Das, J. — This appeal arises out of the Judgment and award dated 20.5.74 passed by the learned Arbitrator (District Judge) at Jorhat in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 11 of 1971. A bunch of Arbitration Miscellaneous cases were taken up by the learned Arbitrator-cum-District Judge, Jorhat in respect of the land which was requisitioned long back in 1965 and subsequently acquired in 1970 under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, for brevity 'the Act'. About 300 bighas of land situated in different blocks, namely, Block Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 of Jorhat Town under different dags were involved in the proceeding. The appellant herein who was the claimant in Arbitration Case No. 11/71 was the owner of 2 bighas 3 kathas and 15 lechas of land. This land was included in Block No. 16 and also acquired along with other land under different Blocks as aforesaid. His land was first requisitioned in 1965 and subsequently acquired in 1970 alongwith the land belonging to other owners in Block Nos. 14, 15 and 17 of Jorhat Town. On such acquisition of the land, the learned Collector after consulting some sale deeds of the contemporary period divided the lands into various categories and assessed the valuation of the land for each block. The categories of land was made by the Collector in the following manner : "1) Basti (2nd) 5) Paddy (1st) 2) Basti (3rd) 6) Paddy (3rd) 3) T.Bari 7) Business (3rd)" 4) Faringati On the basis of those categories and classifications, the learned Collector awarded compensation by fixing the market value of the land including the land of the appellant which was classified as "Faringati land" for which the valuation was assessed at the rate of Rs. 6000/- per bigha. However, the appellant as well as the other land owners did not agree to such valuation. There­fore, by notification dated 24th February, 1971 the matter was referred under section 8 of the Act to the named Arbitrator for fixing and awarding a "just compensation". The appellant filed a petition claiming the value of the land to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per katha. To justify his claim the appellant adduced evidence before the learned Arbitrator. Several sale deeds were placed for consideration. The appellant filed a petition claiming the value of the land to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per katha. To justify his claim the appellant adduced evidence before the learned Arbitrator. Several sale deeds were placed for consideration. The learned Arbitrator, however, considered the various sale deeds for the purpose of ascertai­ning the "just and proper market value" of the land. That apart the appellant adduced his oral evidence and exhibited two documents, namely, Exts. 3 and 4. By Ext. 3 the appellant (Claimant) had shown that 6 bighas 3 kathas of land contiguous to the land of the appellant was sold at Rs. 99,000/-in the year 1966. The appellant also produced a certificate Ext. 4, issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Titabar Circle showing the valuation of his land at Rs.2,000/-per katha in the year 1966 when the appellant applied for loan from the Government. The learned Arbitrator however did not consider these documents relating to the acquired land of the appellant for the purpose of considering the market value of his land. The learned Arbitrator did not enhance the amount of the market value of the land of the appellant and agreed to the amount what was assessed by the Collector i.e. only at Rs. 6000/-per bigha. Hence this appeal. 2. Mr. A. Sarma, the learned counsel has submitted that the learned Arbitrator failed to consider the two vital documents as produced by the appellant to justify his claim. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the Collector had no basis to classify the land into different categories, the land being situated in the same advantageous position and in a compact area near Jorhat Town. However, at this stage we are not to consider this aspect of the matter as raised by Mr. Sarma as regards classification of the land made by the Collector for the purpose of assessment of market value of the land. The next submission of Mr. Sarma is that if the sale deed Ext. 3 which is of the year 1966 is considered for assessing the market value of the land of the appellant in the year 1970 (year of acquisition of the land) it would apparently be clear that the market value of the acquired land of the appellant would be much more than what was assessed by the S. D. C. in the year 1966 to be at Rs. 2000/-per katha. It is however not denied by any of the parties that the acquired land is quite nearer to the main town and in the vicinity of land falls the area of Agricultural University, Jorhat. It is observed by the lear­ned Arbitrator:-"that the claim of the land owners that the area was by that time developed and still in developing stage even after 1965 the year of requisition". However, the learned Arbitrator, though considered all aspect of the matter, but failed to consider the relevant documents as produced by the claimant, namely, Exts. 3 and 4 to assess the market value of the land. Mr. K. P. Sharma the learned Government Advocate has submitted that the learned Arbitrator while discussing the merit of each case also considered the case of the appellant and observed that the land belonging to the appellant cannot fetch more amount