JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (here in after referred to as the Act) filed by the claimant, Prahladi Devi and Ors. against the order dated 25th March, 1972, in Land Acquisition Reference No. 69, 1970, by the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Briefly slated the facts of the case are that the proceedings for acquisition of land in village Bhojpur and chak Sudarshanpura for planned development of Jaipur City were initiated at the instance of the Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. The Government of Rajasthan issued Notification dated May 13, 1960, under Section 4 of the Act. After taking further steps as prescribed, the notification under Section 6 of the Act, dated May 3, 1981, was also published. Notices were duly served on the claimants The claimants submitted the details of their claims. The claimants claimed a sum of Rs. 150,575 00. The Land Acquisition Officer by his order dated January 9, 1964, gave his award in favour of the claimants for a sum of Rs. 18,594/-. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for chahi land measuring 5 bighas 3 biswas at rate of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha amounting to Rs. 15,450/-, for the land ghairmumkin rasta and ghairmumkin dhora the compensation amounting to Rs. 540/- was allowed. A sum of Rs. 1708/-was allowed for pumping sets. Thus, the compensation totalling to Rs. 18,594/- was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied with the Award made by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants moved an application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the learned Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur, who by his order dated March 25, 1972, confirmed the award and rejected the claim made by the claimants before him. The claimants, however, were not satisfied with the order passed by the learned Civil Judge & have consequently filed this appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellants has urged the following points for consideration: (1) That the market value of the land at rate of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha, awarded by the learned Civil Judge is grossly inadequate; (2) That solatium @ 10% on the market value in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition should have been awarded to the claimants; (3) That the interest on the amount of compensation should also be added. 4. 3,000/- per bigha, awarded by the learned Civil Judge is grossly inadequate; (2) That solatium @ 10% on the market value in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition should have been awarded to the claimants; (3) That the interest on the amount of compensation should also be added. 4. Shri Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that one of claimants, whose land was also acquired by the Government under the said Notification and aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in Land Acquisition Reference No. 3 of 1966, filed a D.B. Civil Appeal under Section 54 of the Act and the Division Bench of this Court by its order dated January 25, 1980, in D.B. Civil First Appeal No. 60-1-70, assessed the market value of the land in question at the relevant time at Rs. 4.000/- per bigha. It was also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the solatium at rate of 10% on the market value of the land was also allowed. Shri Kasliwal further submitted that as per the D.B. Judgment the appellants are also entitled to get interest at the rate of 4% per annum on the total amount of compensation so awarded from the date of taking over possession of the land till the actual payment is made; but on account of the change made; in the law regarding land acquisition, the appellants are now entitled to claim solatium calculated at rate of 30% on the amount of compensation awarded to them and also interest at rate of 9% on the said amount of compensation and they are also entitled to interest at rate of 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date on which the State Government had taken possession of the land from them and at rate of 15% from the date of expiry of one year after the date of taking possession. In Rajasthan, the acquisition of the land is governed by the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. There is central law for acquisition of land under the title Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Prior to it, the title of the Act was Land Acquisition Act, 1870. It extended to the whole of British India and came into force on 1st day of June, 1870. There is central law for acquisition of land under the title Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Prior to it, the title of the Act was Land Acquisition Act, 1870. It extended to the whole of British India and came into force on 1st day of June, 1870. The Act of 1894 was made applicable to the whole of India except Part B States and later on for Part B States, the expression "the territories which, immediately before the 1st November, 1956, were comprised in Part B States" was inserted. The Central Law was further amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. In Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the words, figures and letters, "the territories which, immediately before 1st November, 1956 were comprised in Part B States and," the words "State of Jammu and Kashmir" were substituted. The Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 received the assent of the President on September 24 1984. The amendment had come into force on 24th September, 1984, Before the passing of the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956, there were three entries relating to the subject viz. Entry 33 in List I, Entry 36 in List II and Entry 42 in List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The subject matter of acquisition falls under Entry 42 in the Concurrent List The existence of three entries in the legislative lists (33 of list I, 36 of List II and 42 of List (III) relating to the essentially single subject of acquisition and requisitioning of property by the Government gave rise to unnecessary technical difficulties in legislation In order to avoid these difficulties in legislation and simplify the constitutional position, it was proposed to omit the entries in the Union and State Lists and replace the entry in the concurrent list by a comprehensive entry covering the whole subject of acquisition and requisition of property Accordingly the previous Item No. 33 of List I and of List II are deleted and substituted by entry 