JUDGMENT B.D. Agrawal, J. - This is an appeal tinder S. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act directed against an award of the District Judge, Nainital, dated July 2, 1969. 2. Land measuring 66.43 acres situate in village Bhogpur Jaspur, Tahsil Kashipur, was acquired by the State for the extension of the Tumaria Dam. The notification under S. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is dated October 16, 1961 this was followed by notification under section 6/17 of the Act dated November 23, 1901. Possession was taken on January 5, 1962. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on September 26, 1902. Land revenue payable for the land in question was Rs. 164.75 per annum. The Land Acquisition Officer brought this down as per hereditary rates to Rs. 116.25 per annum and multiplying the same by 20 he assessed the capitalised value of the land at Rs. 2,325/- only. This is the amount awarded to the objector besides interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum from the date of taking over possession until payment. Upon reference under Section 18, the District Judge, Nainital on July 2, 1969, observed that the land could not be said to have market value when the notification under S. 4(i) was made because this was held by the Objector as sirdar and hence it was not transferable. The exemplars filed by the objector were discarded on ground that they related to small pieces of land. The capitalised value was affirmed at Rs. 2,325/- only. The solatium claimed by the objector was declined with the finding that it could not be had since S. 23(2) of the Act stood deleted at the relevant time in pursuance of the U.P. (Amendment) Act, 1954. 3. Aggrieved the claimant-objector has preferred this appeal. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare for the appellant and the Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent. 4. Sri Khare urged that the finding recorded by the District Judge in reference under Section 18 to the effect that the land in question had no market value when the acquisition took place cannot be sustained. Admittedly the appellant was sirdar of this laid under S. 19 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Interest as sirdar was not transferable in view of S. 153(1) of this Act as it then was. Admittedly the appellant was sirdar of this laid under S. 19 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Interest as sirdar was not transferable in view of S. 153(1) of this Act as it then was. It has been overlooked, however, that under S. 134 of the Act it was open to the appellant to acquire bhumidhari right by deposit of the amount referred therein and then to make transfer inter vivos. The deeds of sale placed on the record by the appellant as exemplars ranging during the period to July 15, 1959. to December 13, 1961. also hear out that there were transfers of land by persons acquiring bhumidhari land under S. 134 aforementioned. In view of S. 130(b), as at present, a person, who held land as sirdar under S. 19 has been conferred the status of bhumidhar with transferable rights. This has conk into being, of course, with effect from January 28, 1977. by virtue of the amendment introduced by the U.P. Amendment) Act VIII of 1977. The material fact remains that even before the date the appellant was competent to obtain bhumidhari rights under S. 134 that dealt with the land by way of transfer. In Province of Bengal v. Board of Trustees, AIR 1946 Cal 416 cited for the appellant it was observed that the compensation must be tested, no doubt, by the loss to the owner but in estimating his loss it is legitimate to discard the restrictions on owner which were existing at the time of acquisition. To the similar effect are the observations in Shafakat Hussain v. Collector of Amraoti, AIR 1933 Nay 208. It was not right, therefore, for the authorities to have taken the view that the land under acquisition did not have market value at the relevant time. 5. It was next contended for the appellant that the exemplars filed by him in the proceeding under S. 18 could not have been discarded altogether on the mere ground that they pertained to comparatively small areas. The registered deeds of sale relied upon for the appellate in this connection are as under :- i. Sale deed dated 15-7-59 executed by Kallu Singh and others in respect of 1.81 acres in village Amka Tahsil Kashipur for Rs. 900/- at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre approximately. ii. The registered deeds of sale relied upon for the appellate in this connection are as under :- i. Sale deed dated 15-7-59 executed by Kallu Singh and others in respect of 1.81 acres in village Amka Tahsil Kashipur for Rs. 900/- at the rate of Rs. 500/- per acre approximately. ii. Sale deed dated 28-3-1960 executed by Kallu in respect of 32 acre in village Manorakhpur Tahsil Kashipur for Rs. 300/- at the rate of Rs. 900/- per acre. iii. Sale deed dated 20-6-1961 executed by Chandan Singh in respect of 1.22 acres in village Manorakhpur for Rs. 140/- at the rue of Rs. 530/- per acre. iv. Sale deed dated 133-12-1961 executed by Chandan Singh in respect of 100 bighas in village Rampur Tahsil Kashipur for Rs. 3,000/- at the rate of Rs. 200/- per acre. 6. There can be no denial that with the exception of the sale-deed dated 13-12-1961 the rest are of small areas only. The deed of sale dated 13-12-1961 pertains to 15 acres approximately and this may not be brushed aside lightly. For the appellant it was brought on the record that the land covered under these exemplars is in material respect similar to the land acquired. None of these transactions has been alleged or shown to be collusive in nature. Discount has necessarily to be made on the basis that these transactions pertain to small areas, but then that all itself cannot suffice to hold that none of these exemplars could be relied upon even after making discount such as is reasonable. Swami Singh examined for the appellant testified that the land covered under the deed of sale dated 13-12-1961 was Jungle when he made the purchase and consequently he had to invest large amount to make it worthwhile. This to some extent explains the rate of Rs. 200/- per acre governing this deed of sale. In my opinion, due allowance for the area covered under these exemplars being small, the market value may fairly he assessed at Rs. 200/ - per acre. 7. The next argument of the appellant's learned counsel is in regard to the solatium declined in toto by the District Judge. S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was deleted by the L.P. Act XXII of 1954 with effect from November 19, 1954. This was reintroduced. 200/ - per acre. 7. The next argument of the appellant's learned counsel is in regard to the solatium declined in toto by the District Judge. S. 