as because the land of the appellant is situated adjacent to feeder roads and not on the main road. We have also considered this aspect of the matter as argued by Mr. Sarma. We however, do not find that the learned Arbitrator did consider the relevant documents as produced by of the appellants. Moreover, the appellant himself had adduced evidence and he was also cross-examined on these documents. We have perused the evidence. He has categorically stated that the area has been rapidly progressing and the sale deed Ext. 3 shows that in the year 1966 the nearby land measuring 6 bighas 3 kathas was sold at Rs. 99.000/-. However this acquired land is a big area measuring about 300 bighas. But one aspect cannot be overlooked. It is as regards the categorisation of the land as made by the Collector basing on revenue records, Ext.4, the certificates issued by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Titabar Circle in 1966 clearly shows that the valuation of the of appellant's land at that time was assessed at Rs. 2000/-per katha. This certificate was issued when the appellant applied for loan from the Government for sugar cultivation in the land. If that was the estimated market price as assessed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Titabar and approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat then the market value of the land of the appellant was at Rs. 10,000/-per bigha in the year 1965-66. This certificate was issued when the appellant applied for loan from the Government for sugar cultivation in the land. If that was the estimated market price as assessed by the Sub-Deputy Collector, Titabar and approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat then the market value of the land of the appellant was at Rs. 10,000/-per bigha in the year 1965-66. There is also findings of the learned Arbitrator based on evidence on record that the area was situated close to the main town of Jorhat and in the vicinity of the Agricultural University, Joihat. If Ext. 4 is taken into consideration it must be held that the market price fixed and assessed by the Collector for the land of the appellant at Rs. 6000/-per bigha was inadequate as per valuation of the Sub-Deputy Collector, Titabar which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Jorhat. Therefore, it could simply be held that at the time of issuing Ext. 4 in the year 1966 the appellant could get Rs. 10,000/-per bigha as the market value of the acquired land. 3. The next question is - What would be the just and adequate compensation for the land during the period when the land was finally acquired y In assessing the market value of the land the provisions of section 8 of the Act may be looked into. Sub-sectii n (3) of section 8 is the relevant provision which is almost similar with the provisions prior to the Requisition and Acquisition Amen­dment Act. 1968 (Act 31 of 1968). It runs as follows :- "(3) The compensation payable for the acquisition of any property under section 7 shall be the price which the requisi­tioned property would have fetched in open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition." While assessing the compensation of the acquired land after it was requisitioned the main factor to he taken into consideration is as to what would be the market value of the land on the date of acquisition if there is no change of the property during the period of the requisition till the date of acquisition. Therefore, on bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of the Act, it appears that the Court is to consider the market price on the date of acquisition of the requisitioned land subsequently acquired, However, there is no direct evidence on the basis of sale deed in respect of the acquired land of the appellant save and except what was produced at Ext. 3. Therefore, we will have to consider the nature and the potential value of the land for the purpose of assessing the market price in the year 1970 to be the just and proper compensation. The learned arbitrator himself has observed that by that time the area was developed and had been developing after requisition and also the fact that the area was quite adjacent to Jorhat Town. Jorhat Town has been much developed and has progressed due to growing of population and therefore the value of the nearby land must get the benefit in accordance with the various advantages which increases the market value of the land. In that view of the matter and also considering the assessment made by the Arbitrator in respect of the acquired land under different blocks and on the basis of evidence and of surrounding circumstances, we are of the opinion that the valuation of the acquired land belonging to the appellant at the time of acquisition should be at Rs. 15,000/-per bigha if not more. Accordingly we hold that the proper assessment as to the value of the land at Rs. 15,000/- per bigha would be just and adequate. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the compensation at Rs. 15,000/-per bigha for his acquired land. The appellant is also entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of acquisition till the payment is made. 4. Mr. A. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that in compliance to the principles as laid down under Land Acquisition Act the interest should be computed on the enhanced amount from the date of possession till the payment is made. We have allowed interest as aforesaid from the date of acquisition on the enhanced amount of compensation but we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Sarma on this point as because during the period of requisition when possession was taken the claimant was entitled to recurring compensation for that period till it was acquired. We have allowed interest as aforesaid from the date of acquisition on the enhanced amount of compensation but we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Sarma on this point as because during the period of requisition when possession was taken the claimant was entitled to recurring compensation for that period till it was acquired. In that view of the matter the appellant is only entitled to interest from the date of acquisition till payment is made. However, if the recurring compensation was not paid, the claimant-appellant would be entitled to claim recurring compensation for the period of requisition. 5. Towards the conclusion of the argument a very pertinent point has been raised by Mr. A. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant as to the entitlement of solatium by the appellant on the awarded amount as additional compensation. The reasoning of the learned counsel for the appellant is sought to be based on several decisions of this court as well as of the Supreme Court. Reliance is placed on a decision of Supreme Court rendered in P. C. Goswami vs. Collector of Darrang, AIR 1982 SC 1214 . Referring to paragraph 7 of the case of P. C. Goswami, Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that their Lordships considered the earlier decision of the Supreme Court reported in (State of Kerala vs. T. M. Peter) AIR 1980 SC 1438 and in the light of the aforesaid decision their Lordships held :- "...there is no justification for discriminating between an acqui­sition under one Act and an acquisition under another Act in so far as payment of solatium is concerned. This should be more so in respect of an acquisition to which the State Government is empowered to extend the provision of the Land Acquisition Act." If we turn to the relevant pages of Peter's case (supra) it appears that the land was acquired under the Town Planning Act (Travancore Act 4 of 1108) which was applicable to Kerala. This should be more so in respect of an acquisition to which the State Government is empowered to extend the provision of the Land Acquisition Act." If we turn to the relevant pages of Peter's case (supra) it appears that the land was acquired under the Town Planning Act (Travancore Act 4 of 1108) which was applicable to Kerala. Section 32 of the said Act runs as follows: "Immovable property required for the purpose of town planning scheme shall be deemed to be land needed for a purpose within the meaning of the Land Acquisition (Act), XI of 1089, and may be acquired under the said (Act) modified in the manner provided in this Chapter." * * * * * * "Of course, Chapter VII particularly sub-section (1) of S. 34 thereof, relates to compensation and does not provide for payment of solatium". In paragraph 12 of the Judgment their Lordships referred to the modification of section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. Their Lord-chips also considered other decisions of the Supreme Court including the decisions rendered in Nagpur Improvement Trust vs. Vithal Ro, AIR 1973 SC 689 and the decision rendered in Om Prakash reported In AIR 1974 SC 1202 . In paragraph 18 of the Judgment it was held that the Court voided the legislation which provided differential compensation based upon the purpose. In paragraph 21 of the aforesaid Judgment their Lordships observed: "We are not to be understood to mean that the rate of com­pensation may not very or must be uniform in all cases. We need not investigate this question further as it does not arise here although we are clear in our mind that under given circumstances differentiation even in the scale of com­pensation may comfortably comport with Article 14” Further reference is made by Mr. Sarma to a decision of this court as reported in AIR 1984 Gau. 81 (Binu Nalufar Haq vs. Collector and Land Acquisition Officer). This was a case where the property was requisitioned under Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Thereafter, it was acquired as in the present case. Apart from other point as regards assessment of compensation and for determination of just compensation' the point raised for consideration was with regard to payment of solatium for the com­pulsory nature of acquisition of the land. Thereafter, it was acquired as in the present case. Apart from other point as regards assessment of compensation and for determination of just compensation' the point raised for consideration was with regard to payment of solatium for the com­pulsory nature of acquisition of the land. However, on this point the learned brother Justice T. N. Singh (while delivered the judgment for the Court) observed in paragraph 16 of the Judgment:- "Accordingly, the claimant in this case is entitled to interest for the period from the date of acquisition, as claimed in the petition, for the reason that on and from that date she lost her right to recurring compensation and she became, instead, entitled to full compensation for the property in-which she lost all manner of rights which got vested in the Govt. on and from that date” While considering the question of solatium Hon'ble Hansaria, J. observed : "I