JUDGMENT A. Banerjee, J. - These two First Appeals arise out of a common order dated 20th February, 1976, passed by the Presiding Officer of the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal. Kanpur in a Land Acquisition Reference No. 341 of 1971. It pertained to the acquisition of land in village Usmanpur, Pargana and Tehsil Kanpur The Tribunal enhanced the compensation awarded to Rs. 61,839.50 p. i. e. by Rs. 9,260.66. 2. First Appeal No. 57 of 1977 has been filed by the State of U.P. The relief sought is for allowing the appeal and reducing the amount of compensation to the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer i e. Rs. 52,778-85. This appeal is valued at Rs. 95,260.65. The appeal filed by the claimants, Ram Rakhan and Surendra Nath, appellants in First Appeal No. 59 of 1977, is valued at Rs. 20.009. In this appeal the claimants have sought relief for enhanced compensation. Learned counsel for the claimant appellants. Also urged that the claimants were entitled to an increased amount of solatium under the amended Section 73(2) of the Land Acquisition Act and to higher rate of interest under the amended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. For the extension of the municipal limits of the Nagar Mahapalika a schemes, know as Southern City Extension Scheme No. 11 was initiated. Initially notification was published under Section 53 of the Kanpur Urban Area Development Act (Act No. VI of 1945) on 2nd November, 1946. The final notification under Section 60 of the above Act was issued on 5th December, 1956. The scheme envisaged acquisition of 226.44 acres of land. The appellants Ram Rakhan and Surendra Nath were owners of 15 Bigha 19 Biswa of Land. For the above area they claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 per sq. yard and Rs. 2,000 as compensation for trees. They where under the impression that their house was also under the acquisition and they made claim, therefore, in relation to house but the house was not acquired and consequently the payment of compensation for the same did notarise. The Special Land Acquisition Officer allowed Rs. 2,900 per Bigha for the land falling in belt B and Rs. They where under the impression that their house was also under the acquisition and they made claim, therefore, in relation to house but the house was not acquired and consequently the payment of compensation for the same did notarise. The Special Land Acquisition Officer allowed Rs. 2,900 per Bigha for the land falling in belt B and Rs. 3,900 for the land falling in belt A. He also awarded solatium at the rata of 15% to the appellants under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. He also awarded Rs. 800 as compensation for the trees. In all the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 52,578.85 to the appellants, half of which was to go to each of the two claimants. 4. The appellants feeling aggrieved filed an application before the Special Land Acquisition Officer for a reference and the matter came in reference before the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Kanpur. The reference was numbered as 341 of 1971. 5. Before the Tribunal the claimants urged that notice under Section 9 (3)of the Act was vague and bad in law. The principles, of valuation of land had not been followed properly. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had wrongly adopted belt system which resulted in less to those claimants whose lands lay a little away from the road. The valuation of the land at the agricultural rate was erroneous as the land had potential value as a building site and the land could fetch not less than Rs. 3 per sq. yard being situated in the vicinity of the city of Kanpur. 6. On behalf of State it was contended in the reference that notice under Section 9(3) had been served on both the claimants but Ram Rakhan alone has filed his claim. Consequently, the claim of Surendra Nath was hit by Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. compensation for the trees was adequate on the basis of the material on record. Initially the notification having been issued in the year 1946 the Special Land Acquisition Officer erred in awarding compensation on the basis of sale deeds executed in the year 1964-65. The division of land in belts was not bad in law that the claim of the appellants was highly excessive. 7. Initially the notification having been issued in the year 1946 the Special Land Acquisition Officer erred in awarding compensation on the basis of sale deeds executed in the year 1964-65. The division of land in belts was not bad in law that the claim of the appellants was highly excessive. 7. The Tribunal framed six issues and decided them as stated hereunder :- The validity of the notice under Section 9(3) of the Act could not be looked into in those proceedings and it had no effect on the award. There was no material on the record to held that the notice under Section 9(3) was served on Surendra Nath and consequently non-filing of claim by Sri Surendra Nath before the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not have any bearing on the merits of the case. A joint petition of reference by both the the claimants was not held bad in law. As regards valuation of the trees the Tribunal held that claim for compensation at Rs. 2,000 was excessive but tee amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was also inadequate. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,200 for the same In regard to valuation of land for the purposes of compensation the tribunal held that the belt system was not bad and after making slight modification it held that the land in belt A' should have been valued at Rs. 4,000 per Bigha and for the land lying in belt E and Rs. 3,000 per bigha Some plots were, however, held to be valued at a lessor amount at Rs. 2,80 per bigha because some amount was required for filling and levelling of the land. By its order dated 20th February, 1976 the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 61,839.50 for the compensation of land solatium and the compensation for trees The interest was allowed on the amount of Rs. 9,260.65 at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of deposit of amount with the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, directed the parties to receive and pay costs in proportion to their success and failure. 8. In the appeal filed by the State the prayer is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and could be scaled down to what had been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Tribunal, however, directed the parties to receive and pay costs in proportion to their success and failure. 8. In the appeal filed by the State the prayer is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and could be scaled down to what had been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. First of the arguments was that the initial notification having been issued in the year 1946 the Tribunal and the Special Land Acquisition Officer erred in accepting the exemplars of the year 1964 - 65 which was bad in law. On behalf of the claimant-Appellants it has been urged that the decision by the Tribunal erred in the matter of valuation inasmuch as the land valued at a minimum of Rs. 2 per sq. yard i e. approximately Rs. 6,009 per bigha, has been awarded lesser rates. The claimant-Appellants also prayed for enhancing solatium and interest as provided under Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 Act No. 68 of 1984) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) Reference was made to the provisions of Section 23(2). Section 25 and Section 28 of the Act. 9. Learned counsel for the State, Sri O. P. Gupta, also urged that the provisions of the amendment Act would not be applicable as the case of the appellants was not covered under the provisions of Section 30 thereof. In support of his contention he had cited a decision of the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kamalajammanaiavaru v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1985 SC 576). Learned counsel relied on the following passage : "It is clear that Parliament wanted the amended Section 23(2) to have a limited retrospectively It made provision applicable to awards made after April 30, 1982 and before September, 24, 1984 also and further appeals to the High Court, to the Supreme Court arising from such awards. In this view we see no force in the submission of Sri Bhatt. All the appeals are dismissed." 10. The above decision was given on February 14, 1983 in three Civil, Appeals before their Lordships O. Chenappa Reddy and Sabyasachi Mukerji. JJ. Reference may be made to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Cour made by a larger Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice P. N Bhagwati. All the appeals are dismissed." 10. The above decision was given on February 14, 1983 in three Civil, Appeals before their Lordships O. Chenappa Reddy and Sabyasachi Mukerji. JJ. Reference may be made to the subsequent decision of the Supreme Cour made by a larger Bench presided over by Hon'ble the Chief Justice P. N Bhagwati. It was decided on August 14, 1985 in Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the Land Acquisition Collector, Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576 . Their Lordships held that Section 23 (2) and Section 28 are applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30th April, 1982 or which fall subsequent to that date whether before a Collector or before a court or High Court or Supreme Court, even if they had finally terminated before the enactment of the amending Act. Their Lordships made a pointed reference to the above mentioned Division Bench case of the Supreme Court and differed from the same. In view of the subsequent decision in case of Bhag Singh (supra) the contention of the learned counsel that the provisions of amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 would not be applicable in this appeal his to be rejected as without force. The result is that the claimant-Appellants would be entitled to increased solatium at the rate of 30% on the compensation awarded whether or not the latter is increased Further, the claimant-Appellants should also be entitled to enhanced rate of interest as provided under Section 28 of the Act after amendment. 11. I now take up the points that were urged by the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the compensation for trees standing on the land the amount awarded at Rs. 1200 appears to be just for neither party seriously denied that either it is less or excessive. Consequently, the compensation awarded for the trees by the Tribunal stands of Rs. 1200. 12. As regards compensation for land the contention of the claimants was that compensation on the basis of belt system was erroneous. The land which was of equal quality but which lay 100 or 200 yards away from the main road was awarded substantially lesser compensation whereas those adjoining the road were given more. 1200. 