Judgment :- These appeals have been preferred by the claimants against the common order passed by the Sub-Court, Chengalpattu, on references made to it under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in C.R.O.P.Nos.182, 183 and 184 of 1979, 1,2,4,8,9,12,13,23,24 and 25 of 1980 and in C.R.O.P.No.25 of 1980. Originally, an extent of 221.85 acres situate in different survey numbers in Kodungaiyur village was notified under section 4(1) of the Act dated 5.2.1975 for the purpose of development of North Madras Neighbourhood Scheme. Later, it was found that excepting an extent of 71.16 acres, the rest had already been declared as house sites and plans had also been approved by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, even prior to the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. Therefore, the acquisition proceedings were confined to the extent of 71.16 acres only. As the lands surrounding and adjoining the acquired lands had already been approved for lay-out purposes, the Land Acquisition Officer proceeded to determine the market value of the acquired lands on the basis that they were house sites. Considering as many as 1,044 instances of sales and classifying such instances of sales into five categories, the Land Acquisition Officer rejected all the sales in categories 1 to 4, but accepted one out of three instances of sales in category 5 to compute the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.222.62 per cent and rounded it of Rs.223 per cent at the time of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. The instance of sale relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer has been marked as Exhibit A-60 dated 14.9.1972 and that sale related to an extent of 5,870 sq.ft. in Survey No. 167/1 A. There were also some palmyra trees, wells and other superstructures in some of the acquired lands and the Land Acquisition Officer also determined the compensation payable to the claimants in respect of the wells and other superstructures, as the trees had been cut and removed by the claimants themselves. Aggrieved by this, the claimants sought references before Court under section 18 of the Act. On behalf of the claimants, quite a large number of documents were filed to establish the market value of the acquired lands, while, on behalf of the Government no documents as such were produced. Aggrieved by this, the claimants sought references before Court under section 18 of the Act. On behalf of the claimants, quite a large number of documents were filed to establish the market value of the acquired lands, while, on behalf of the Government no documents as such were produced. On a consideration of the instances of sales made available in evidence, the Court below found that Exhibit A-60 relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer had been executed as a distress sale and cannot be relied upon to ascertain the market value of the acquired lands and that another instance of sale marked as Exhibit A-43 would afford a just and a fair basis for the fixation of the compensation awardable to the claimants in respect of the acquired lands. The market value reflected by Exhibit A-43 was Rs.691-60 per cent and deducting 36% of that value towards development and other charges, the Court below arrived at the market value of the acquired lands on the date of section 4(1) notification at Rs.315 per cent. Taking into account what the Court below called a steady increase in the land value around the acquired area, a sum of Rs. 10 was added on to the amount of Rs.315 to cover the interval of time between the instance of sale under Exhibit A-43 and the notification under section 4(1) of the Act and finally, the market value of the acquired lands was determined as compensation for the wells and the pumpset sheds was in order. In the reference out of which A.S.No.382 of 1982 has arisen, the common order in C.R.O.L.P.Nos.182 of 1979 etc. batch whereby the market value was fixed at Rs.323 per cent alone was marked and adopting the same value, the compensation in respect of the acquired lands was also fixed at Rs.325 per cent therein. It is against this that the claimants have preferred these appeals. 2. Mr.M.Raghavan, the learned Counsel for the appellants in these appeals, first contended that the Court below ought to have proceeded to fix the market value of the acquired lands for the purpose of payment of compensation to the claimants on the basis of Exhibits A-44 to A-46 and that from out of those instances of sales, the maximum rate as reflected by Exhibit A-46 should have been awarded. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the instances of sales under Exhibits A-44 to A-46 were not in the vicinity of the acquired lands and would not, therefore, be comparable instances of sales and that the Court below was quite justified in relying upon Exhibit A- 43 relating to Survey No.180/1, which is adjacent east to some of the acquired lands and to the north of the other lands acquired. 