R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) PRESENT appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter for short the act), read with Section 64 of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10. 10. 1984 passed by U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad tribunal, Lucknow accepting reference under Section 18 of the Act and awarding compensation @ Rs. 2. 50 paise per sq. ft. , along with 12% additional market value from the date of notification to the date of possession with 30% solatium and 9% and 15% interest and costs. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that a notification under Section 28 of U. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parts had Adhiniyam, 1965 (for short the Act), was published on 25. 8. 1973, whereby the land of appellant which consisted of three plots Nos. 151 m. , 154 m. and 156 m. , measuring 10 Bigha, 10 Biswansi, 17 Biswansi and 10 Kachwansi (2,87,063 sq. ft.)situated at village Shekhapur, district Lucknow, (for short the land in dispute), was sought to be acquired for Kursi Road Bhumi Vikas and Grahsthan Yojna, Lucknow. The appellant filed objection against the said notification, thereafter, notification under Section 32 of the Act was issued on 20. 7. 1980. The appellant filed objection claiming compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. under Section 9 of the Act. Parties produced evidence in support of their cases and Special Land acquisition Officer vide judgment and award dated 22. 5. 1982 awarded compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 1. 13 per sq. ft. Aggrieved by the Judgment and award given by Spl. Land acquisition Officer, appellant applied for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The application filed by appellant for making reference, was objected to and contested by the respondent No. 2, pleading that the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as compensation was adequate and no enhancement of the said amount was at all called for. It was also pleaded that the application for reference made by the appellant was barred by limitation. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has formulated the following questions for determination in the case before it. 1. Whether the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. If so, to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled? 2. It was also pleaded that the application for reference made by the appellant was barred by limitation. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has formulated the following questions for determination in the case before it. 1. Whether the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. If so, to what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled? 2. Whether reference is barred by time? 3. To what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled? ( 4 ) WHILE dealing with the issue No. 2 it was held by the Tribunal that Special Land Acquisition officer gave award on 25. 5. 1982, and the application for reference against the said award was filed on 5. 7. 1982, which was well within the time prescribed for the same. While dealing with issue No. 1, it was held that the land in question was more than 10 Blghas, same could reasonably be valued at Rs. 2. 75 per sq. ft. for awarding compensation in the present case. Having recorded the aforesaid findings, it was concluded by the Tribunal that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 1. 30 per sq. ft. was inadequate and ultimately accepted the reference in part by judgment and order dated 10. 10. 1984 and awarded compensation as stated above. Since the appellant was not satisfied by the order passed by the Tribunal, present appeal was filed by the appellant. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the compensation awarded to the appellant for the land in dispute was highly inadequate and insufficient. It was urged that by means of same notification dated 25. 8. 1973 and 20. 7. 1980, other portion of the same plot No. 151 m. situated in the same village measuring 1 Bigha 12 Biswas of land was acquired, Arvind bajpai and others filed case No. 17/82, which was decided on 11. 5. 1984 by the Presiding officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow and compensation @ Rs, 3. 50 per sq. ft. was awarded to them. The said order has become final. Therefore, the appellant on the principle and spirit of Section 28a of the Act, as amended by the Act No. 66 of 1984 was entitled to compensation @ Rs. 3. 50 per sq. ft. The Court below has acted illegally in awarding compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 2. 75 per sq. ft. The said order has become final. Therefore, the appellant on the principle and spirit of Section 28a of the Act, as amended by the Act No. 66 of 1984 was entitled to compensation @ Rs. 3. 50 per sq. ft. The Court below has acted illegally in awarding compensation to the appellant @ Rs. 2. 75 per sq. ft. Otherwise, also it was urged that in view of the findings recorded by the Court below regarding situation and building potential of the land in dispute, the market value as determined by the Court below is inadequate and insufficient. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2 supported the validity of the judgment and order passed by the Court below. It has been urged that the court below has taken into consideration all factors, which were relevant for determination of the amount of compensation and thereafter awarded compensation @ Rs. 2. 