantification in the shape of an appeal. 27. In Joginder Singh AIR 1985 SC 382 (supra) the Supreme Court observed that the right to compensation and the quantification thereof are two distinct matters and concepts. The right to compensation arises when the land vests in the State, while its quantification may be concluded must later passing through several stages from the Land Acquisition Officer to the District Judge and thereafter to the High Court. The process of quantification is merely one of computing the value of the land on the principle enunciated in the Land Acquisition Act. The process of quantification is merely one of computing the value of the land on the principle enunciated in the Land Acquisition Act. The right to compensation so quantified, however, refers back to the date of acquisition. 28. That being so, it is apparent that the appellant has become entitled to the benefit of solatium contemplated under S. 23(2) as his appeal is still pending in this Court arising from an order passed by the court below under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The proceedings are still at the stage of quantification of the compensation payable to the appellant. The fact therefore, that the provision for payment of solatium was not the Statute Book on the date of award or the passing of the order under S. 18, would not deprive the appellant of the benefit of S. 23(2) which has since come on the Statute Book. The provision for the payment of solatium under S. 23(2) which initially existed and was subsequently deleted was reintroduced on 3rd July, 1972. Under that provision the appellant was entitled to payment of compensation only at the rate of 15 per centum as solatium. Under the amended law the appellant has become entitled to payment of the same at the rate of 30 per centum. 29. On a parity of reasoning the appellant has also become entitled to the payment of interest at the enhanced rate of 9 per cent per annum. Under S. 18 of the aforesaid Amending Act of 1984, S. 28 of the principal Act has been amended by substituting the rate of interest of 9 per cent for the existing rate of 6 per cent. Here again I find that under S. 30(2). S. 28 has been amended retrospectively in the same way as S. 23(2) has been amended, so as to apply even to the proceedings which have concluded between the aforesaid two dates. As a result the appellant has become entitled to the payment of interest at the enhanced rate of 9% on the compensation whether determined by this Court in this appeal or by the Court below. 30. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant shall be paid a further sum of Rs. As a result the appellant has become entitled to the payment of interest at the enhanced rate of 9% on the compensation whether determined by this Court in this appeal or by the Court below. 30. In the result the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The appellant shall be paid a further sum of Rs. 30,543/- as compensation in respect of the various items mentioned above in addition to the compensation already allowed by the court below together with a solatium of 30 per cent on the entire compensation awarded by this court as well as by the Court below. The appellant will also be entitled to interest calculated at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the entire amount of compensation determined by this court as well as by the court below from the date on which the possession was taken by the appellant till the date of payment. The amount which has already been paid to the appellant shall be adjusted accordingly. The appellant shall be entitled to his costs of the appeal from the respondent.