JUDGMENT - H.W. Dhabe, J.:--- This is an appeal by the claimant against the award of additional compensation by the Joint Judge, Nashik, in Land Reference No. 17 of 1982, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which according to the claimant is inadequate. 2. Briefly the facts are that the State Government published on 15-3-1979 a notification under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act, to acquire in Kalwan town an area admeasuring 39.44 Areas equivalent to 3944 Sq. M. from Gat No. 533 belonging to the appellant for the public purpose of having at Kalwan a K.V. Sub Station, Central Room, Staff quarters etc. of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (for short, the M.S.E.B). According to the learned Counsel for the appellant the above agricultural land was converted to non-agricultural use in 1970. However it appears from the award that the land was converted to non-agricultural use on 9-1-1973. It is pertinent to see that according to the claimant the possession of the suit land was taken by the State Government by an agreement dated 24-8-1978 i.e. even prior to the publication of the notification dated 15-3-1979 under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The appellant has claimed by filing his statement of claim before the Special Land Acquisition Officer No. I, Nashik (for short the L.A.O.) that he is entitled to compensation @Rs. 170/- per Sq.M. The learned L.A.O. however, fixed the rate of compensation for the suit land at Rs.10/- per Sq.M. Accordingly the compensation of Rs. 39,440/- was granted by him for the suit land. The learned L.A.O. also allowed 15% solatium upon the above compensation awarded by him. 4. The appellant sought a reference to the Civil Court and accordingly the aforesaid Land Reference No.17 of 1982 was made by the learned L.A.O. to the Civil Court, hereinafter referred as the "Reference Court". The appellant claimed before the learned Reference Court the com- pensation at the same rate i.e. @ Rs. 170/- per Sq.M. He led evidence by examining witnesses to prove three sale instances which according to him furnished comparable rates or granting compensation regarding his suit land. The State also examined two witnesses to prove two sale instances which were, according to it,comparable rates for grant of compensation in respect of the suit land. 5. 170/- per Sq.M. He led evidence by examining witnesses to prove three sale instances which according to him furnished comparable rates or granting compensation regarding his suit land. The State also examined two witnesses to prove two sale instances which were, according to it,comparable rates for grant of compensation in respect of the suit land. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the learned Reference Court, on the date of the arguments, the appellant filed an application (Exh. 30), enclosing therewith the certified copy of the judgment dated 19-12-1980 in Land R.C. No. 60 of 1979. The judgment was exhibited by the learned Reference Court as Exh. 75. By filing the certified copy of the judgment in the above land reference case, the appellant-claimant wanted also to rely upon the rate of compensation granted by the learned Reference Court in that case which rate worked out to Rs. 18.75 per Sq.M. as the compensation was granted in the said case at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre. The case of the appellant-claimant before the learned Reference Court was that the suit land was in the same locality and was in fact better situated as compared to the land in the aforesaid L.R.C. No.60 of 1979 in which the compensation at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre i.e. Rs.18.75 per Sq. M. was granted. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant had submitted before the learned Reference Court that the rate of compensation determined in the aforesaid R.C. No. 60 of 1979 was as on 12-4-1973 on which date the notification in the said case under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act was published, whereas according to him in the instant case the notification under section 4(i) of the Act was published much later i.e. on 15-3-1979. It is, therefore, his case that taking into consideration the escalation of prices of lands during the period of about 6 years from 12-4-1973 to 15-3-79 appropriate higher rate of compensation should be fixed for the suit land in the instant case. 7. The learned Reference Court, after taking into consideration the material on record and submissions made by the parties, referred to the judgment (Exh.75) of the learned Reference Court in L.R.C No. 60 of 1979 against which there was at that there was at that time an appeal viz. F.A. No. 566 of 1981 pending in this Court. 