S. K. DUBEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Section 11 of the Requsitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short the `act') for enhancement of compensation awarded in case No. 13 of 1982-83 vide award dated 14-3-1985 passed by the appointed Arbitrator Shri Justice V. R. Newaskar, a retired Judge of this Court. ( 2 ) FACT giving rise to this appeal are thus : One Sunderlal was the Bhumiswami of 25. 04 acres of land situated in Mouza : Katanga, Tehsil Jabalpur who died in the year 1979. The land was requisitioned by the Central Government by notification dated 24-6-1963. The Central Government after forming an opinion that it is necessary to acquire the land for defence purpose published a notice in the official Gazette dated 5-5-1972 to the effect that Central Government has decided to acquire the land in pursuance of Section 7 of the Act. After publication of notice land vested in the Central Government free from all encumbrance under Section 7 (2) of the Act. In pursuance of the notice the Competent Authority offered compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 2993 per acre and Rs. 6672/- for the trees standing over the land, Sunderlal accepted the compensation under the protest, hence, he was paid Rs. 65093. 05 for the land and trees, thebalance amount of Rs. 16452. 27 was kept in deposit in Jabalpur Treasury as is evident from the proceedings of the Competent Authority dated 13-3-1973. As the owner did not agree to the amount of compensation so offered, the Central Government appointed Shri Justice V. R. Newaskard retired Judge of this Court as arbitrator in accordance with Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act for determining the fair amount of compensation for the land and trees so acquired. The arbitrator so appointed entered upon the reference on 9-8-1982 who issue notice to the owner Sunderlal and the Central Government through Military Estate Officer, Jabalpur. On receipt of notice, the Central Government took a stand that the amount offered by the Competent Authority for land and trees was fair as the prevailing market price on the date of notice of acquisition namely 5-5-1972 was Rs. 2983/- per acre. On receipt of notice, the Central Government took a stand that the amount offered by the Competent Authority for land and trees was fair as the prevailing market price on the date of notice of acquisition namely 5-5-1972 was Rs. 2983/- per acre. As the legal representatives of deceased Sunderlal filed their written statement wherein it is asserted that the compensation offered by the Competent Authority was inadequate inasmuch as the potentiality of the land and use of which it could be put was not taken into consideration. The land is situated in proximity area of the Jabalpur Cantonment and city. The land by its development could be used for the residential locality for the city dwellers. It was pointed out that Modi Cooperative Housing Society had actually purchased land in the neighbourhood at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre, therefore, the Competent Authority ought to have offered a fair compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre and for trees Rs. 30,000/ -. An additional compensation by way of solatium for compulsory character of acquisition was also claimed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Arbitrator placing reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court, Nagpur Improvement Trust v. Vithal Rao, AIR 1973 SC 689 , Om Prakash v. State of U. P. , AIR 1974 SC 1202 : (1975 All LJ 395); State of Kerala v. T. M. Peter, AIR 1980 SC 1438 ; and P. C. Goswami v. Collector of Darrang, AIR 1982 SC 1214 held that although there is no provision similar to Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short the 'la Act') for awarding solatium, yet on general principles such additional amount of compensation at 15% of the amount determined of fair amount of compensation ought to be awarded to the claimants. After holding so the learned Arbitrator proceeded to consider fair amount of compensation payable to the claimants for the land and trees. ( 4 ) THE claimants during enquiry examined PW 1 Suresh Chandra and P. W. 2 Mithailal to prove the sale deed Ex. P/1 dated 12-1-1963 for the sale of a plot of land admeasuring 6909 sq. ft. situated on the Narbada Road Mouza Katanga for a consideration of Rs. 10,343. 50 executed by one Chandra Rani and purchased by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi. Another sale deed Ex. P/5 dated 2-11-1968 for the area 1. P/1 dated 12-1-1963 for the sale of a plot of land admeasuring 6909 sq. ft. situated on the Narbada Road Mouza Katanga for a consideration of Rs. 10,343. 