3. There is no dispute that the acquired lands have been recorded in the revenue records as wet and dry. Even so, the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the Court below have approached the question of determination of the market value of the acquired lands as if they were house-sites and deducting there from the improvement and other charges to fix the market value of the lands as on the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. A look at the sketches Exhibits A-1 and B-2 shows that to the north and to the east of the acquired lands, there is a road running from Moolakkadai to Tondiarpet. Portions of the acquired lands like Survey Nos.78, 74,282 and 281 lie on that road. To the south of the acquired lands several housing colonies, designated as Nagars, have sprung up, as could be seen from the plans referred to earlier. To the immediate south of the acquired lands, Vasuki Nagar, Vive-kananda Nagar and Krishnamurthy Nagar have come up. There are two other housing colonies of the name of Munuswami Reddiar Nagar and Thiruvalluvar Nagar, but they are not situate immediately to the south of the other housing colonies earlier referred. It is seen from the sketches that between the acquired lands and Munuswami Reddiar Nagar in the south and west, Survey No.99 intervenes. Similarly, between the acquired lands and Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Vasuki Nagar in Survey Nos.154 and 153 intervenes. However, it is clear from the plans that the acquired area is surrounded by housing colonies, Vasuki Nagar and Vivekananda Nagar in the south and Krishnamurthy Nagar in the south-east. Exhibit A-41 is the lay-out plan in respect of Vivekananda Nagar and Exhibit A-47 is a similar lay-out plan for Vasuki Nagar. However, it is clear from the plans that the acquired area is surrounded by housing colonies, Vasuki Nagar and Vivekananda Nagar in the south and Krishnamurthy Nagar in the south-east. Exhibit A-41 is the lay-out plan in respect of Vivekananda Nagar and Exhibit A-47 is a similar lay-out plan for Vasuki Nagar. The neighbouring lands have been plotted out as house-sites and some of them have also been sold and under those circumstances, the market value of the acquired lands cannot be determined on the footing that they are agricultural lands. The Court below was, therefore, quite correct in proceeding to determine the market value of the acquired lands on the footing that they should also be treated as house-sites. 4. The next question that has to be considered is, whether the market value has to be fixed on the basis of Exhibits A-44 to A-46 or Exhibit A-43. Though there is one instance of sale under Exhibit A-60 dated 14.9.1972 relating to 5,870 sq.ft. in Survey No. 167/1 A, immediately to the south of the acquired lands, the Court below was not inclined to accept the same, as, according to it, it was a distress sale. The recitals in that document considered in the light of the evidence of C.W.2 Saraswathi Ammal would clearly make out that there was pressing need for funds and that was the reason the sale under Exhibit A-60 came to be executed. That sale cannot be considered to reflect the correct market value of the property sold thereunder and no reliance can, therefore, be placed on it. The Court below was right in rejecting Exhibit A-60. From the sketches Exhibits A-1 and B-2, it is seen that Survey No.154 comprised in Vasuki Nagar and Survey Nos.155 and 159 comprised in Vivekananda Nagar are the only lands situate closest to the acquired lands. The instances of sales with reference to these survey numbers would be useful in deciding the market value of the acquired lands. With reference to Survey No.154 in Vasuki Nagar, there are three instances of sales under Exhibits A-24, A-26 and A-27 dated 12.9.1973, 26.9.1973 and 15.11.1973 respectively. The lands sold under these documents are situate to the immediate south of the acquired lands and the average rate per cent works out to Rs.452.20. With reference to Survey No.154 in Vasuki Nagar, there are three instances of sales under Exhibits A-24, A-26 and A-27 dated 12.9.1973, 26.9.1973 and 15.11.1973 respectively. The lands sold under these documents are situate to the immediate south of the acquired lands and the average rate per cent works out to Rs.452.20. In Survey No.155 comprised in Vivekananda Nagar situate to the east of Vasuki Nagar and again south of the acquired lands, there is no instance of sale available under Exhibit A-39 dated 10.10.1974 and the rate works out to Rs.453.70 per cent. Exhibit A-43 dated 1.7.1974 relied on by the Court below is in respect of an extent of 1,418 sq.ft. in Survey No.180/1, which, as could be seen from the sketches, not only abuts the road from Moolakkadai to Tondiarpet, but also is situate to the east of the acquired lands, namely, Survey No.76/3. The rate per cent works out Rs.491.60. It is thus seen that the maximum rate with reference to the sale of lands immediately adjacent to the acquired lands is