JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - Respondent's land of plot Nos. 52, 61, 62, 63 and 64 measuring 7 Big. 1 Bigs, to the extent of one-half and Sirdari plot Nos. 52 measuring 1 Bigha 2 Biswa was acquired by the Government for the extension of the main Runway or Chakeri Air Field. A notification to this effect under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 2-6-1967 which was followed by notification under Section 6 on 4-10-1967. The land Acquisition officer awarded compensation calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,025 per Bigha against which a reference was made for enhancement of compensation and after considering the evidence before it, the learned District Judge has enhanced the same to Rs. 2500 per Bigha. 2. The state has come up in appeal against the enhancement of compensation and it has been contended that the proper amount of compensation had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and there no justification for enhancement of the same. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties. I said that the decision of the court below should be accepted. The Land Acquisition Officer had relied upon a sale-deed dated 4-5-1967 but as rightly pointed out by the court below, it pertained to a land about one mile away to the south of G. T. Road while the land in question is situate towards the north of G. T. Road within a distance of four furlongs. Admittedly the land in question is situated within the Defence zone and it did not possess any potentiality as a building site or factory or industrial site. However, it was within the limits of the Nagar Mahapalika and even as agricultural land it did possess lot of potentiality because of easy market facility being only a short distance away from the main town of Kanpur. Even in agriculture, the cultivators had great potentiality of earning more from such land as their produce did not require any storage space because their products had a ready market available in the nearby town. Also with modern methods of cultivation, fertilizers and easy availability of facilities of improved agricultural operations within Nagar Mahapalika limits, the claimants stood in a better position to earn more profits from agriculture than those having land in the interior of the districts. 4. Also with modern methods of cultivation, fertilizers and easy availability of facilities of improved agricultural operations within Nagar Mahapalika limits, the claimants stood in a better position to earn more profits from agriculture than those having land in the interior of the districts. 4. The Land Acquisition officer has also ignored other relevant sale-deeds of the year 1967 and has chosen to rely upon one which gave out the lowest market value. No proper justification has been given for rejecting the other sale deeds which clearly should a rising trend during the period in question. It is quite possible that the sale deed dated 4-5-1967 showed a low rate on account of the impending acquisition proceedings for which notification had been issued on 2-6-1967 i.e. about a month after the sale deed. It is common knowledge that before the acquisition proceedings start people in the surrounding areas generally come to know about the likelihood of acquisition proceedings and for that reason the prices suddenly go down. In the circumstances, the view of the court below that Rs. 2500 per Bigha was the fair market value of the land appears to be justified and I do not find anything on the record to disagree with the finding. 5. However, in view of amendment to Sections 28 and 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. the respondents would be entitled to enhanced amount of solatium and interest. In State of U.P. and others v. Raj Narain Singh and another, 1986 AWC 608 a Division Bench of this Court had held that even in those cases in which an appeal is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court though the award therein was made prior to 30-4-1982, enhanced solatium and interest at the enhanced rate would be admissible to the claimants. In the light of that decision, it must be held that the respondents are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of delivery of possession till the date of payment of compensation to them. 6. In view of the above, although the appeal fails, the judgment of the Distt. In the light of that decision, it must be held that the respondents are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% from the date of delivery of possession till the date of payment of compensation to them. 6. In view of the above, although the appeal fails, the judgment of the Distt. Judge is modified to the extent that now the claimant-respondents would be entitled to enhanced solatium calculated at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% from the dated delivery of possession to the date of payment of compensation with the modification, the appeal stands dismissed.