JUDGMENT N.N. Mithal, J. - At the instance of the claimant an award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is under challenge in this appeal. The court below has awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of 7.14 per sq. yard but the appellants are claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 8.90 per sq. Yard. 2. The facts relevant for the purposes of this appeal are, that plot No. 5697, 5698, 5700, 5701, 5702, 5705, 5708, 5710, & 5742 admittedly belonging to the appellants were acquired under the Town Improvement Trust Act. A notification under Sec. 36 of the said Act which is equivalent to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 22nd Oct., 1966. It was followed by another notification under Sec. 31(2) equivalent to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21st Oct., 1969. The award was made on 24-3-1975. 3. For determining the market value of the land on the date of notification under Sec. 4 the court had relied upon a sale deed in respect of plot No. 5684 which lies on the other side of the road from which a rate of Rs. 9.52 per sq. yard had been worked out. The court, however, made a deduction of twenty five per cent since the exemplar sale deed was in respect of a small plot of land as compared to the area of the acquired land Accordingly, the compensation at the rated Rs. 7.14 per sq. yard was awarded. The lower court rejected the contention of the appellants that in respect of the adjoining land sans court had earlier awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 8.90 per sq Yard on the ground that in that case (LA. Reference No. 591 of 1978) the land in which examplar sale deed was filed was far away from the disputed land. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has assailed these grounds and it is urged that the fair market value of the land could not be less than Rs. 8.90 per sq-yard as claimed, and the reasons for not relying upon the evidence filed by the appellants in the court below was not at all justified. 5. There are some aspects of the matter which should be kept in mind. 8.90 per sq-yard as claimed, and the reasons for not relying upon the evidence filed by the appellants in the court below was not at all justified. 5. There are some aspects of the matter which should be kept in mind. The award of the land Acquisition Officer shows that the land in dispute is situate between the main high way between Meerut and Garh-Mukteshwar and another pucca road which links Meerut University with the cantonment station via Saket colony. It is also mentioned that Meerut Medical college is also quite nearby and there is a spawling housing colony developed by Avas Vikash Parishad on the other side of Meerut Garhmukteshwar road. It is also mentioned that the land -has got potentiality as a building site as it is very near to Victoria Park, Sports Colony, P.W.D. Tony and Putlighar colony. The area is not faraway from civil courts. Police Lines and the district jail. The fact that the land in dispute is situate in such a high potential area close to almost all the important offices and residential colony of the town and also was near to the main Meerut Garmukteshwar road cannot he lightly ingnored. The sajra map is also very helpful in showing that the village Aurangshahpur Diggi is adjoining the plot in dispute. Towards its west and the land on that village lies on the other side of the road opposite to Meeru University. The map also shows location of the sports colony. Victoria Park, University, Putlighar and other important places which are quite near to the land in question. The exemplar sale deed which has been relied upon by the appellants for awarding compensation in respect of that plot belonging to the claimants was plot No. 185 which is situate in the adjoining village of Aurangshahpur Diggi. It cannot be said that the said land had materially different potentiality than the land in question because the land in question is just adjoining to that village. There is nothing in the judgment of the court below to indicate that plot No. 185 was far away from the disputed land. 6. Apart from above, admittedly the sale deed for plot No. 5684 had been executed at the rate of Rs. 9.52 per sq. Yard. There is nothing in the judgment of the court below to indicate that plot No. 185 was far away from the disputed land. 6. Apart from above, admittedly the sale deed for plot No. 5684 had been executed at the rate of Rs. 9.52 per sq. Yard. The judgment does not indicate as to what was the area sold under the said sale deed and how it can be said that much smaller area has been sold thereunder. In the absence of the relevant facts it is difficult to accept that a deduction of twenty five per cent ought to be made in the price of the land. The judgement in Reference No. 591 of 1978 also could not he lightly brushed aside merely on the ground that the land which was subject of exemplar sale deed in that case was far off without there bring any supporting evidence on the record. In awarding compensation for the land certain uniformities has to be maintained and the price of the land in the same locality cannot be made variable in each case unless there were special circumstances for doing so. In our opinion, the court below has erred in not relying upon the rate of compensation awarded in L.A. Reference No. 591 of 1978 and also in making as much as twenty five per- cent deduction in the price on account of small area involved in the exemplar sale deed. For the above reasons in our opinion the order of the court below cannot be sustained. 7. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation by dividing the land in to two belts. In our opinion, the court has rightly rejected the belting system for awarding compensation and in accepting flat rate for the entire land involved in acquisition proceeding. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has also brought to our notice that his amendment application for adding certain grounds has already been allowed and in view of that the appellants are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% instead of 15% and also interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has also brought to our notice that his amendment application for adding certain grounds has already been allowed and in view of that the appellants are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% instead of 15% and also interest at the rate of nine per cent per annum. The contention of the appellants, however, does not appear to he sound particularly because in a recent decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in AIR 1989 SC 1933 amendment which was made in 1984 to Land Acquisition Act applies only in respect of those awards which have been made between 30th May, 1980 to 24th Sept., 1984. In this case, admittedly, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer as well as of the court below are prior to 1982. That decision, therefore, fully covers the points raised by the learned counsel. 9. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. Instead of the compensation being awarded at the rate of Rs. 7.14 per sq. Yard the appellants will now be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 8.90 per sq. Yard along with such solatium and interest etc. On the enhanced amount as permissible under the law. The appellants will be entitled to their costs from the Respondent.