50 executed by one Chandra Rani and purchased by Smt. Parmeshwari Devi. Another sale deed Ex. P/5 dated 2-11-1968 for the area 1. 58 acres executed by Dattatraya in favour of the Modi Co-operative Housing Society for Rupees 15,800/- at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre was also proved. The Central Government examined DW 1 Sukhdeosingh, DW 2 Khemchand to prove the two sale deeds Ex. D/2 and D/3. Ex. D/2 is dated 13-4-1971 area 1. 40 acres executed by Sukhnath in favour of Khemchand for consideration of Rs. 7,000/- at the rate ofRs. 5000/- per acre. Ex. D/3 is another sale deed for area 7. 64 acres executed by Ambanath to firm of Narmada Nagar Colonisers for consideration of Rs. 18,000/- at the rate of Rs. 2360/- per acre. On appraisal of the evidence adduced during enquiry the learned Arbitrator observed in relation to Ex. D/ 2 and Ex. D/ 3 that the sales are by two sons of Kashinath to whom land admittedly belonged and is entered in his name, however, there is a controversy about the proprietorship of these lands of the two brothers Sukhdeonath and Ambanath as Ambanath who is the son of Kashinath alleges himself to be the 'chela' of Kashinath and therefore, inheritance is taken place from 'guru' to 'chela' and that two sons are illegitimate sons of Kashinath through a kept wife. A suit for declaration and perma- nent injunction is filed and is pending in the Court of law. Learned Arbitrator observed that the land of claimants is semi-circular and partly raised land away from road side which was used till 1963 as 'charnoi' or pastured land which is hardly useful even for agricultural purposes except as a 'charnoi' Ex. P/1 is not a comparable sale as it demonstrates the price level of Rs. 65,000/ - per acre, which the claimant do not claim their claim is at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Ex. P/1 is not a comparable sale as it demonstrates the price level of Rs. 65,000/ - per acre, which the claimant do not claim their claim is at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Ex. P/5 was not taken into consideration as the claimants did not examine vendor or vendee to prove the sale only the secretary of the Society was examined who stated that the land is much nearer to the developed locality and near the road, therefore, it was observed that the sale cannot be taken as representative comparable sale for 25 acres of 'charnoi' land situated on a non-level ground. As regards the sale deed produced by the Central Government the learned Arbitrator observed that it demonstrates the price level in between Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 2360/- near about the date of acquisition. Though, in the land in question is not on the road and is at a short distance, but, it has some potentiality, therefore, on the evidence adduced by the parties, determined the price level of Rs. 4000/- per acre as fair and, thus, the claimants were awarded to Rs. l,oo,16o/- as compensation for their land and 15% as compensation for compulsory character of acquisition i. e. Rs. 15,024/-, total Rs. 1,15,184/ -. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date the claimants received part of compensation amount i. e 30-3-1973 up to the date of commencement of arbitration proceedings, i. e. 9-8-1982 was also awarded. However, no enhancement was made in the offer of compensation of trees. Aggrieved of the determination of the compensation as inadequate the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement. ( 5 ) SHIR Alok Beohar, learned counsel for the appellants relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Prabhu Dayal v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1451 : 1994 AIR SCW 891 contended that the learned Arbitrator has not taken into account the upward rise in the price and that the lands are situated near the main road and have got potentialities, looking to its situation, size and frontage, the fair market value of the land on the date of notice ought not to have been less than Rs. 10,000/- per acre and so also value of the trees as claimed by the appellants. 