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act was deleted by the L.P. Act XXII of 1954 with effect from November 19, 1954. This was reintroduced. however, with effect from July 3, 1972, by the U.P. Act XXVIII of 1972. In Collector, Varanasi v. Ratan Shanker Prasad, AIR 1984 All 330 the Division Bench, of which I was a member, took the view after consideration made at length that if at the time when the award is formulated by the Collector or in reference under Section 18 there is provision in the statute for the payment of solatium that has to be included despite the fact that the notification under Section 4(1) may have issued at a time when such provision did not exist. True, in that case the award under Section 18 was made on December 10, 1974, when Section 23(2) stood revived. In the case before us the District Judge gave the award on July 2, 1969. This, however, makes no difference on principle. An appeal under Section 54 being in continuation of the proceeding under Section 18, the consideration relevant at the stage of deciding the reference holds good also when the matter comes up for a decision in appeal. The appellant's right to compensation arose on January 5, 1962, when possession was taken and in consequence the land vested in the State. The quantification may be concluded much later. The judgment of this Court in appeal merely represents a stage in the process of quantifying the compensation. I am fortified in this opinion by the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1 SCC 231 : AIR 1985 SC 382 , Solatium could not, therefore, he disallowed to the appellant on the basis that S. stood deleted on September 23, 1962, or July 2, 1969, for that matter, when the award was pronounced. 8. The question next is as to the rats at which solatium be awarded. Sri Khare submitted to begin with that this he at the rate of 30 per cent. in view of S. 23(2) as amended. by the Central (Amendment) Act LXVIII of 1984. This is unacceptable. 8. The question next is as to the rats at which solatium be awarded. Sri Khare submitted to begin with that this he at the rate of 30 per cent. in view of S. 23(2) as amended. by the Central (Amendment) Act LXVIII of 1984. This is unacceptable. Section 23 (2) has to be read along with S. 30(2) of the Central (Amendment) Act. 1984. It is a case where the award both by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the District Judge on reference was given before April 30, 1982. The appeal has, no doubt, remained pending even beyond September 24, 1984. when the amending Act came into force. But this is immaterial. It is only if the award of the Collector or the District Judge under Section 18 were of the period between April 30, 1982 (when the Bill was introduced in Parliament) and September 23, 1982 (when the Act came into force) that benefit could be had of the enhanced rate of solatium and interest for that period. This has been clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in (1985) 1 SCC 582 : AIR 1982 SC 576 (K. Karttalajammanniaveru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer) observing "The Bill which ultimately became the Amendment Act was introduced into Parliament on April 30, 1982. Parliament obviously desired to give effect to the amended S. 23(2) from the date of introduction of the Bill. So the amended provision was expressly made applicable by Section 30(2) to awards made by the Collector or Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 also. A natural corollary was that the new provision should apply to orders made by the High Court or by the Supreme Court in appeals against such awards, that is, awards made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984. Parliament did not intend and could not have intended that whatever be the date of the award. however ancient it may be solatium would stand enhanced to `thirty per centum' if an appeal happened by chance or accident to be pending on April 30, 1982. Surely it was not the intention of Parliament to reward those who kept alive the litigation even after several years. If it was the intention of Parliament to make the amended S. 23(2) applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation wherever they be pending. Surely it was not the intention of Parliament to reward those who kept alive the litigation even after several years. If it was the intention of Parliament to make the amended S. 23(2) applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation wherever they be pending. the words "after the 30th day of April 1982 (the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill. 1982 in the House of the People) and before the commencement of this Act" in S. 30(2) would become meaningless. It is clear that Parliament wanted the amended Section 23(2) to have very limited retrospectivity" 9. This has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Bharat Kumar (First Appeal No. 95 of 1979 decided on April 22. 1985) : (reported in 1985 All LJ (1029). Contrary view was taken by a learned single Judge in Rahmat Ullah v. State of U.P., 1985 UPLBFC 339 : 1985 All LJ 1080 decided on February 18, 1985. In that case the award by the Land Acquisition Officer was given on December 31, 1970. The award of the District Judge also came to be pronounced during 1970-72. Relying upon Section 23(2)/Section 28 as amended by the Central (Amendment) Act LXVIII of 1984 the learned Judge awarded in this case solatium at the rate of thirty per cent instead of fifteen per cent and also interest at the rate of nine percentum instead of six per centum per annum. I do not feel called upon to refer this to larger Bench keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (1985) 1 SCC 582 : ( AIR 1985 SC 576 (supra) decided on February 14, 1985, which was not brought to the notice of the learned single Judge in Rahmat Ullah (supra) and also as the Division Bench has in the subsequent decision dated April 22, 1985, mentioned above followed the Supreme Court view. Sri Khare in all fairness did not pursue his contention on this account. The solatium to which the appellant is entitled would be at the rate of fifteen per centum as provided under Section 23(2) before the amendment made by the Central Act, 1984. 10. Having regard to the discussion made in the above, the appellant is entitled, in my view, to compensation as under:- 1. Land - Rs. 13,286/- at the rate of Rs. 200/ per acre. 10. Having regard to the discussion made in the above, the appellant is entitled, in my view, to compensation as under:- 1. Land - Rs. 13,286/- at the rate of Rs. 200/ per acre. 2. Solarium - Rs. 1,992/- at the rate of Rs. 15/- per centum. 3. Total - Rs. 15,278/- besides interest at the rate of six per centum per annum from January 5, 1962, when the possession was taken till payment. 11. The appeal succeeds in part and is allowed accordingly. Costs shall be borne by the parties.