wish to state that according to me the open market price would not include the solatium payable in cases of requisition under the 1894 Act, though, all the matters mentioned in S. 23(1) of the Act can be, and has to be allowed in cases of acquisition under the 1952 Act To allow solatium to be paid in cases covered by the later Act on the score that "open market price" would include it, amount to granting of solatium indirectly which has not been provided for directly in the Act and as such really excluded". In the aforesaid case solatium was not allowed in view of the fact that the award was a 'just compensation". Referring to case of Prakash Amichand Shah vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1986 SC 468 Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant has sub­mitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case their Lordships held that the decision rendered in P. C. Goswami (supra) could be distinguishable from the present case. While considering the ratio of the decision rendered in Nagpur Improvement Trust's case reported in AIR 1973 SC 689 their Lordships observed- "The development and planning carried out under the Act is primarily for the benefit: of public. The local authority is under an obligation to function according to the Act. While considering the ratio of the decision rendered in Nagpur Improvement Trust's case reported in AIR 1973 SC 689 their Lordships observed- "The development and planning carried out under the Act is primarily for the benefit: of public. The local authority is under an obligation to function according to the Act. The local authority has to bear a part of the expenses of development It is in one sense a package deal'' It was further observed that- We do not understand the decision in Nagpur Improvement Trust's case, ( AIR 1973 SC 689 ) (supra) as laying down generally that wherever land is taken away by the Government under a separate statute compensation should be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only and if there is any difference between the compensation payable under the statute concerned the acquisition under the statute would be discriminatory. That case is distinguishable from the present case". Lastly, their Lordships in paragraph 36 held - “It cannot also be Said as a rule that the State which has got to supply and maintain large public services at great cost should always pay in addition to a reasonable compensation some amount by way of solatium. The interest of the public is equally important. In any event it is not shown that the compensation payable in this case is illusory and unreal” The case of Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab as reported in AIR 1984 SC 382 mainly dealt with the eligibility of interest and also the fight to compensation and the quantification of the amount in the award. In reply to the submissions made by Mr. A. Sarma, the learned Government Advocate Mr. K. P. Sharma has referred to us the decision rendered in Prakash Amkhand Shah (supra). It is submitted by learned Government Advocate that an award by an Arbitrator is not a mere expression of opinion. It is an order directing the competent authority to pay to the person, found entitled, to the compensation, a particular sum of money in such manner and within such period as may be specified in the order. The provisions of the Act does not provide for any. It is an order directing the competent authority to pay to the person, found entitled, to the compensation, a particular sum of money in such manner and within such period as may be specified in the order. The provisions of the Act does not provide for any. solatium nor the Act speaks of the application of the Land Acquisition Act in assessing the compensation unlike the other Act namely, Assam Requisitioning and Acquisition Act, Bombay Town Planning Act, 1955, Nagpur Improvement Trust, Act and also Town Planning Act (Travancore Act 4 of 1108). Therefore, the process in computing or assessing just compensation is to be guided under the strict provisions as laid down under section 8 pf the Act. It would he beyond the ambit and jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to award any other amount by way of solatium while making an award. It may be observed that the significant omission of Solatium in section 8(3) of the Act is indicative "of legislative intent necessitating stress on the expressions 'just and 'circumstances of each case” occurring in section 8(1) (8) of the Act. In assessing compensation payable to a person whose land has been acquired compulsorily, the Court has to see that he is treated just and fairly, although there may be some amount of guess work involved; in tip process. This is what exactly held and observed by a Division Bench of this Court in Binu Nalufar Haq ( AIR 1984 Gau. 81 ) (snpra). 6. Mr. K. P. Sharma, the learned Government Advocate has further placed reliance on a recent decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court as reported in AIR 1988 A. P. 208 (Competent Authority, Spl. Dy. Collector, L. A.