7. The learned Reference Court, after taking into consideration the material on record and submissions made by the parties, referred to the judgment (Exh.75) of the learned Reference Court in L.R.C No. 60 of 1979 against which there was at that there was at that time an appeal viz. F.A. No. 566 of 1981 pending in this Court. From the aforesaid judgment (Exh.75) he found that the rate of ;compensation offered by the learned L.A.O. for the land acquired in the said case in 1973 as per the notification under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act published on 12-4-1973 was Rs. 4.75 per Sq.M. He then found that for the suit land situated in the same locality the town Kalwan the rate of compensation offered by the learned L.A.O. in 1979 was Rs. 10/- per Sq. M. on the date when the notification under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15-3-1979. As such, according to him, even as per the market value determined by the learned L.A.O. for the lands in Kalwan, the value of the lands from 12-4-1973 to 15-3-1979, escalated and was almost double. 8. Keeping in mind the above factor of escalation of prices in fixing the actual rate of compensation for the suit land, the learned Reference Court, doubled the rate of compensation fixed as per the judgment (Exh.75) for acquisition of land in Kalwan town in L.R.C. No. 60 of 1979. The said rate was thus Rs. 37.50 per Sq.M. in 1979 i.e. on or about 15-4-1979 as the rate of compensation fixed as per the judgment (Exh.75) was Rs. 18.75 Sq.M. in 1973 i.e. as on 12-4-1973. He then deduced the mean by adding to the above rate of Rs. 37.50 per Sq. M. The rate of Rs. 10/- per Sq.M. fixed by the learned L.A.O. for the suit land as on 15-4-1979 and by dividing the total by two. Thus according to the above calculation the rate of compensation came to Rs. 23.75 per Sq.M. However, taking into consideration the situation of the suit land, the learned Reference Court offered for its acquisition the compensation in round figure of Rs. 25/- per Sq.M. He worked out the additional compensation payable to the appellant-claimant as Rs. 59,160/- on the basis of the above rate arrived at by him. He also allowed the solatium @15% on the above additional compensation. 25/- per Sq.M. He worked out the additional compensation payable to the appellant-claimant as Rs. 59,160/- on the basis of the above rate arrived at by him. He also allowed the solatium @15% on the above additional compensation. He further directed that the appellant was entitled to get interest @ 4% P.A. on the additional amount of compensation and solatium from the date of dispossession till realisation of the said amount. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the learned Reference Court, the claimant has preferred the instant appeal claiming that he is entitled to compensation for the suit land at the rate of Rs. 170/- per Sq. M. Although, he has actually restricted his claim in the instant appeal to Rs. 4,00,000/- upon which amount he has paid the requisite Court Fees. It is, however, necessary to state that the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has during his oral submissions before us claimed the compensation for the suit land at the rate of Rs. 40/- per Sq.M. which according to him the appellant should at any rate is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 10. Before appreciating the rival submissions, it is necessary to notice the location of the suit land. Exh. 71 is the map which shows the location of the suit-land. It appears from the said map (Exh.71) that the suit land is in Kalwan town and is near to the Kalwan-Devla road. It is not disputed even by the learned L.A.O. in his award that the suit land has a non-agricultural potential. Near the suit land of the appellant, there are residential houses, the S.T. Bus Stand and Depot and market yard and it is, therefore, clear that the suit land has a non-agricultural potential and has, therefore, to be valued keeping in mind the said factor. 11. As regards the question of rate of compensation to be awarded to the suit land, the appellant has through the evidence adduced on his behalf proved three sale instances by examining witnesses in that regard apart from the judgment (Exh.75) in L.R. Case No. 60 of 1979 referred to above. Dagdu Balwant Bhandane (AWI) has proved that by sale deed dated 13-6-1978 (Exh.24-A), he purchased 3 Acres of land from Gat No. 564 of Kalwan, for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Dagdu Balwant Bhandane (AWI) has proved that by sale deed dated 13-6-1978 (Exh.24-A), he purchased 3 Acres of land from Gat No. 564 of Kalwan, for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. The 3 Acres of land are equivalent to 300 Sq.M. Dharma (AW2) has proved sale deed dated 10-5-1979 (Exh.26-A) under which according to him, be purchased 350 Sq.M. of land from Gat No. 325 for a consideration of Rs. 17,000/- in the name of his minor son. Dhondu Baliram Pawar (AW7) is examined by the appellant-claimant to prove the sale deed dated 22-11-1978 (Exh.56) in respect of 96 Sq.M.of non-agricultural land in City Survey No. 1443 purchased by him in the name of his wife for a consideration of Rs. 28,000/- 12. As regards the sale instances proved on behalf of the respondent-State, Smt, Anupama Deshmukh (NAW1) has stated in her evidence that by the sale deed dated 27-9-1979 (Exh.63), she purchased 22.2 Acres of land i.e. equivalent to 2,220 Sq.M. of land from Gat No.610 for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. Another witness examined by the State is Vinod Sadashiv Shelr (NAW2) who has deposed that under the sale deed dated 4-9-1979 (Exh.65), he purchased 17.02 Acres of land from Gat No. 599 for a consideration of Rs. 16,500/- 13. It is pertinent to see that for the sake of convenience the learned Reference Court has prepared and given in para 10 of his judgment a chart in tabular form of the particulars of the sale transactions relied upon by both parties working out the rate of compensation per square meter payable on the basis of each of the said sale transactions. As regards the above sale transactions relied upon by the appellant-claimant, the rate of compensation on the basis of the said sale transaction works out to Rs.66/- per Sq.M., Rs. 48.50 per Sq.M. and Rs. 292/- per Sq.M. respectively. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has admitted that the third sale transaction from which the rate of compensation works out to Rs. 292/- per Sq.M. does not Sq.M. does not provide a reasonable basis for determining the compensation for the ;suit land and he is not therefore relying upon the same. 292/- per Sq.M. respectively. However, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has admitted that the third sale transaction from which the rate of compensation works out to Rs. 292/- per Sq.M. does not Sq.M. does not provide a reasonable basis for determining the compensation for the ;suit land and he is not therefore relying upon the same. The finding of the learned Reference Court in this regard in para 12 of his judgment is in fact unassailable as the witness Dhondu (AW7) who has purchased the land in question thereunder has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the land purchased by him was costly but he purchased the same for the dispensary for his son. As regards the two sale transactions cited and proved on behalf of the State Government, the rate of compensation on the basis of the said sale transactions works out to Rs.9.50 per Sq.M. in each of them. 14. Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to see that the reasoning adopted by the learned Reference Court shows that while determining the rate of compensation for the suit-land, he has taken into consideration the rate of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court by his judgment dated 19-12-80 in L.R.C. No.60 of 1979 (Exh. 75). Although at that time the judgment in the First Appeal No. 566 of 1981 against the judgment (Exh.75) in Reference Case No.60 of 1979 was pending in this Court, it is necessary to state that we have before hearing the instant appeal, heard and decided the said First Appeal No. 566 of 1981 on 27th September, 1991 in which we have affirmed the judgment of the learned Reference Court in that case. Thus the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per acre equivalent to Rs. 18.75 per Sq.M. granted by the learned Reference Court in the said case stands affirmed by this Court. It is further pertinent to see that the land in that case was acquired for construction of Bus Depot of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (for short the M.S.R.T.C) and the land in the said case is situated in the same locality close to the suit land of the appellant acquired for constructing K.V. Sub-Station of the M.S.E.B. 15. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged before us on the basis of the judgment (Exh. The learned Counsel for the appellant urged before us on the basis of the judgment (Exh. 75) in L.R.C. No. 60 of 1979 that for the land in the same locality in Kalwan town having non-agricultural potential the rate of compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court for its acquisition as far back as in 1973 was Rs. 75,000/- per acre i.e. Rs. 18.75 per Sq.M. and therefore taking into consideration the fact that from 1973 to 1979 the prices of land in the same locality of Kalwan town have escalated and have almost become double as held by the learned Reference Court itself on the basis of the rate of compensation awarded by the learned L.A.O. himself for the land in question in L.R. Case No. 60 of 1979 and the suit land and further taking into consideration the fact that the suit land was nearer to the main road, the rate of Rs. 40/- per Sq.M. for its acquisition was reasonable and proper. He has also sought to substantiate his above submission on the basis of the two sale instances proved by the appellant. 15A. The learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, urged before us that although the learned Reference Court was right in holding that the prices have become almost double during 6 years from 1973 to 1979, it committed an error in accepting the sale instances cited by the State and on that basis deducing the mean by adding the rate of Rs.10/- per Sq.M. awarded by the learned L.A.O. on the basis of the sale instances cited by the State to Rs.37.50Ps. i.e. double of the rate of Rs. 18.75 Ps . fixed under the judgment (Exh.75) and dividing the total by two. He has urged that there is no rationale for the above procedure adopted by the learned Reference Court. 16. i.e. double of the rate of Rs. 18.75 Ps . fixed under the judgment (Exh.75) and dividing the total by two. He has urged that there is no rationale for the above procedure adopted by the learned Reference Court. 