10,000/- per acre and so also value of the trees as claimed by the appellants. To prove the fair price of the land the claimantsproduced the sale deeds which represent the price level of the land at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The evidence adduced by the Central Government is of small area situated at a distance in interior which do not represent the correct and fair price. It is for this reason the learned Arbitrator did not award the price as represented in the sale deeds Exs. D/2 and D/3 and awarded Rs. 4,ooo/- per acre. ( 6 ) SMT. Indira Nair learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that the principles and method of determining fair compensation are enumerated in Section 8 of the Act. Learned Arbitrator has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre which appeared to him to be just, hence, no interference is called for in appeal. Learned Arbitrator has committed an illegality in awarding the amount towards solatium and interest as the compensation payable for the aquisition of any property under Section 7 of the Act is the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market there is no provision for solatium and interest on the acquisition of requisitioned land under the Act like those under Sections 23 and 34 of the LA Act. Counsel cited the decisions of the Supreme Court Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla (dead) by LRs, 1993 0 AIR (SCW) 105 : 1995 (Supp) 2 SCC 1490, Sonapur Tea Comany Private Limited v. State of Assam, (1994) 4 SCC 746 . An unreported Division Bench decision of this Court in Misc. (First) Appeal No. 165/85 (Mukund Das Maheshwari v. Union of India) decided on 3-1-1996 relating to the acquisition of land admeasuring 150. 49 acres acquired by the Central Government on 25-5-1956 was also placed reliance. ( 7 ) IT is well settled that where a property which was the subject to prior requisition comes to be acquired the compensation is to be determined on the basis of the principles laid down in the Act as Section 8 (1) of the Act lays down that the amount of compensation payable for the property requisitioned or acquired under the Act shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out. Therefore no choice is left to the Arbitrator for determining the compensation in any other mode. See the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sonapur Tea Co. Pvt. Limited (supra ). ( 8 ) IN case of Hari Krishan Khosla (supra) the Supreme Court has ruled that where a property which was subject to prior requisition comes to be acquired the compensation should be awarded on the prineiples adumberated in the Act. After referring to the provisions of the Act and earlier decisions the Supreme Court observed in Paras 61, 62, 63, 65 and 66, thus:"61. We are of the opinion that the amount of compensation can be fixed by agreement under Section 8 (l) (b), in the absence of such an agreement it is left to the discretion of the arbitrator. The arbitrator under Section 8 (1) (e) is to hear the dispute. Thereafter he is to determine the compensation which appears to him to be just. He must have regard to the circumstances of each case while applying the provisions of sub-section (3) (a) of Section 8 which reads as under:"8 (3) - The compensation payable for the acquisition of any property under Section 7 shall be (a) the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning and been on the date of acquisition or (b)********************** (Emphasis supplied)"62. In our view, the significant omission of solatium is indicative of the legislative intent necessitating stress on the expressions "just" and "circumstance of each case" occurring in sub-section (I) (e) thereof. ""63. Yet another distinguishing feature is the expression "open market". The reason why solatiumhas not been provided is that "open market" contemplates a bargain between a free buyer and a free seller unfettered by the consideration of requisition and consequent acquisition. ""65. Reference should also be made to Section 8 (1) (e) of the Act. That refers to three things; (i) The amount of compensation which appears to be just; (ii) the circumstances of each case; and (iii) the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3 ). "66. The effect of this classification, in our opinion is that the Arbitrator must determine the amount of compensation which appears to him to be just but he must have regard to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8. "66. The effect of this classification, in our opinion is that the Arbitrator must determine the amount of compensation which appears to him to be just but he must have regard to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 8. Therefore, where, a property which was subject to prior requisition comes to be acquired the compensation should be awarded on the basis of the principles adumberated in this Act. " ( 9 ) OBVIOUSLY, in the case in hand the acquisition was under Section? of the Act, the land owner did not agree to the compensation offered to him by the Competent Authority and accepted the same under protest. Hence, the Arbitrator was appointed in accordance with Section 8 (I) (b) of the Act. Therefore, there was no choice, but, to determine compensation in the circumstances of the case on the basis of principles enumerated under Section 8 