(D) ts. T. Penta Reddy) which dealt with, a land acquisition matter under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. Besides other points for 'just and fair compensation' the point of solatium was also referred to be considered in the said decision. The High Court considered the several earlier decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as of the Supreme Court as referred to above in the said case. Admittedly, the word 'solatium' is not expressed in Land Acquisition Act. The High Court considered the several earlier decisions of Andhra Pradesh High Court as well as of the Supreme Court as referred to above in the said case. Admittedly, the word 'solatium' is not expressed in Land Acquisition Act. What has been said under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is that- "In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of (thirty per centum) on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition." Now the question is posed as to whether the additional market price is included as solatium for the purpose of this case. On plain reading of the provision of sub section (2) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act it appears that in addition to market value the Court shall in every case award an amount as prescribed under the said provision on such market? value in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. In the aforesaid section there is no mention about solatium. Therefore, this amount of solatium or additional amount is outside the purview of the assessment of market value. We agree with the observations of Andhra Pradesh High Court to the effect that it cannot be said as a matter of principle that the concept of compensation necessarily includes solatium. In the aforesaid case another question, was posed to the effect that if in case the provisions of Land Acquisition Act is not attr­acted but at the same time though solatium is not provided in 1952 Act, yet, the Court if considers that an amount by way of solatium may be granted in particular nature of a case then what should be the quantum of amount of solatium and what should be the percentage ? Accepting the view of the Supreme Court in Prakash Amichattd (supra) the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that no general proposition can be, enunciated saying that whenever land is taken away by the Government under a separate statute, compensation should be paid under the provisions of Central Land Acquisition Act. Accepting the view of the Supreme Court in Prakash Amichattd (supra) the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that no general proposition can be, enunciated saying that whenever land is taken away by the Government under a separate statute, compensation should be paid under the provisions of Central Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court also observed- "Wherever land is taken away the Government under a separate statute, compensation should be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 only and if there is any difference between the compensation payable under the statute concerned, the acquisition udder the statute would be discriminatory" (see AIR 1986 SC 468 ) 7. We have appreciated the arguments advanced by Mr. A. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant who has tried his to distinguish the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the light of the decisions rendered in P. C. Goswami (supra) and T. Mr Peter (supra). It is fairly submitted by Mr. Sarma that so far broad principles as laid down by their Lordships in Prakash Amichand (supra) there cannot be any second opinion and rendered by a Constitution Bench. In that context it is submitted by him that their Lordships have not made a rigid rule that whenever a land is acquired By a 'separate' statute solatium cannot be granted. The last submission of Mr. Sarma is that the applicability of the provisions of sub-section (2) of lection 23 of the Land Acquisition Act was though excluded not to be considered" while passing an Sward under Assam Land Requisition and Acquisition Act, yet, the Supreme Court in P.C. Goswanii (supra) has allowed solatium on the principle that the State Government has ample authority to apply the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and in case; of application of one provision may not exclude the other .which, will create discrimination to the owner of the land who by the action c-f the state for omitting the solatium shall deprive of his benefit. 8. We have given our anxious consideration on the submission of the learned counsel and also considered the ratio of aforesaid .decisions referred to us by the respective counsel in support of their contentions. 8. We have given our anxious consideration on the submission of the learned counsel and also considered the ratio of aforesaid .decisions referred to us by the respective counsel in support of their contentions. Upon hearing the learned counsel we are of .the opinion that the provisions of Assam Requisition and Acquisition Act are distinct and different for its application from the provisions as laid down in the 1952 Act and therefore, the analogy to the .provisions as laid .down in the Assam Requisition and Acquisition Act is not applicable in the present case of the appellant. We respectfully agree and abide by their Lordships' decisions rendered in Prakask Amichand (supra) and do not differ from the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in Competent Authority (supra). We therefore, hold that in case of awarding just compensation' under the aforesaid 1952 Act the appellant is not entitled to solatium. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, under the facts and circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Manisana, J. — I agree.