12. As regards compensation for land the contention of the claimants was that compensation on the basis of belt system was erroneous. The land which was of equal quality but which lay 100 or 200 yards away from the main road was awarded substantially lesser compensation whereas those adjoining the road were given more. Learned counsel contended that from the fact that the belting system was adopted shows that the land had value as potential building site and consequently the land should have been valued as such. It was urged that in large scale acquisition of land for building purposes every part of the land is likely to be used for building activity and consequently the value of such land could not be separately assessed. After all these would be roads and streets throughout the area otherwise various houses or buildings erected thereon would not be reached. However, it cannot be denied that the building sites which adjoin main or principal roads and corner plots fetch higher market value than those lying in the interior. The belt system is obviously made with an eye on the layout in the scheme for housing in the area. It indicates where the principal roads are to be and also indicates the lanes and by-lanes. Consequently, the valuation of the land by the belting system is neither illegal or unheard of. After all valuation of land is a matter of estimate. The court has to consider several aspects in valuing the land. The location, the layout, the quality of the land, the absence of unevenness or pits or abandoned brick kiln etc. are certainly factors to be taken in valuing the land. If the land is low lying or easily gets filled up with water its value is certainly to be at a lower rate. The potential value of the land as a building site is very relevant factor. When one considers all these matters and takes into account the prevailing market rate as evidenced by executed sale deeds for similarly situated land one can fore a proper estimate of the value of the land order acquisition. 13. In the present case the evidence brought before the court indicated that the land had been said in the vicinity at the rate of Rs. 6000 per bigha, copies of two judgments have been produced before this court of land being valued at Rs. 13. In the present case the evidence brought before the court indicated that the land had been said in the vicinity at the rate of Rs. 6000 per bigha, copies of two judgments have been produced before this court of land being valued at Rs. 8,000 per bigha in belt A and Rs. 6,000 per bigha in belt B under the same acquisition awarded by another learned Judge who presided over the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal. The land under acquisition in the present appeal and the land which is subject matter of two judgments referred to above both lay in village Usmanpur and the subject of the same acquisition proceedings. In such a case it would not be improper to award compensation at the same rates which have been awarded in the order of the Tribunal passed on different dates by different presiding officers unless it is shown that those rates have been disapproved of in any appeal either by the High Court or by the Supreme Court. No such evidence was brought to my notice. 14. Reference may be made to the provisions of Section 78-A of the Act. This is a new section which accepts the principle of redetermination of the amount of compensation on the basis of award of the court Even in a case where the party has not made any application to the Collector under Section 18 (Reference) be too would be entitled to compensation at the rate which has been decided upon by the court. This provision introduces the concept of payment of compensation at the same rate for similarly situated land By a parity of reasoning the above principle would be applicable even in such cases where a Tribunal or a court has awarded in the same acquisition proceedings for similarly situated land, a higher rate of compensation, 1 am of the view that it is open to this court to accept the rate of compensation awarded by the Nagar Mahapalika in Reference No. 231 of 1971 (Jagannath v. State) and in Reference No. 343 of 1971 (Johari v. State) dated 9-3-1979 passed by Sri K. M Endlay, Presiding over the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal Kanpur. The assessment of compensation on the basis of belt system has been accepted in the above judgments of the Tribunal. I see no impediment in accepting the rate of Rs. 8,000 for land in belt A and Rs. The assessment of compensation on the basis of belt system has been accepted in the above judgments of the Tribunal. I see no impediment in accepting the rate of Rs. 8,000 for land in belt A and Rs. 6,000 for land in belt B\ In this case the claimants have been awarded by the Tribunal in all Rs. 32,730 as compensation for 15 Bigha 19 Biswa of land which is one Biswa less than 16 Bighas 15. They have claimed further sum of Rs. 20,010 in this appeal making the total to Rs. 72,729. This works out at approximately Rs. 4,560 per Bigha. Since the claimants are now claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per Bigha for the land in belt A and Rs. 6000 per Bigha for the land in belt B' they would be entitled to a larger amount than they have prayed for in this appeal of the 15 Bighas 19 Biswas. Five Bighas six Biswas has been classified in belt A and the remaining 10 Bighas 13 Biswas in belt B. At the above rates the compensation for land in belt A would be approximately Rs. - 42,400 and for the land in belt 'B' would be about Rs. 63,900 making a total of Rs. 1,06,300 16. A similar question arose in the case of Rahmat Ullah v. State, (1985 ALJ 1080) where the District Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2 per sq. yard. The court referred to the award of rs. 3 per sq. yard, in the case of another claimants in another reference case arising out of the some acquisition proceeding. Learned single judge took the view that even though the judgment of the court in Land Acquisition Case No. 30 of 1968 was on the record and it clearly showed that the other claimants bad been awarded compensation at a falt rate of Rs. 3 per. sq yard the learned District Judge was not justified in not awarding compensation to the appellant at the same rate. In view of the fact that the valuation of land for the same belt A and B' in the same acquisition has been awarded at the enhanced rate of Rs. 8.000 and Rs. 3 per. sq yard the learned District Judge was not justified in not awarding compensation to the appellant at the same rate. In view of