JUDGMENT K.K. Usha, J. 1. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the Sub Court, Ernakulam in L.A.R. Nos. 150 and 184 of 1985. State is the appellant. In L.A.R. No. 150 of 1985 an extent of 29.53 acres of land in Sy. No. 454/1A of Kumbalam Village was acquired for the purpose of Panangad Fisheries College under notification dt. 25.9.1979. In L.A.R. No. 184 of 1985 10.12 acres were acquired under the same notification. In the first case award was passed on 15.7.1985 and possession was taken on 15.1.1982. In the second case, award was passed on 31.12.1981 and possession was taken on 1.2.1982. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the land under category No.1, namely property having P. W. D. road frontage and granted land value at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per are. 13.60 acres were reduced as standing space. Towards the trees an amount of Rs. 542/- was granted as compensation. For peeling shed an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was granted in L. A. R. No. 150 of 1985. In L. A. R. No. 184 of 1985 the land value was granted at the same rate. On reference the land value was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 9,527/- per are. In L. A. R. No. 150 of 1985 the reference court applied the above rate to the entire area of 29.53 acres and an additional amount of Rs. 2,800/- was granted towards value of trees. The compensation granted for peeling shed was affirmed. In L.A.R. No. 184 of 1985 land value was enhanced at the rate of Rs. 9527/- per are. 3. It is seen from the impugned judgment that enhancement in land value was granted on the basis of the judgment in L.A.R. No. 145 of 1985 and connected cases where the land which was acquired for the very same purpose and valued at the rate of Rs. 1600/- per are by the Land Acquisition Officer was granted enhancement at the rate of Rs. 8470/- per are by the reference court. Since the lands acquired in the present cases were valued by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per are proportionate enhancement was granted by the reference court and the land value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 9527 per are. 8470/- per are by the reference court. Since the lands acquired in the present cases were valued by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 1800/- per are proportionate enhancement was granted by the reference court and the land value was fixed at the rate of Rs. 9527 per are. It is submitted at the Bar that the appeal filed before this court from the judgment in L.A.R. No. 145 of 1985 was got dismissed as withdrawn. 4. No material was placed before us by the appellant in support of its contention that the property covered by L. A.R. No. 145 of 1985 cannot be compared to the acquired properties. We find that the .acquired properties are valued by the Land Acquisition Officer at a higher rate than the valuation made in L. A.R. No. 145 of 1985. In view of the above we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the reference court on the question of land value. We also find no merit in the contention raised by the appellant regarding the value of trees. Therefore the amounts granted towards land value, towards value of the trees and peeling shed are affirmed. 5. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that in L.A.R. No. 184 of 1985 the claimant was not entitled to the benefit under S.23(1A) of the amended land Acquisition Act. This contention is not objected to by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Learned Government Pleader further pointed out that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Yadavrao P. Pathade (Dead) by LRs. etc. v. State of Maharashtra 1996 (1) KLT 452 SC : JT (2) 1996 (240) it has to be clarified that the claimants are not entitled to interest as provided under S.28 on the amount of solatium granted as per the provisions contained in S.23(2). In the above mentioned judgment of the Apex Court, which is rendered by a Bench of three Judges, the view taken is that the finding in Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala AIR 1990 SC 2192 that interest on solatium would be part of the component of the compensation under S.23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is not correct. In Para.5 of the judgment it was held as follows : "S.23(2) provides that "in addition" to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum at 15 % preceding the Amendment Act and after the Amendment Act, 30% p.a. on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. The legislature, therefore, made a distinction between compensation under S.23(1) and the additional amount on such market value as solatium in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. In other words, S.28 does not comprehend payment of interest on solatium when it expressly mentions payment of interest on compensation under S.28 referable to S.23(1) of the Act. Thus the High Court was right in not awarding interest on solatium. Similar view was taken by this Court after Periar's case (supra) by a three-Judge Bench in Prem Nath Kapur & Anr.. etc. v. National Fertilisers Corporation of Indian Ltd. and Others, C.A. 11398/95 etc. decided on November 29, 1995." 6. We find merit in the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader. We therefore delete the benefit granted under S.23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act to the claimant in L.A.R. No. 184 of 1985 by the reference court. It is also made clear that by applying the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in 1996 (1) KLT 452 (SC) : JT 1996 (2) 240 the claimants will not be entitled to interest on the amount received as solatium. The judgment and decree of the reference court are modified to the above extent. The appeals stand partly allowed. In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs.