ORDER CA Nos. 2409, 2411-12, 2410, 2413/97 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 24783, 24786, 24787, 24784 & 25148/96) Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, made on May 2, 1996 in F.A. No. 757/86 and batch. 3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) was published on May 9, 1970. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on March 28, 1980. The respondents claimed a reference under Section 18. The District Judge enhanced the compensation to Rs. 14/- per sq. yd. byhis award and decree dated May 15, 1985. The reference Court also applied the provisions of Amendment Act 68 of 1984 and granted enhanced benefits under the Amendment Act. The appellant-Parishad claimed that the amendment Act is not applicable since the proceedings were initiated under the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Act under which special procedure has been prescribed for determination of compensation. The High Court has rejected the contention and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 28.35 per sq. yard. Thus these appeals, by special leave. 4. We need not go into the merits of the manner of determination of the compensation. The question is of applicability of the provisions of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984. Though there is a difference of opinion in Gauri Shankar Gaur & Ors. v. State of U.P.1, subsequently this Court has considered the question in Satya Pal & Ors. v. State of U.P.2, with regard to the determination of compensation. This Court has upheld the same in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow v. Lata Awasthi3, and in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Hakim Singh & Anr.4. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents sought to contend that there was a reference against the difference of opinion as to the applicability of the Amendment Act either by incorporation or by reference to a three Judge Bench. In view of the fact that subsequent judgments have accepted that the Amendment Act is only by reference and not by incorporation, the Amendment Act has no application. It is then contended, relying upon the judgment in Nagpur Improvement Trust & Anr. v. Vithal Rao5, that payment of compensation under Adhiniyam different from the Act is violative of Article 14. In view of the fact that subsequent judgments have accepted that the Amendment Act is only by reference and not by incorporation, the Amendment Act has no application. It is then contended, relying upon the judgment in Nagpur Improvement Trust & Anr. v. Vithal Rao5, that payment of compensation under Adhiniyam different from the Act is violative of Article 14. The ratio therein has no application to the fact-situation in these cases. That was a case where the vires of the Act itself was challenged under Article 226. In this case that question has not arisen because these appeals arose under reference under Section 18 of the Act. 6. The appeals are accordingly allowed The orders of the High Court to the extent of application of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984 stand set aside. Solatium shall be paid @ 15% on the enhanced compensation, interest at 6% under the Schedule and clause 15 of the Schedule to the Adhiniyam. The appellant is directed to pay the amounts within six months from the date of the receipt of this order. No costs. C.A. Nos. 2414-2415/97 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 7204-05/97 (CC Nos. 2797 and 2889/97) Delay condoned. Leave granted. Following the above judgment, these appeals are dismissed. No costs. Appeals allowed. ******** Parallel Citations of other Journals : U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Udai Ram, 1997(3) Supreme 478 : JT 1997(4) SC 302 : 1997(10) SCC 182 00038 00039