JUDGMENT B.N. Sapru. J. 1. This is an appeal u/s 96 CPC read with Section 66 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Adhiniyam read with Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. A notification for acquisition of a compact area of 5.90.4 acres lying in Mohalla Betia Hata alias Mirzapur of Gorakhpur town comprising plot No. 67 and several other plots, was published in the official Gazette on 31.5.1969 u/s 28 of the U.P. Avas Evart Vikash Paris had Adhiniyam and then proceedings took place under the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer gave his award allowing compensation to all the occupants of the various plots forming the said compact area on the basis of market value as envisaged in the first sub-para of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act and determined at Rs. 0"77 P per sq. ft., after making deduction of 25% from the rate of the market value as worked out on the basis of the exemplar accepted by him. 3. Aggrieved Smt. Drop-in Singh, the Respondent applied for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the market value of her land on the date of Notification was not less than Rs. 12/- per sq. ft. 4. The reference made by the Collector was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 91 of 1977. The II Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur by his judgment dated 6.2.1979 determined that the price of the land acquired should be fixed at Rs. 499 per sq. ft. This was based on the sale-deed exemplar dated 23.8.1965. After making deduction for the fact that Smt. Drop-in Singh had only a Sir Dari interest, the Court determined compensation at Rs. 89,11940, which after adding solarium come to Rs. 1,02,40230 P. The Court also directed that Smt. Drop-in Singh shall get interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date the Collector took possession till date of deposit of the compensation in court. Aggrieved the State has filed this appeal. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the State has very strongly stressed that since the total area of the land acquired was 5.90.4 acres the sale-deeds which related to smaller pieces of land were not safe guides for determining the Compensation and even if the determination is good 25% be deducted from the price determined as has been done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In this connection he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another, AIR 1984 SC 892 . In that case the Supreme Court has observed as follows: 13. Two principles relating to the matter of fixation of compensation relevant for the present purpose may be kept in view. When large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property (see Prithvi Raj Taneja (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, AIR 1977 SC 1560 . In certain other cases this Court indicated that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given. In The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore Vs. T. Adinarayan Setty, AIR 1959 SC 429 a reduction of 25% was indicated while there are certain other cases where the view is that the reduction should be to the extent of 1/3. Again, in the every scheme for fixation of compensation provided by the Land Acquisition Act there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness. The acquisition is deemed to be a statutory purchase and on the basis of evidence the law requires an assumed consideration to be determined. Keeping in view the fact that acquisition is of compulsory nature, a solarium of 15 per cent on the valuation is provided. Bearing these considerations in view and taking into account the fact that the lands in question were located in a developed part of Abramabad and had considerable potential value, we proceed to fix the market value of the property. One acre of land is equal to 4240 sq yards. The learned Civil Judge had maintained a distinction between the two classes of lands. We take note of that fact also in the matter of determining the compensation. We, however, do not propose to indicate separate valuations for the two classes of lands. Taking an overall picture of the matter, we direct compensation to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 150 per square yard or Rs. We take note of that fact also in the matter of determining the compensation. We, however, do not propose to indicate separate valuations for the two classes of lands. Taking an overall picture of the matter, we direct compensation to be fixed at the rate of Rs. 150 per square yard or Rs. 7260/- per acre for all the lands of the present Appellants acquired by the notification in question. Over and above this amount, the Appellants shall be entitled to statutory solarium of 15 per cent, as also interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum on the additional compensation from the date of dispossession till payment thereof. We direct the Collector to work out the compensation on the basis indicated above within two months from today. If the amount so determined is not paid within three months thereafter, the interest on the additional compensation shall be at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum till payment is made. 6. As we read the judgment of the Supreme Court, it only says that smaller plots fetch a higher price than larger pieces of land and consequently in determining the price of land acquired the sale-deeds of smaller plots do not necessarily afford a safe guide for determining the market value of the larger pieces of land. 7. This case is no authority for the proposition that where a large area of land is acquired the total area of the land covered by the notification acquiring the land is to be taken into account ignoring the fact that individual plot owners may have smaller plots within the larger area of land acquired. If there are smaller plots then the sale-deeds of smaller plots will be good exemplars for determining the value of the smaller pieces of land acquired. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept the argument of the learned Standing Counsel. 8. The learned Standing Counsel has been unable to show us that the exemplas relied upon was in any way irrelevant. Good reasons have been given by the court for choosing the exemplar on which to rely and we agree with the reasons given by the court. 9. We are, therefore, satisfied that there are no merits in this appeal and the appeal must be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. Good reasons have been given by the court for choosing the exemplar on which to rely and we agree with the reasons given by the court. 9. We are, therefore, satisfied that there are no merits in this appeal and the appeal must be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 10. In view of the recent amendment of the Land Acquisition Act by the Act 68 of 1984 the Respondent Smt. Drop-in Singh is entitled to solarium at the rate of 30 per cent, instead of 15 per cent, as awarded by the court. She is further entitled to interest at the rate of 9 per cent, per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of deposit or payment instead of 6 per cent. We direct accordingly. Any payment made to the Respondent shall be adjusted while determining the amount now payable to the Respondent. The respondent is entitled to her costs. We direct the payment accordingly.