42 of List III by the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act, 1956. After the formation of Rajasthan, the question of retaining the properties already requisitioned and the question of payment of compensation of pending cases came into fore-front. The Central Act was not adopted and the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was enacted and brought into force from 14th November, 1953. After the formation of Rajasthan, the question of retaining the properties already requisitioned and the question of payment of compensation of pending cases came into fore-front. The Central Act was not adopted and the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was enacted and brought into force from 14th November, 1953. The Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, under Section 28, provides that if the sum which in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at rate of four percentum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. For awarding solatium, there is a provision under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act It provides that in addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case except where a certificate has been granted under Sub-section (5) of Section 17, award a sum of ten percentum on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. According to the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which stands now amended by Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the solatium is payable at rate of 30 percent, which would be evident from Section 15 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, which amends Section 23 and which is reproduced below : "15 "Amendment of Section 23 - In Section 23 of the principal Act:- (a) after sub-section (1), the following sub-section shall be inserted namely:- "(1-A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. Explanation:- In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any court shall be excluded." (b) in sub-section (2), for the words "fifteen per centum", the words "thirty per centum" shall be substituted." 5. Similarly Section 28, which provides for payment of interest also stands amended by virtue of Section 18, which is reproduced below:- "18. In Section 28 of the principal Act:- "(a) for the words "six per centum", the words "nine percentum" shall be substituted; "(b) the following proviso shall be inserted at the end, namely,- ""Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess of part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry." 6. Now, two questions arise. The first question is, whether the amended provisions of Sections 23 and 28 are applicable to the proceedings in hand and the other question is, whether after the Central Act came into force, it would be applicable in Rajasthan where there is already a State Legislation. 7. As regards the first question, the dispute has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh ( AIR 1985 SC 1576 ) , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court overruled its previous ruling in Kamalajammanniavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer ( AIR 1985 SC 576 ) , and held that the amended provisions of Section 33(2) and Section 28 would apply in determining the amount of compensation where proceedings are either pending at the date of commencement of the amending Act or are filed subsequent to the date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or before the High Court or the Supreme Court. It was also observed by their Lordships that under Section 30(2) of the Amending Act the provisions of the amended Section 23 Sub-section (2) and Section 28 are made applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30th April, 1982, or filed subsequent to the date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court, even if they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act. On a reference application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, the matter was decided by the learned Civil Judge on 25th March, 1972 and an appeal was filed before this Court on 2nd August, 1972. On 30th April, 1982, the matter was pending before this Court. In this view of the matter it is obligatory for the Court to give effect to the provisions of the amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 in determining the amount of compensation provided in the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 is applicable. 8. The next question that requires to be considered is, whether the provisions of the Central Act will be applicable in the State of Rajasthan where already there is in force a separate Law, under the caption. "Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953." By Amending Act No. 68 of 1984, Section 23(2) has been amended and so also Section 28 of the Act. Section 23(2) has been amended to increase the solatium from 5 percent to 30 percent. Section 28 has been amended to increase the interest from 6% to 9%. The question arises whether the Parliament has power to pass a law or vary or amend or repeal the State law acting under the provisions of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. The proviso to Article 254(2) provides that nothing in Clause (2) shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law as made by the Legislature of the State. 9. A similar question arose in the case of Lal Bhai v. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer ( AIR 1986 Guj. 24 ) and Mohd. Sheriff v. State ( AIR 1986 Ker 67 ) . 9. A similar question arose in the case of Lal Bhai v. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer ( AIR 1986 Guj. 24 ) and Mohd. Sheriff v. State ( AIR 1986 Ker 67 ) . Section 25 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act corresponding to Section 23 of the Central Act of 1894 provides for the matters to be considered in determining the compensation to be awarded for the land acquired under the Act. Sub-sec (2) of Section 25 enacts that in addition to the market value of the land as above provided the Court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen percent on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. Section 30 of the Kerala Act provides for payment of interest at rate of 4 percent per annum. Section 30 corresponds to Section 28 of the Central Act of 1894 by which interest on the enhanced compensation is fixed at rate of 6 percent per annum. The Parliament by Act 68 of 1984 amended Central Act 1 of 1894 and the amendment provides for enhance Solatium at rate of thirty per cent on the market value of the land