16. In appreciating the above submissions made on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to see that no exception can be taken to the inference drawn by the learned Reference Court and pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that the prices of the land in the locality in question of Kalwan have escalated during the period of about 6 years from 1973 to 1979 and are almost double as is clear from the prices offered by the learned L.A.O. himself for the land in the aforesaid L.R. Case No.60 of 1979 in 1973 and for the suit land in 1979. No exception can also be taken to the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that keeping in mind the above factor of appreciation of land value in the locality, the rate of compensation fixed by the learned Reference Court for the land in the aforesaid L.R. Case No. 60 of 1979 which rate is affirmed in appeal by this Court also, as stated above, can be taken as a reasonable basis for determination of the rate of compensation for the suit land. This is also the view taken by the learned Reference Court in para 16 of its judgment in the instant case. If the prices have almost doubled during the period of 1973 to 1979, then taking the basis of the rate of compensation fixed for the acquisition of land in 1973 as Rs.18.75 per Sq.M. as per the judgment in L.R.Case No.60 of 1979, the double the rate of compensation in the same locality in 1979 would be Rs.37.50 per Sq.M. The above reasoning based upon escalation of prices of lands stands supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in (Hindustan Oil Mills Ltd. v. Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition )1, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 731 Para 12. 17. 17. The learned Counsel for the appellant has, however, severely criticised the approach of the learned Reference Court in para 20 of his judgment in holding that the suit land is comparable to a certain extent with the lands in Gat No.599 and 610 which are the sale instances cited and proved by the State, and to a certain extent with the land in L.R. Case No.60 of 1979 decided by the judgment (Exh.75). According to him it is because of the above erroneous approach that the learned Reference Court has, in determining the rate of compensation in the instant case adopted the procedure of deriving the mean of the rate calculated by doubling the rate of compensation awarded in the judgment (Exh.75) and the rate awarded by the learned L.A.O.in the instant case on the basis of the above sale instances proved by the State. 17A. In considering the above submission made on behalf of the appellant, it is material to state at the out set that at the time of the judgment rendered by the learned Reference Court, the First Appeal No.566 of 1981 against the judgment of the learned Reference Court, in L.R.Case No.60 of 1979 was pending in this Court, and therefore, the pertinent observations of the learned Reference Court in regard the said judgment (Exh.75) in para 16 of his judgment in the instant case are that had the said judgment (Exh.75) been a concluded one it would having given some good basis for fixing the market rate for the suit land but that cannot be done since the appeal against the said judgment was pending in this Court at that time. The learned trial Court however, held in the said para 16 of his judgment that only some assistance can be drawn from the above judgment (Exh.75). It is thus for the above reason of the pendency of the appeal against the judgment (Exh.75) that the learned Reference Court has held in para 20 of his judgment that there is no direct evidence for fixing the market rate in the instant case and in its absence, the safer course would be to have a mean of the two rates as stated above because the suit land according to him is comparable to certain extent with the land in L.R.Case No.60 of 1979 as well as with the lands in Gat Nos.599 and 560. 18. 18. It is clear from even the reasoning of the learned Reference Court in para 16 of his judgment that since the First Appeal No.566 of 1981 against the judgment (Exh.75) is now decided by us by our judgment dated 27-9-1991, the said matter stands concluded and the rate of compensation awarded in the said judgment (Exh.75) which is affirmed by us in our aforesaid judgment dated 27-9-1991 provides a good basis for fixing the market rate in the instant case. If that is so, taking into consideration the factor of escalation of prices of land which are double in another locality of Kalwan as shown above on or above 15-3-1979 i.e., the date of publication of the notification under section 4(i) of the Land Acquisition Act in the instant case the market rate works out to Rs.37.50 per Sq.M. on the basis of the rate of Rs.18.75 per Sq.M. for the land in L.R. Case No.60 of 1979 determined in the judgment (Exh.75). 