Rs.491.60 as evidenced by Exhibit A-43. Exhibit A-44 relied on by the claimants is a sale deed dated 15.12.1973 in respect of an extent of 2,409 sq.ft. in Survey No.145/IA. The rate works out to Rs.542.50 per cent. The sketches made available show that Survey No.145 is situate to the west of Munuswami Reddiar Nagar and far away from the acquired lands and very near to the Panchayat Union Elementary School in the village site in Survey No.144. The land sold under Exhibit A-44 is far away from the acquired lands in the south-west and separated by Survey Nos.99 and 146 to 150. That instance of sale cannot, therefore, be accepted as truly reflecting the market value of the acquired lands. Exhibit A-45 is another instance of sale dated 20.12.1973 with reference to an extent of 17 cents of land in Survey No. 145/3. The rate per cent works out to Rs.544.50. Here again, it has to be remembered that the land dealt with under Exhibit A-45 is situate in Survey No. 145/3 far away from the acquired lands and in the same survey number as the lands sold’ under Exhibit A-44, though in a different sub-division. Whatever applies to Exhibit A-44 would, therefore, be applicable to Exhibit A-45 as well. Here again, it has to be remembered that the land dealt with under Exhibit A-45 is situate in Survey No. 145/3 far away from the acquired lands and in the same survey number as the lands sold’ under Exhibit A-44, though in a different sub-division. Whatever applies to Exhibit A-44 would, therefore, be applicable to Exhibit A-45 as well. Therefore, Exhibit A-45 cannot also be regarded as reflecting the correct market value of the lands acquired. The only other document relied on by the claimants is Exhibit A-46 dated 24.12.1974. Thereunder, an extent of 2,040 sq.ft. situate in Survey No.165/4 had been sold and the rate per cent works out to Rs.640.60. It is seen from the sketches that Survey No.165 is situate to the south of Survey No. 167/1A, a portion in which had been dealt with under Exhibit A-60 dated 14.9.1972. While Exhibit A-60 reflects the market value of Rs.222.62 per cent and that has been held to be a distress sale, it does not appear as to how in the transaction evidenced by Exhibit A-46 relating to a small extent of 2,040 sq.ft. in Survey No. 165/4 situate south of Survey No. 167/1 A, the value had been given at almost three times the value reflected by Exhibit A-60. None of the persons connected with Exhibit A-46 has been examined to show that the sale was a normal one and the value reflected represents the correct market value as on the date of sale. Besides, the instance of sale evidenced by Exhibit A-46 is not that near to the acquired lands as Exhibits A-24 to A-27 or Exhibit A-39 or Exhibit A-43 referred to earlier. Exhibit A-46 relates to a very small extent of 2,040 sq.ft. and cannot be adopted as the basis for fixing the compensation in respect of such a large extent of 71.16 acres acquired in this case. Compared to the instances of sales with reference to areas close to the acquired lands, Exhibit A-46 does not deserve to be accepted as truly reflecting the market value of the acquired lands. The steep difference in the rates reflected by Exhibits A-60 and A-46 is an indication that there perhaps was some competition or anxiety to purchase the extent covered by Exhibit A-46. Exhibit A-46 cannot, therefore, be accepted as a proper basis for awarding compensation in respect of the acquired lands. 5. The steep difference in the rates reflected by Exhibits A-60 and A-46 is an indication that there perhaps was some competition or anxiety to purchase the extent covered by Exhibit A-46. Exhibit A-46 cannot, therefore, be accepted as a proper basis for awarding compensation in respect of the acquired lands. 5. It is thus seen from the documents referred to above that the highest rate prevalent in the areas immediately adjacent to the acquired lands is the one reflected by Exhibit A-43 at Rs.491.60 per cent, as the other similar sales under Exhibits A-24 to A-27 and A-39 show only a rate of Rs.452.20 and Rs.453.70. The Court below has proceeded to adopt the value reflected by Exhibit A-43 as the basis. Having regard to the instances of sales available, particularly very near the vicinity of the acquired lands, it does not appear that the Court below committed any error in having adopted Exhibit A-43. The highest rate with reference to the lands nearest to the acquired lands is one reflected by Exhibit A-43 and the market value of the acquired lands has, therefore, to be fixed at that rate. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellants contended that in the event of the Court accepting Exhibit A-43 as reflecting the market value of the acquired lands at or about the time of the notification under section 4(0 of the Act, a substantial increase should be given to cover up the increase in the market value of the lands between the date of sale under Exhibit A-43 and the notification under section 4(1) of the Act, namely, 5.2.1975. It was also said that the amount of Rs.10 per cent awarded by the Court below was too low. That quite a number of instances of sales are available in evidence has • already been referred to. In 1972, there have been five instances of sales under Exhibits A-60 and A-4 to A-7. Exhibit A-60 has already been held to be a distress sale and has, therefore, to be left out of account. The average market rate reflected by Exhibits A-4 to A-7 is Rs.486.05 per cent inclusive of the improvement charges. In 1973, there have been eleven instances of sale from February, 1973 upto December, 1973 under Exhibits A-8 to A-12, A-24 to A-27, A-44 and A-45. The average per cent during 1973 works out to Rs.485.40 inclusive of development charges. The average market rate reflected by Exhibits A-4 to A-7 is Rs.486.05 per cent inclusive of the improvement charges. In 1973, there have been eleven instances of sale from February, 1973 upto December, 1973 under Exhibits A-8 to A-12, A-24 to A-27, A-44 and A-45. The average per cent during 1973 works out to Rs.485.40 inclusive of development charges. In 1974, there are 27 instances of sales under Exhibits A-36, A-13, A-42, A-28, A-14, A-31, A-29, A-30, A-32 to A-34, A-15, A-43, A-16 to A-18, A-37, A-38, A-19, A-35, A-20, A-39, A-21, A-40, A-22, A-23 and A-46. The average market rate during the year 1974 based on the aforesaid documents works out to Rs.470 per cent. Even amongst the aforesaid instances of sales, it is seen that between February, 1974, and 13.12.74 (Exhibit A-23), the highest rate was Rs.491.60 per cent reflected by Exhibit A-43 dated 1.7.1974. Between 8.2.1974 (Exhibit A-36) and 12.6.1974 (Exhibit A-15), the rate was lower than Rs.491.60 per cent. Similarly, between 29.7.1974 (Exhibit A-16) till 13.12.1974 (Exhibit A-23), the rate was lower than Rs.491.60 per cent. The only instance of sale in excess of the market value as reflected in Exhibit A-43 dated 1.7.1974 for the year 1974 is Exhibit A-46 dated 24.12.1974 wherein the rate per cent works out to Rs.640.60. It is thus seen that between Exhibit A-16 dated 29.7.1974 and Exhibit A-23 dated 13.12.1974, the rate has either remained at Rs.472.33 per cent or in some cases, it had registered a downward trend. The first indication of any increase is only under Exhibit A-46 and the increase is Rs. 149 per cent (difference between Rs.640.60 and Rs.491.60) over six months between 1.7.1974 and 24.12.1974, though there is no increase as such till 24.12.1974 and in some cases there has been a steep decline in prices also. Considering the downward trend in the prices between 1.7.1974 and 13.12.1974 when compared to the rate under Exhibit A-43, this cannot be considered to be a case of steady increase in prices from 1972 to 1974, when the lands were acquired. Considering the downward trend in the prices between 1.7.1974 and 13.12.1974 when compared to the rate under Exhibit A-43, this cannot be considered to be a case of steady increase in prices from 1972 to 1974, when the lands were acquired. Even so, taking into account the fluctuation in prices as seen from Exhibits A-43 and A-46 over a period of six months, it would, be in my view, just and fair that a sum of Rs.25 is added on to the value reflected under Exhibit A-43, namely, Rs.491.60 plus Rs.25= Rs.516.60 in order to compensate for the increase in prices between the date of Exhibit A-23 dated 13.12.1974 and the notification under section 4(1) of the Act on 5.2.1975. In other words, the compensation awardable to the claimants would be Rs.516.60 per cent instead of Rs.491.60 as fixed by the Court below based on Exhibit A-43. 7. However, the market rate reflected in Exhibit A-43 is with reference to a developed housesite and not land like the acquired lands, which had to be developed in future. Therefore, from the market value so arrived at on the basis of Exhibit A-43 with reference to a developed house-site, deductions will have to be made towards improvement charges, provision of roads, water supply, drainage, etc. The Court below was inclined to deduct 30% of the value of the developed house-site towards the charges for the aforesaid improvements and had arrived at Rs.315 per cent as the market value of the undeveloped site. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that a deduction of 36% towards the improvement charges was on the high side. It is seen from the evidence of Janardhanam examined as C.W.I that improvement charges will be about 20%. On the other hand, the evidence of R.W.1 is to the effect that there is a difference of 2 to 3 feet on all sides between the level of the road and the acquired lands. He is also positive that the acquired lands have to be levelled up before building; as otherwise, the buildings; if any built, would get submerged. It is also further seen from the cross-examination of R.W.1 that metalled roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, etc., have also to be provided for. He is also positive that the acquired lands have to be levelled up