of the Act. Determination of just compensation in the circumstances of the case does not give any power to arbitrator to award solatium and interest on the acquisition of requisitioned land under the Act, like those under Sections 23 and 34 of the LA Act, to that extent learned counsel for respondent is right. However, we are not inclined to interfere in that as Union of India aggrieved of that part of the award neither has filed any appeal nor cross-examinations. ( 10 ) COMING to the compensation awarded by the learned Arbitrator, in the circumstances of the case we feel it deserves to be enhanced. Clause (e) of sub-section (I) of Section 8 refers to three things; firstly, the amount of compensation which appears to be just, secondly; the circumstances of each case and thirdly; the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3 ). The learned Arbitrator after recording a finding that the land in question though not on the road, but is at a short distance and has potentiality, determined the price level of Rs. 4000/- per acre as fair and awarded compensation accordingly ignoring the sale deeds Ex. P/1 dated 12-11-1963 and Ex. P/5 dated 2-11-1966. Ex. P/1 is a sale deed of agricultural land though of a small plot of 6909 sq. ft. representing the price Rs. 65,000/per acre, while Ex. P/5 for 1. 58 acres represents the price Rs. 10,000/ - per acre. Ex. D/2 dated 13-4-1971 represents the price of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. Ex. P/1 dated 12-11-1963 and Ex. P/5 dated 2-11-1966. Ex. P/1 is a sale deed of agricultural land though of a small plot of 6909 sq. ft. representing the price Rs. 65,000/per acre, while Ex. P/5 for 1. 58 acres represents the price Rs. 10,000/ - per acre. Ex. D/2 dated 13-4-1971 represents the price of Rs. 5,000/- per acre. Ex. D/3 represents the price of Rs. 2300/ - per acre, but the title of the two properties conveyed by Ex. D/2 and Ex. D/3 is disputed. Besides, there is nothing on record to show that the land so sold by Ex. D/2 and Ex. D/3 is adjacent or near about the land so acquired and the lands so sold have got potentiality. Therefore, the two sale deeds cannot be guide to determine the fair rate of compensation and that is why the learned Arbitrator awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per acre on his own estimation ignoring also the sale deed Ex. P/5 of agricultural land executed in the year 1966 which represents the price at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The land so sold is situated near the land in question. The fact cannot be ignored that there is rising trend and upward rise in the price of land. The evidenceadduced by the claimants in particular sale deed Ex. P/ 5 is of vast area relating to the land in vicinity of the acquired land. By applying the comparable Sales Method, though the sale deed is not proved by the vendor or vendee but its correctness is not disputed, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Rao Narain Singh (dead) by LRs. V. Union of India, 1993 0 AIR (SCW) 1823 : AIR 1993 SC 1557 and a Division Bench decision of this Court in case of Mukun Das (supra) wherein the similar circumstances, the land was acquired by the respondent under Section 7 of the Act after requisition in the year 1941-42 on 25-5-1956 which was the subject matter of the awards dated 14-3-1985 and 15-3-1985 wherein the learned Arbitrator awarded the compensation at the ate of Rs. 3000/ -. per acre which as enhanced to Rs. 6000/- par acre, we are of the view that the fair compensation should not be less than Rs. 8000/- per acre to which the claimants are entitled. 3000/ -. per acre which as enhanced to Rs. 6000/- par acre, we are of the view that the fair compensation should not be less than Rs. 8000/- per acre to which the claimants are entitled. We say so also for the reason that there is rising upward trend of price of land which cannot be ignored as the land in the present case was requisitioned in the year 1963 and was acquired in the year 1972. However, we make it clear that on the amount of compensation so enhanced by us, the claimants would not be entitled to any amount towards solatium and interest. So far as the compensation for trees is concerned, we are not inclined to interfere as nothing was pointed out so to make an increase. ( 11 ) AS a result of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed, award passed by the learned Arbitrator shall stand modified as indicated hereinabove. The Competent Authority shall secure payment of balance due to the appellant less the amount already paid in terms of the award within a period of two months from the date of this order. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal partly allowed. .