18A. The next question to be considered is whether the above rate needs to be loaded or unloaded looking the location of the suit land vis-a-vis the land in L.R.Case No.60 of 1979. Perusal of the judgment (Exh.75) in L.R.Case No.60 of 1979 shows that the land therein which was acquired for the S.T. Depot, is situated behind the S.T. Bus Stand and is 150 to 200 ft. away from the Deola-Kalwan Road. However, as deposed to by the claimant Kashinath (AW5) the location of the suit land shows that there is Bus Stand to its north, public road towards its eastern side and to its western side the Bus Depot. The above situation of the suit land is also corroborated by the map (Exh.71). It is thus clear that the suit land has better location as compared to the land in L.R. Case No.60 of 1979. Moreover, the suit land was already converted into non-agricultural land in 1970. Considering the better location of the suit land and that it was already converted as non-agricultural land the rate of Rs.37.50 per Sq.M. will have to be slightly loaded for the suit land and in that event the rate of Rs.40/- per Sq.M. claimed by the appellant-claimant appears to be reasonable for determining compensation for the suit land. 19. It is then necessary to see whether the sale transactions in respect of Gat Nos. 19. It is then necessary to see whether the sale transactions in respect of Gat Nos. 599 and 610 proved by the State provide any help in determining the rate of compensation for the suit land since the learned Reference Court has held that there are certain similarities in the lands under the said sale transactions and the suit land. We have already held that the suit land is a non agricultural land and has very good location being nearer to the main road and being in the residential and commercial area. As regards the land in Gat No.610 it is an agricultural land purchased for construction of house by the vendors Anupama ashok Deshmukh (NAW1) and Ujwala Madhavrao Pagar. The evidence of Anupama (NAW1) shows that all the lands around the land purchased by her are agricultural lands. It further shows that her land is separated from the suit land by the three fields. She has admitted in her evidence that her land is situated towards the southern side of the S.T. Depot whereas the village Kalwan is expanding towards northern and eastern sides of the S.T.Depot where the suit land is situated. The above witness does not seem to have proper sense of direction vis-a-vis the Bus Depot. Her land is actually towards the northern side and the village Kalwan is expanding towards southern and eastern side See the evidence of the Village Development Officer Jagganath Pagar (AW6). The above situation of the Gat No.610 and the suit land can be seen from the map (Exh.71)also. 19A. As regards Gat No. 599 it is clear from the map (Exh.71) as also from the evidence of Vinod Sadashio Shelar (NAW2) examined by the state to prove the sale-transaction of the land from the said Gat No. 599 that his land in Gat No. 599 is adjoining the land of Anupam Deshmukh (NAW1) in Gat No. 610. 20. The above location of the lands in Gat Nos .610 and 599 clearly shows that they are in no way comparable with the suit land which has very high non-agricultural potential as compared to them. There was therefore no rationale in drawing the mean of double the rate of the land in L.R. Case No. 60 of 1979 i.e. Rs. 37.50 per Sq.M. and the rate of Rs. There was therefore no rationale in drawing the mean of double the rate of the land in L.R. Case No. 60 of 1979 i.e. Rs. 37.50 per Sq.M. and the rate of Rs. 10/- per Sq.M. determined by the learned L.A.O. from the sale transactions in Gat Nos.610 and 599 proved by the State. The learned Reference Court has thus committed an error in doing so presumably because it was not sure at that time whether the rate for the land in L.R.Case No. 60 of 1979 would or would not be confirmed in appeal pending in this Court against the judgment (Exh.75)in the said case. 21. The last question to be considered is whether the rate of compensation of Rs.40/-per Sq.M.is also justified on the basis of the two sale transactions (Exh.24-A) and (Exh.26) proved by the appellant claimant. The learned Reference Court has held that two witnesses Dagdu Balwant Bhandane (AW1) and Ramdas Balkrishna Malpure (AW3) viz, the sons of the vendor and the vendee respectively do not have full and complete knowledge about the sale transaction (Exh.24-A). Perusal of the evidence shows that his reasoning in para 13 of his judgment is correct and the above sale instance (Exh.24-A) therefore needs to be discarded in determining the rate of compensation for the suit land. 22. As regards the sale-transaction (Exh. 26) proved by Dharma Pagar (AW2) the learned Reference Court has held that the said sale transaction did not provide for a comparative rate because it was in respect of the sale of a developed plot in a lay-out in Gat No. 325 and that it was Deola Road where on both sides there were layouts of plots. He has also held that the said sale transaction (Exh. 26) was in respect of a small plot and therefore did not provide a good basis for fixing the market value of the suit plot which was of a larger size. In appreciating the above reasoning of the learned Reference Court it must first be pertinently seen that the suit land is long back converted into a non-agricultural land and