JUDGMENT : R.K. Mahajan, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated December 10, 1973 passed by Shri V. N. Misra, District Judge, Ballia in Land Acquisition Reference No. 4 of 1971 u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The land of the claimant-Respondents was acquired for Town Polytechnic School. A notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on November 4, 1965 and notification u/s 6 was made on December 1, 1965. Since it was considered to be an emergent case, proceedings were taken u/s 17 of the Act and possession was taken on October 19, 1966. An award was given by the Land Acquisition Officer on February 26, 1970. By means of this award, the Land Acquisition Officer allowed compensation to the persons interested at the rate of Rs. 16,600 per acre for the land which was by the road side and at Rs. 2 916.66 per acre for the remaining land. 3. The learned District Judge, Ballia, on reference being made, increased the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,770 per acre by his order dated August 25, 1975. Feeling dissatisfied, this first appeal has been filed by the opposite-parties-Appellants on the ground that the determination of compensation was wrongly made. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the material on record. I need not to go in detail as the learned Counsel for the Respondents has fairly relied upon a judgment dated December 5, 1985 by a Division Bench of this Court rendered in First Appeal No. 119 of 1974 arising out of the same judgment dated December 10, 1973, which is impugned in the present first appeal. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has no objection that this appeal is covered by the above decision. The learned standing counsel has also stated that the quality of land is the same and it was acquired for technical school by the same notification. However, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel that the judgment dated December 5, 1985 gave a wrong solatium on the market value of the land acquired at the rate of 30% and interest on the excess amount of compensation awarded at the rate of 9% as at that time, the judgment by the Supreme Court has not been delivered. If the award is passed before 30th day of April, 1982 according to Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the provision of solatium u/s 23 of the Act at the rate of 30% would not be applicable. The principle of rectroactivity cannot be extended than what is mentioned u/s 30 of the Act. It was laid down in K.S. Paripoornam v. State of Kerala AIR 1994 SCW 4861 , as under: The Constitution Bench resolved that disputes in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc., (1989) 2 SCC 754 , holding that the award of the Collector or the Court made between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 would alone get attracted to Section 30(2) of the transitory provision in Amendment Act. The restricted interpretation would not be understood to mean that Section 28(2) would not apply to the awarded decree of the civil court pending at the time when the Act has come into force or thereafter. In the instant case, the award of the civil court was after the Act has come into force, namely, February 28, 1985. Thereafter, if the sum which in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as a compensation, is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the court shall direct to pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into the Court. By operation of the proviso, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into the Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which compensation is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into the Court before the date of such expiry. Accordingly, the Appellant claimant would be entitled to the enhanced interest @ 9% from the date of taking possession for one year @ 9% and thereafter @ 15% till the date of the deposit made by the Collector. 5. Accordingly, the Appellant claimant would be entitled to the enhanced interest @ 9% from the date of taking possession for one year @ 9% and thereafter @ 15% till the date of the deposit made by the Collector. 5. So the Appellant is entitled to get solatium at the rate of 15% on the compensation, i.e., market value. The Appellant also would be entitled to get only 6% interest from the date of possession till the date of payment or till the amount is deposited by the Collector. 6. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.