JUDGMENT 1. - This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in SB Civil First Appeal No. 115/1972, which arose out of reference case No. 69/1970 decided on March 25, 1972 by the Court of Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 2. Proceedings for acquisition of land situated in village Bhojpura and chak-Sudarshanpura, belonging to the respondent herein, were initiated at the instance of Secretary, Urban Improvement Trust, Jaipur. The purpose for which the acquisition proceedings were initiated, was planned development of Jaipur City. On May 13, 1960, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued. Thereafter declaration under Section 6 was made on May 3, 1971. After following the procedure laid down under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act'), the Land Acquisition Officer passed award dated January 9, 1964 for Rs. 18,594/- as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,575/-. The amount of compensation of Rs. 18,594/- was awarded as per the following details - Rs. 15, 450/- compensation for chahi land measuring 5 bighas 3 biswa @ Rs. 3,000/- - Rs. 540/- compensation for ghair-mumkin rasta and ghair-mumkin dhora - Rs. 1,708/- for pumping set The respondent-claimants were not satisfied with the amount awarded. Hence they prayed for reference under Section 18 of the Act. Reference was made to Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The Court after recording evidence and after hearing the parties, passed judgment and order dated march 25, 1972 and rejected the claim made by the claimants. Thus the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was confirmed by the Court. 3. The respondent-claimants filed appeal as provided under Section 54 of the Act before learned Single Judge of this Court and the following three points were raised -That the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per b aha, - 1p, awarded by the learned Civil Judge is grossly inadequate; -That solatium at the rate of 10% on the market value in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition should have been awarded to the claimants; and -That the interest on the amount of compensation should also be added The learned Single Judge enhanced compensation for land at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per Bigha. As far as enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 4000/- per Bigha. As far as enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha is concerned, the learned Single Judge relied upon decision in another Appeal No. 60/1/70 of this Court. In that case, value of the land was assessed at Rs. 4,000/-. In view of this position, the learned Judge was satisfied that the amount of compensation for the land should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. 4. The other two contentions were also accepted by the learned Single Judge following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, reported in AIR 1985 SC 1576 . In that decision it was inter alia held that the amended provision of the Land Acquisition Act which came into force with effect from September 24, 1984, would be applicable even to the proceedings which were pending before the High Court by way of appeal irrespective of the date on which the award was passed by Collector. On the basis of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision, the learned Single Judge allowed the claim made by the respondent-claimants to certain extent. The learned Single Judge held that respondent-claimants were entitled to be paid 30% of solatium instead of 15%. Similarly the learned Single Judge held that the respondents were entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% instead of 4% on the amount of compensation awarded. This judgment was rendered by the learned Single Judge on May 14, 1986. It is against this judgment that this special appeal is filed as provided under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949. 5. As far as the enhanced amount of compensation for the value of the land is concerned, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in assessing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. The learned Single Judge has relied upon another similar case decided by this Court. Nothing is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to take a different view on this count. 6. 4,000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. The learned Single Judge has relied upon another similar case decided by this Court. Nothing is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to take a different view on this count. 6. The learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh (supra) referred to and relied upon by the learned Single Judge, has been over-ruled by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala & Others, (1994) 5 SCC 593 . We have been taken into this decision. It is a judgment rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of five Hon'ble Judges. The majority judgment rendered for and on behalf of three Hon'ble Judges out of five, has taken the view that benefit of the provisions of amended Act which came into force with effect from September 24, 1984, was restricted to the matters referred to in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30 of the Act. In the majority judgment rendered by S.C. Agrawal, J., in para 46 of the reported decision, the question which was one required to be examined by the Bench is stated as follows "Whether the additional amount payable @ 12% per annum on the market value under Section 23(1-A) is restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act or is to be awarded in every cases where the reference was pending before the reference Court on 24.9.1984 (the date of the commencement of the amending Act) irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector." The Court considered the history and scheme of the legislation. The Court considered the following earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - K. Kamala jammanniavaru (Dead) By LRs. The Court considered the following earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court - K. Kamala jammanniavaru (Dead) By LRs. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1985) 1 SCC 582 - Bhag Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737 - Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama of Vedem Vasco De Gama, (1990) 1 SCC 277 - Union of India v. Zora Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 673 The Court also referred to the various books of interpretation of statutes and came to the conclusion, which is recorded in para 80 of the reported decision and it reads as follows : "For the reasons aforementioned it must be concluded that in respect of acquisition proceedings initiated prior to date of commencement of the amending Act the payment of the additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A) of the Act will be restricted to matters referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act. Zora Singh insofar as it holds that the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the reference Court on 24.9.1984, irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct law." In the instant case for the purposes of ready reference the provisions of Section 30 of the Act may be reproduced "30. Transitional provisions - (1) The provisions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act as inserted by clause (a) of Section 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People], in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act commenced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector before the date of commencement of this Act. (2) the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People] and before the commencement of this Act. (3) The provisions of Section 34 of the principal Act, as amended by Section 20 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, in relation to (a) every case in which possession of any land acquired under the principal Act had been taken before the 30th day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People], and the amount of compensation for such acquisition had not been paid or deposited under Section 31 of the principal Act until such date, with effect on and from that date; and (b) every case in which such possession has been taken on or after that date but before the commencement of this Act without the amount of compensation having been paid or deposited under the said Section 31, with effect on and from the date of taking such possession." Thus in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan (supra), the facts of this case be examined. It is an undisputed position that in the instant case award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on January 9, 1964. Thereafter reference was made on March 25, 1972. Thus the award has been passed before April 30, 1982, and/or before September 24, 1984, Thus award has been passed before April 30, 1982. Therefore the provisions of the amending Act which confers benefits of enhanced amount of compensation and enhanced rate of interest would not be available to the claimants. Thereafter reference was made on March 25, 1972. Thus the award has been passed before April 30, 1982, and/or before September 24, 1984, Thus award has been passed before April 30, 1982. Therefore the provisions of the amending Act which confers benefits of enhanced amount of compensation and enhanced rate of interest would not be available to the claimants. Similar is the position with regard to the provisions of Section 34 on the basis of which enhanced amount of interest of 9% in place of 4% could be claimed. In view of this settled legal position, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge modifying the award by applying the provisions of amended Act which came, into force on September 24, 1984, cannot be sustained and the same is required to be reversed and set aside. 7. In the result, the Appeal is partially allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that in place of 30% solatium it shall be substituted by figure 15%. It is further modified to the effect that in place of 9% interest, it shall be substituted by figure 4%. The Appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent only and stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.Appeal partly allowed. *******