Mahinder Narain ( 1 ) THE land belonging to the appellant, i. e. ,khesra No. 74/1,514/76,513/73,485/75/1/2,70,71,78/ 3,77,485/75/2 totalling 84 bighas 10 biswas was acquired by notification dated 13. 11. 1959 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land of the appellant is situate in village Jasola, which is close to village Bahapur in the Southem part of Delhi beyond Okhla. ( 2 ) SECTION 6 notification was issued on22. 2. 1961. ( 3 ) BY the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Rs. 3,600. 00 per bigha was awarded to the appellant, and in reference under Section 18 of the Act, the learned Additional District Judge awarded Rs. 4,100. 00 per bigha. ( 4 ) BY this appeal under Section 54 of the Act, the appellant originally claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,100. 00 per bigha, which was later on enhanced by amendment, and additional court fee was paid, and the claim in the appeal was fixed at Rs. 10,000. 00 per bigha ( 5 ) THERE is no dispute between the parties that as far as village Jasola is concerned, there is no evidence of sale in village Jasola in the year of notification. In the award given, the Land Acquisition Collector has noted that there is only one single instance of sale transaction in village Jasola in the year 1954-55. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is settled law that non-existence of evidence of instances of sale in village Jasola, of which the land is acquired, would not be a hindrance in determination of market value, as the market value of land of adjacent villages, where instances of sale exist can be used to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. ( 7 ) SUCH evidence of sale in adjacent village of Bahapur exists. Counsel for the appellant has brought to our notice judgments of this Court, particularly the one reported as 52 (1993) DLT 15, which also relates to acquisition of land in village Jasola. This appeal had arisen out of acquisition proceedings as a result of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 31. 12. 1976. A Division Bench of this Court reiving upon evidence of sale in village Bahapur, awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000. 00 per bigha for the land acquired in village Jasola persuant to Section 4 notification in 1976. 12. 1976. A Division Bench of this Court reiving upon evidence of sale in village Bahapur, awarded a sum of Rs. 55,000. 00 per bigha for the land acquired in village Jasola persuant to Section 4 notification in 1976. The point is that this Court has, on an earlier occasion, taken into account the evidence of sale of land in village Bahapur to arrive at market value of land in the adjacent village Jasola. ( 8 ) BY our judgment in R. F. A. No. 863 of 1987, decided on 23rd September 1996, we, on the basis of another judgment of this Court reported as 1996 (37) DRJ 280, held that the value of land in village Bahapur on 13. 11. 1959 was Rs. 19,000. 00 per bigha. In the said R. F. A. No. 863 of 1987, the market value was arrived at Rs. 18,000. 00 per bigha for the reason that the claim of the appellant therein was confined to Rs. 18,000. 00per bigha. ( 9 ) THIS Court has adopted consistent policy of directing in its orders that the appellants before it who were claiming enhancement of compensation, should pay the court fee payable on the amount claimed before decree for enhanced amount was prepared. In other words, this Court used to direct payment of the court fee within a specified period, in case the market value was determined at a level higher than that which was/claimed in the appeal. This enabled payment of compensation at a uniform rate to persons identically situate. This course of action also was in accord with the perceptions in the judgment of the Supreme Court (M. P. Thakkar and B. C. Ray, JJ), in Nand Ram and Ors. v. The State of Haryana, reported as JT 1988 (4) S. C. 260, in which the Supreme Court had said that "the State cannot refuse to pay in respect of lands acquired under the same notification compensation awarded to the land owners whose similarly situated lands had been acquired under the same notification for the same purpose by the notification of the same date", meaning thereby that all persons similarly situated were entitled to receive compensation at the same rate. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, apparently, some controversy was raised. The Supreme Court (K. . Ramaswamy and G. L. Hansaria, JJ) in Buta Singh (dead) by L. Rs. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, apparently, some controversy was raised. The Supreme Court (K. . Ramaswamy and G. L. Hansaria, JJ) in Buta Singh (dead) by L. Rs. v. Union of India, AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1945 came to the conclusion that if the appellant seeking enhancement of market value of land, has not paid the court fee payable on the market value arrived at by the court, then the court will not take into account the poverty of the appellant or the inability of the appellant to pay the court fee while determining the amount of compensation payable to a person who had paid deficient court fee. In other words an appellant was only entitled to have a decree for that amount which would be covered by the court fee already paid, even though the market value determined by court was much higher. ( 11 ) IT seems to us, however, that in a welfare State like India is supposed to be, if a person has to give up his personal property for the purposes of satisfying the need of the public, the least that the State can do is that he is paid an amount equal to the market value of the land as determined by courts. It can hardly be in the interest of a welfare State to reduce its citizens to penury by depriving them of their property, in the larger public interest, while ensuring that they never have adequate money to substitute that they have lost, with an equal extent of property in a nearby area. However, in such matters it would be appropriate that the Supreme Court lays down as to which of the two co-ordinate benches of it is right ( 12 ) WE feel bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1995 SC 1945 , and we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation for his acquired land only to the extent he is entitled in view of the court fee paid by him. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00perbigha. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, we hold that the appellant is entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00perbigha. ( 14 ) IN addition to the enhanced market value, the appellant shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 15 per cent of the enhanced amount, and interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of taking possession till the date of payment ( 15 ) THE appellant shall also have his proportionate costs.