before building; as otherwise, the buildings; if any built, would get submerged. It is also further seen from the cross-examination of R.W.1 that metalled roads, water supply facilities, drainage facilities, etc., have also to be provided for. It is thus seen from the evidence of R.W.1 that though the acquired lands are on a level, yet, when compared to the level of the road and considering the proposed use of the acquired lands as house-sites, it would be necessary to undertake the process of filling up to bring the acquired lands on level with the road so that buildings, if built, can remain without being affected by water. The cost of levelling up, provision of metalled roads, drinking water, drainage channel and other incidental facilities would undoubtedly account for one-third of the cost of the developed site. The Court below had fixed it at 36% based upon the decision cited before it. However, on the evidence available in this case, in my view, it would be sufficient to deduct 33.3 per cent from the market value as is fixed earlier, namely Rs.516.60; the market value of the acquired lands per cent could be justly and reasonably fixed at Rs.344 as rounded of. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellants next submitted that the claimants will be entitled to interest under section 23(1-A) of the Act at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the market value of the lands, in addition to the market value, for the period from 5.2.1975 (the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1) of the Act) till the date of award (15.6.1979) or the taking of possession (25.2.1979), whichever is earlier. Reliance was also placed in this connection upon the decisions in Raghbir Singh v. Union of India, A.I.R.1985 Delhi 228 and Union of India v. Maria Olivia Carvalho, A.I.R.1986 Bombay 1. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate strenuously opposed this contending that section 23(1-A) of the Act is not applicable, except to cases mentioned in section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act (68 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Amending Act’), subject to the fulfilment of the conditions enumerated therein and cases of acquisition arising by initiation of proceedings after 24.9.1984. 9. 9. Section 23(1-A) of the Act was inserted in the body of the Act by clause (a) of section 15 of the Amending Act. However, under section 30(1) of the Amending Act, it is provided that section 23(1-A) of the Act, as inserted by clause (a) of section 15 of the Amending Act, shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, "1982, in the House of the People, in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the commencement of this Act. There is no dispute that the Amending Act came into force on 24.9.1984. The argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that by the introduction of section 23(1-A) of the Act, that section should be deemed to have become part of the Act since its inception or at least from 24.9.1984 as to attract that provision to pending matters, as the law applicable to such cases. The ordinary rule is that in the absence of a specific provisions contra, the amended provisions would apply and take effect prospectively. In other words, interest under section 23(1-A) of the Act should be ordinarily awarded by Court in every case decided or determined after 24.9.1984, the date on which section 23(1-A) of the Act inserted by the Amending Act, came into force and became law. Nevertheless, the scope of the applicability of section 23(1-A) of the Act as inserted by clause (a) of section 15 of the Amending Act, has been extended backwards by the transitional provision section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Amending Act not only by applying it, but also deeming it to have been applied before 24.9.1984. There has thus been a recognition of a restricted retrospective application of section 23(1-A) of the Act, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions enumerated in section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Amending Act. There has thus been a recognition of a restricted retrospective application of section 23(1-A) of the Act, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions enumerated in section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Amending Act. Under that section, section 23(1-A) of the Act is made applicable, and is deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to the proceedings mentioned under section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Amending Act. In order to claim the benefit of the application retrospectively of section 23(1-A) of the Act for the period anterior to 24.9.1984, it is necessary that the proceeding for acquisition commenced earlier should be pending on 30.4.1982, when the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, was introduced in the House of the People, in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date. Similarly, with