JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan C. J.—This appeal is by the State against the judgment of the District Judge, Hamirpur and Una Districts at Una made in Land Reference Case No, 2 of 1981. The Collector made an award at the rate of 1-1/2 times the five years average market price of the land i. e. at the rate of Rs. 393 70 paise and also allowed 15% compulsory acquisition charges. Thus, the total compensation awarded was Rs. 1841.30 paise, on 31-3-1981. The date of Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was 18-6-1979 The purpose of acquisition was for construction of office-cum-residential accommodation for the Barrier Staff at Pandoga 2. Apart from the oral evidence adduced by the claimants, only one document was filed as indicating the market price in the locality, that is Ex. PW-3/A and that is a sale deed of the year 1980. PVV 3 is the person, who purchased the land under that document He has produced the document and spoken to the effect that he purchased two kanals of land in village Pandoga for Rs 6,000. He has also stated that the land was situated on Una-Hoshiarpur Road. He has denied the suggestion that he had paid a lesser amount that what is shown in the document 3. PW 1, namely, Lekh Raj, Patwari Halqua Pandoga has given evidence that according to the Lal Book, the average price of the land in the village was Rs. 368 80 paise per kaoal daring the year 1979-80 4. PW 2, the first claimant has not given any evidence with regard to the sale in the locality. He has not been able to produce any document in support of his claim for Rs. 2.000 per marla. But he has stated that an offer was made to him at the rate of Rs. 300 per marla, but he demanded more money He has deposed that the market value of the land at the time of the Notification was Rs 1,000 per marla. According to him, the land is situated in the centre of the village at a distance of 100 yards from the lesidential houses of the village. 5. PW 4 is the Shopkeeper in village Pandoga. According to him, the land is situated in the centre of the village at a distance of 100 yards from the lesidential houses of the village. 5. PW 4 is the Shopkeeper in village Pandoga. He is running his shop opposite to the Excise Barrier, According to him, he had a talk with the claimants in 1978 for purchase of the whole land at the rate of Rs 200 per marla, but it could not be finalised at that time, as the acquisition proceedings had started. According to his evidence, the acquired land is worth even Rs. 250 to Rs. 300 per marla 6. PW 5 is one Ram Dass. According to him, he wanted to start a flour mill in 1976-77 at the acquired site and offered Rs. 300 per marla to the claimant, but he was not agreeable as he was demanding Rs. 500 per marla. But he has added that he was prepared to pay more. If that was so, it is not known why he did not purchase the land at Rs 500 per marla, which according to him, was the demand of the claimants. Obviously, his statement is not acceptable, 7. Thus, the evidence adduced on the side of the claimants is absolutely worthless to prove that the market value of the land was Rs 2,000 per marla, as claimed by the claimants or even half of that. The only document if at all, which can be said to be relevant is Ex, PW 3/A, which is a sale deed. That came into existence after about four months from the date of Notification under section 4(1) of the Act. Strictly speaking, this document could not be considered as evidence as it came into existence after the Notification, but in the absence of any other evidence on record worthy of acceptance, the document could be taken into consideration for the purpose of showing that there was a trend of rise in prices in the locality, The rate at which the land was sold under that document was only Rs. 150 per mark. The best that can be said in support of the claimant is that they will be entitled to at Rs. 150 per marla and nothing more. 8. 150 per mark. The best that can be said in support of the claimant is that they will be entitled to at Rs. 150 per marla and nothing more. 8. Learned Counsel for the claimants, however, contended that the land dealt with in Ex PW 3/A is situated far away and it cannot be compared favourably with the acquired land According to him, the acquired land is much more valuable than the land shown in Ex PW 3/A. We are unable to accept this contention, as there is no such evidence on record. On the other hand, we had already referred to statement of PW 3 that the land dealt with in Ex PW 3/A is situated on Una-Hoshiarpur Road. In such a situation, the contention is without any merit. 9 We have no hesitation to hold that the view expressed by the learned District Judge in the judgment under appeal is wholly unsustainable It is not known how the learned District Judge fixed the market value at Rs. 500 per marla without any acceptable evidence on record. He has placed reliance merely on the statement of PW 5 to the effect that the claimants were prepared to sell the land at Rs. 500 per marla He has failed to take note of the statement that PW 5 was prepared to pay more, but even these at that time the transaction was not completed. The learned District Judge has not chosen to analyse or appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and consider whether such evidence was acceptable in a Court of law 10. We are of the opinion that the view of the learned District Judge is unsustainable and we set aside the award passed by the learned District Judge. We fix the market value of the acquired laud at Rs ISO per marla and the claimants are entitled to get compensation at that rate. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimants contends that they will be entitled to get the benefits of section 23 (I-A) of the Act after the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act. That contention cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jagdish and others. 11. Learned Counsel for the claimants contends that they will be entitled to get the benefits of section 23 (I-A) of the Act after the amendment of the Land Acquisition Act. That contention cannot be accepted in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Jagdish and others. 1995 Supp |3) SCC 510 The Court has held that if the award of the Collector is passed before the Amendment Act was introduced, the benefits of section 23 (I-A) could not be claimed by the claimants. In this case, the award of the Collector was made on 31-3-1981, which is long before the amendment was introduced in the Land Acquisition Act. Hence, the claimants will not be entitled to the benefits of section 23 (1-A). 12. The appeal is allowed, as indicated above and the market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs. 150 per marla. The claimants will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 4% on the said amount of compensation. There is no dispute before us about the apportionment made by the learned District Judge of the compensation among the claimants. That part of the order will stand. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.