the fact that the valuation of land for the same belt A and B' in the same acquisition has been awarded at the enhanced rate of Rs. 8.000 and Rs. 6,000 respectively in tho other references by another Presiding Judge of the Tribunal and those judgments have been filed in the case, the compensation should be assessed at the same rate in this case too. 17. There is another reason for awarding compensation at the enhanced rate i. e. the provisions of Section 28-A of the act. As indicated earlier the principle accepted by the Act is that compensation should beat the same rate forijilar land acquired in the same acquisition. Section 28-A of the Act goes a little further and provides compensation at the rate even to those who have not sought any reference provided they made an application to the Collector within a stipulated period of time. In the present case the claimants have filed the appeal against the order of the Tribunal and asked far a higher rate of compensation. Obviously they did not contemplate the possibility of being awarded an even higher sum as compensation. Nevertheless, they would be entitled to the enhanced rate of compensation provided they pay court fees on the enhanced amount less what they have already paid. 18. It is well settled that right to compensation and the quantification thereof are two distinct matters and concept. See Joginder Singh v. State of Rajasthan, ( AIR 1985 SC 382 ). Their Lordships held that the right to compensation arises when the land vests in the State alone. Its quantification has to be made later in the proceedings from the stage of Land Acquisition Officer right up to the Supreme Court. The process of quantification is merely one of computing value of the land on the principle equanciated in the Act. 19. This leads to the question of solatium. Originally the provisions of solatium at the rate of 15% on the amount of compensation was made in the Land Acquisition Act. It applied in the State of Uttar Pradesh originally but for the period November 19, 1954 to July 2, 1972 it was not applicable in Uttar Pradesh. 19. This leads to the question of solatium. Originally the provisions of solatium at the rate of 15% on the amount of compensation was made in the Land Acquisition Act. It applied in the State of Uttar Pradesh originally but for the period November 19, 1954 to July 2, 1972 it was not applicable in Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, the provision for solatium was reintroduced in the State by U - P. Act 28 of 1972 with effect from July 3, 1972. After the 1984 Amendment Act the rate of solatium has been enhanced to 3%. Since the present appeal was pending on the date of coming in force of the Amendment Act of 1984 the claimants would be entitled to solatium at the enhanced rate of 30%. This view is now well settled. See Bhag Singh (Suara). 20. The next question to be considered is the amount of interest. In view of the amended provisions of Section 28 the claimants should be entitled to enhanced rate of interest at 9%. The matter was considered in the case of State v. R N. Singh, (1986 AWC 508 (DB)). Their Lordships held that the claimants would be entitled to interest at 9% per annum and not at the rate of 19% as mentioned in the proviso to Section 28. The Division Bench held :- "when the excess amount had itself not been determined by the District Judge within one year of the possession being taken it would be requiring the Collector to perform an impossible task to deposit the excess amount within the said period of one year. It is that apparent that when the excess amount of compensation was determined after about seven years of the taking of possession the said amount obviously could by on stretch of imagination have been deposited within one year of the taking of possession - It does not need any authority for the proposition that law does not require a person to perform an impossible tasks." 21. Rejecting the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant that under the amending Act the claimant respondent was entitled to 15% interest on the excess amount of compensation awarded by the District Judge their Lordships held : "On the other hand the intention of the legislature in amending Section 28 seems to be to award interest of the rate 9 per cent in place of 6 per cent and recourse to award of 15 per cent interest under the proviso is to be taken only in those exceptional cases where the requirements of the said proviso are fulfilled." For the reasons indicated above the claimants are not entitled to interest at the rate of 15%, but only, at the rate of 9% per annum. No other point was urged. 22. For the reasons indicated above the appeal of the claimant (First Appeal No. 50 of 1977) is allowed as follows :- 23. The claimant-Appellants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 8,000 per Bigha for their land in belt 'A and at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per Bigha for their land in belt B. They would also be entitled to interest on the excess amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per cent per annum and also solatium at the rate of 90% for compulsory acquisition of their land. The excess amount will be calculated by the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal and the said amount would be paid to the claimants less what has already been paid to them. Provided they pay requisite court fees on the excess amount after taking into consideration the amount of court fees paid on the memorandam of First Appeal in this court. The amount will be divided equally between the two claimants as also the interest and solatium. Since the claimants have succeeded mostly because to the change of law 1 have the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal. 24. The First Appeal No. 57 of 1977, preferred by the State has no merits and is dismissed with costs.