reference to the proceedings for acquisition commenced after 30.4.1982, whether or not an award had been made by the Collector before 24.9.1984, section 23(1-A) of the Act would be attracted. Apart from these two cases set out in section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Amending Act, section 230-A) of the Act was not intended to apply retrospectively to cases anterior to 24.9.1984. In this connection it is also necessary to bear in mind the provision in section 30(2) of the Amending Act. Section 30(2) of the Amending Act, refers only to sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act, as amended by sections 15(b) and 18 of the Amending Act, and states that the amended provision would apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, to any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any award under the provisions of the Principal Act after 30.4.1982, the date of introduction of Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 and before 24.9.1984. This section is confined only to solatium under section 23(2) and interest under section 28 of the Act. This is also an indication that section 23(1-A) of the Act would not apply to any award of the Collector or the Court between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, unless the case falls within section 30(1)(a) or (b) of the Act subject to the conditions prescribed therein, enabling the Court to give effect to section 23(1-A) of the Act. 10. This is also an indication that section 23(1-A) of the Act would not apply to any award of the Collector or the Court between 30.4.1982 and 24.9.1984, unless the case falls within section 30(1)(a) or (b) of the Act subject to the conditions prescribed therein, enabling the Court to give effect to section 23(1-A) of the Act. 10. The decision in Raghbir Singh v. Union of India, A.I.R.1985 Delhi 228 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants supports the above view. In that decision, after referring to section 23(1-A) of the Act and section 30(1) of the Amending Act, it is stated that section 23(1-A) of the Act is prospective in character and will apply to all cases decided after 24.9.1984 and that it is made retrospective only in two contingencies specified in section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Amending Act and further that it may not be applicable to a case other than one falling within section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Amending Act, prior to 24.9.1984. That decision also recognises that the amended provision of section 23(1-A) of the Act has been made retrospective only to the limited extent provided for under section 30(1)(a) and (b) of the Amending Act. The ratio of this decision would enable the appellants to claim interest under section 23(1-A) of the Act. In Union of India v. Maria Olivia Carvalho, A.I.R.1986 Bombay 1 the proceedings were initiated on 19.11.1977 and the award was passed on 27.8.1984. That would be a case to which section 30(1)(a) of the Amending Act would stand attracted rendering applicable section 23(1-A) of the Act. Consequently, on the basis of the reasoning aforesaid and the decisions referred to, the claim of the appellants for interest on the market value at 12 per cent per annum from 5.2.1975 to 25.2.1979, has to be accepted. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that the claimants would also be entitled to solatium at 30% and interest at 9% instead of 15% and 4% respectively awarded by the Court below in accordance with the amended sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 11. The learned Counsel for the appellants next contended that the claimants would also be entitled to solatium at 30% and interest at 9% instead of 15% and 4% respectively awarded by the Court below in accordance with the amended sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Since there is no dispute that these appeals were pending on 30.4.1982, by virtue of section 30(2) of the Amending Act, the appellants will be entitled to claim enhanced solatium and interest as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1985)3 S.C.C.737= (1985) All W.C.861 = 28 D.L.T.366= A.I.R.1985 S.C.1576. In addition, the learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that interest at 15 per cent per annum should be paid to the claimants in accordance with the proviso to section 28 of the Act. This claim is unsustainable as there is no material before Court to show that the excess compensation was paid into Court after the expiry of the period of one year. In other words, there is no material to establish the date of payment and, therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether the date of such payment was after one year from the date of taking possession. In view of the absence of materials, the appellants’ claim for interest cannot be upheld. 12. Consequently, all the appeals are allowed in part to the extent indicated. There will be, however, no order as to costs;