acquired. Section 18 of the Amending Act provides for 9 percent instead of 6 percent at rate of interest. In the Kerala Case, referred to above, it was contended on behalf of the State that the acquisition in the case was under the Kerala Land Acquisition Act and was governed only by its provisions and the Central Act No. 68 of 1984 amending the Land Acquisition Act of 1894 are not applicable. In the present case, similar arguments have been advanced by Shri Mehta. In the present case, similar arguments have been advanced by Shri Mehta. Article 254(1) of the Constitution expressly enacts : "If any provision of law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause (2), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of repugnancy, be void" Clause (2) of Article 254 saves the State law inspite of such repugnancy, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent. As already stated, the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 received the assent of the President of India on 14th November, 1953. The Kerala Land Acquisition Act also received the assent of the President. The position in the case of Mohd. Sheriff v. State (supra) was exactly the same which is in the case in hand. The Kerala High Court in Mohd, Sheriff's case (supra) observed as follow:- "The Parliament is thus empowered to pass any law , to add to, vary, amend or repeal the State law made under the proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Article 254 corresponds to Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1935 with the difference that there is no provision in Section 107 corresponding to the proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution." In Mohd. Sheriff's case (supra) various authorities of the Supreme Court which had considered the scope of proviso to Article 254(2) were considered. In Zaverbhai Amaida v. State of Bombay ( AIR 1954 SC 752 ) , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Now. by the proviso to Article 254(2) the Constitution has enlarged the powers of Parliament, and under that proviso, Parliament can do N hat the Central Legislature could not under Section 107(2) of the Government of India Act, and enact a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing a law of the State. when it relates to a matter mentioned in the Concurrent List. when it relates to a matter mentioned in the Concurrent List. The position then is that under the Constitution Parliament can acting under the proviso to Article 254(2). repeal a State law. But where it does not expressly do so, even then, the State law will he void under that provision if it conflicts with a later 'law with respect to the same matter" that may be enacted by Parliament." It was further held "The principle embodied in Section 107(2) and Art. :54(2) is that when there is legislation covering the same ground both by the Centre and by the province, both of them being competent to enact the same, the law of the Centre should prevail over that of the State." 10. In (6) T. Barai V. Henry Ah Hoe ( AIR 1983 SC 150 ) Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. P. Sen, speaking for the Court, held as under : X X X X 11. After considering the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred case, the Kerala High Court states the law as follows: "In the light of the principle discussed above Cl. (2) of Section 25 and Section 30 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act (Act 21 of 1962) are repugnant to the provisions of Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Central Act I of 1894 as amended and varied by Parliament as per Section 15 and 18 respectively of Act 68 of 1984, and are therefore void. Section 23 (2) and Section 28 of the Central Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984 apply to the acquisition of land effected under the Kerala Act." 12. A similar problem was also discussed in the land acquisition matter by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Lalbhai vs. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer ( AIR 1986 Guj. 24 ) . The Division Bench observed as under: X X X X X 13. In this view of the matter, it is clear that subsequent legislation made by the Parliament providing for higher rate of interest and solatium had the effect of repealing the repugnant State law providing lesser amount of compensation by virtue of proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The Division Bench observed as under: X X X X X 13. In this view of the matter, it is clear that subsequent legislation made by the Parliament providing for higher rate of interest and solatium had the effect of repealing the repugnant State law providing lesser amount of compensation by virtue of proviso to Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The proviso to Clause (2) lays down that Parliament has the authority to supersede State Legislation, which has been assented to by the President by making a law on the same matter. Parliament can enact a law adding to. varying or repealing a law of the State which related to a matter mentioned in the Concurrent List. It is not necessary for the Parliament to expressly state that it repeals the law made by the State. If there is repugnancy between subsequent legislation made by the Parliament and the law operating in the State, the law enacted by Parliament would prevail to the extent of such repugnancy. I am in perfect agreement with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Judges of the Kerala High Court and the Gujarat High Court. As the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. 1953 provide lesser amount with respect to interest and solatium, consequently they are repugnant to the Central Act and as such, the law made by Parliament would prevail. The appellants are thus. entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the total compensation awarded for the land acquired. The amount of compensation for chahi land shall be Rs. 18.450/- instead of Rs. 15,450/-, calculated @Rs. 4000/- per bigha. The appellants are also entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Central Act @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date on which the possession of the land was taken by the State from the appellants and at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of one year after the date of taking possession. To this extent the amount awarded by the learned Civil Judge will be enhanced. Let a decree be prepared according to the observations made in this judgment. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.Appeal allowed. *******