that it is also situated in a residentially and commercially developed locality. It is also nearer to the main road. In such case normally by making some appropriate deduction for the smallness of the plots the market value can be worked out for the larger plots. It is also nearer to the main road. In such case normally by making some appropriate deduction for the smallness of the plots the market value can be worked out for the larger plots. However, the Supreme Court has in the latest decision in the case of (Bhagwathula Samanna Dass v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Vishakapatnam Municipality, Vishakapatnam)2, C.A. Nos.1221 and 1222 of 1977, decided on 18-9-1991 held that the above proposition is not an absolute proposition and that in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. According to it, if the larger track of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. 22A. In our view there is no reason why the ratio of the above decision of the Supreme Court should not apply in the instant case when the suit land is ideally situated in residentially and commercially developed area. At any rate, there is also some allowance made in determining the market rate for the suit land at Rs. 40/- per Sq.M. because the rate for the small land in Gat No.325 sold as per the sale-transaction (Exh.26) is Rs.48.50 per Sq.M. 23. However, even assuming that the above sale instance (Exh.26) does not provide for a reasonable basis for determining the market price of the suit land, even as per the reasoning of the learned Reference Court hereinbefore shown the land in L.R. Case No. 60 of 1979 is comparable land its rate fixed as per the judgment (Exh. 75 provides a good basis for determining the market price of the suit land. We have also shown above that taking into consideration the factors of escalation of prices of land. And the better situtation of the suit land, the market price of Rs. 40/- per Sq.M. is justified for the suit land. 24. The next question which arises for consideration is how much additional compensation the appellant is entitled to at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 40/- per Sq.M. The learned Counsel for the parties have given us jointly a fresh note of calculation in this regard. 40/- per Sq.M. is justified for the suit land. 24. The next question which arises for consideration is how much additional compensation the appellant is entitled to at the aforesaid rate of Rs. 40/- per Sq.M. The learned Counsel for the parties have given us jointly a fresh note of calculation in this regard. The said note is taken on record. Accordingly, since the learned Reference Court had granted an additional compensation of Rs 59,160/- the further additional compensation that this Court grants would be Rs. 59,160/- since the total compensation @ Rs. 40/- per Sq. M.to which the appellant is entitled for his land admeasuring 3944 Sq.M. comes to Rs. 1,57,760/- 25. As regards solatium, since the award is passed by the learned Reference Court on 31st August, 1983, the amendment to section 23(2)of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Act No. 68 of 1984 would be applicable in the instant case. The appellant claimant would, therefore, be entitled to the solatium @ 30% upon the above market value of Rs. 1,57,760/-. Since the solatium @ 15% is already granted by the learned L.A.O. and the learned Reference Court, upon the amount of compensation fixed by them, the additional total solatium payable to the appellant-claimant to Rs. 32,538/- as calculated by the parties. Thus the total additional compensation and solatium to be allowed by this Court comes to Rs.91,698/- 26. The appellant-claimant is entitled to the interest of 9% instead of 4% as granted by the learned courts below, upon the total compensation and solatium from the date of dispossession till the date of deposit of compensation if already made by the State and if not till realisation under section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act after its amendment by Act No. 68 of 1984. 27. In the result, the instant appeal partly succeeds. The impugned order of the learned Reference Court is modified. In addition to the additional compensation and solatium awarded by the learned Reference Court, the respondent State is directed to pay him further additional compensation of Rs. 59,160/- and solatium of Rs.32,538/- the total amount being Rs.91,698/-. 27. In the result, the instant appeal partly succeeds. The impugned order of the learned Reference Court is modified. In addition to the additional compensation and solatium awarded by the learned Reference Court, the respondent State is directed to pay him further additional compensation of Rs. 59,160/- and solatium of Rs.32,538/- the total amount being Rs.91,698/-. Instead of 4% P.A. interest granted by the learned Reference Court, the State is directed to pay the interest @ 9% P.A. upon the compensation and solatium granted to the appellant-claimant from the date of dispossession till the date of the deposit if made and if not till the date of realisation. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Order accordingly. -----