75 per sq. ft. in accordance with law. Same cannot be said to be inadequate or Insufficient and should not be enhanced. ( 7 ) I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. ( 8 ) IT is not disputed that other portion of plot No. 151 m. (one of the plots in dispute) was owned by Arvind Bajpai which was also acquired by means of the same notification dated 25. 6. 1973 and 20. 7. 1980 in the same scheme. Arvlnd Bajpai also claimed compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. ft. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by his order dated 22. 5. 1982 awarded compensation @ rs. 0. 75 per sq. ft. Arvind Bajpai also made application under Section 18 of the Act. The presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow by his judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1984, awarded compensation @ Rs. 3. 50 per sq. ft. with 15% solatium and 6% per annum interest. The operative portion of the said judgment is quoted below. "order reference is accepted. Claimant is awarded compensation for plot No. 151 (area l-12-0-0) that is 43,880 sq. ft. situated in village Shekhpur, district Lucknow @ Rs. 3. 50 (Rupees 3 and paise 50)per sq. ft. with 15% solatium and 6% per annum interest, on the excess amount from the date of possession till payment. "order reference is accepted. Claimant is awarded compensation for plot No. 151 (area l-12-0-0) that is 43,880 sq. ft. situated in village Shekhpur, district Lucknow @ Rs. 3. 50 (Rupees 3 and paise 50)per sq. ft. with 15% solatium and 6% per annum interest, on the excess amount from the date of possession till payment. Let copy of this judgment be sent to SLAO concerned, along with the lower court record for information and making payment within two months after adjustment of amount already paid. Sd/- K. P. Asthana, presiding Officer, nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, lucknow. 11. 5. 1984. " ( 9 ) JUDGMENT and order dated 11. 5. 1984 referred to above has become final. Before the Court below also, it was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was entitled to compensation at least @ Rs. 3. 50 per sq. ft. as in the case of Arvind Bajpai, compensation was awarded on the same rate. The Court below has noticed and accepted the said argument, but with the reservation. While dealing with the aforesaid argument. It was observed by the Court below as under : "thus apparently the petitioner seems entitled to compensation @ Rs. 3. 50 per sq. fit. if all the other things are the same in both the cases, i. e. , the case in hand as well as the case concerning judgment dated 11. 5. 1984. So far as the location of the land is concerned like the land of plot no. 151 being the subject-matter of the judgment dated 11. 5. 1984, the land in question does also situate In village Shekhapur and it has been established on the record that like the land being the subject-matter of the judgment dated 11. 5. 1984, the present land in question has also got building potentiality and it was well connected with all the main roads and Important educational and medical institution etc, and was having all the facilities of electricity and telephone, etc. " ( 10 ) HAVING recorded said finding, the Court below should have awarded compensation at the same rate, it was awarded by judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1984. The Court below, however, appears to have carved out an artificial distinction by saying that the subject-matter of the judgment and order dated 11. 5. " ( 10 ) HAVING recorded said finding, the Court below should have awarded compensation at the same rate, it was awarded by judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1984. The Court below, however, appears to have carved out an artificial distinction by saying that the subject-matter of the judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1984 was measuring only 1 Bigha and 12 Biswansi, whereas subject-matter of the present case was more than that and small area is capable of fetching more buyers as compared to bigger area land. Therefore, smaller area of land can fetch comparatively more price than bigger area land. No reason for the said conclusion has been recorded by the court below In the impugned judgment. To my mind, the conclusions arrived at by the Court below are manifestly erroneous. Market price of the land depends on several factors, not only on the area of the land. In the case where requirement and purpose of acquisition of land for public utility, is of a larger area, say for construction of residential colonies, as in the present case, etc. smaller area cannot serve said purpose and, therefore, the same will be of no utility. In that case, it cannot be said that market price or amount of compensation of smaller area should be more than market price or compensation of larger area. In Nand Ramand and others v. State of haryana, 1989 (3) All India Land Acquisition Cases 1, it was ruled by the Apex Court as under : "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. " With the aforesaid observation, appeal was allowed, the matter was sent back to the High Court for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law with the observations that in the context of the plea that the adjoining similarly situated land was also acquired in the same circumstances having been valued at Rs. 17. 50 per sq. yard, the appellants are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs, 17. 50 per sq. yard along with solatium and interest in accordance with law as declared by this Court. 17. 50 per sq. yard, the appellants are entitled to claim compensation at the rate of Rs, 17. 50 per sq. yard along with solatium and interest in accordance with law as declared by this Court. ( 11 ) IN Lutuful Haq v. Collector (Prescribed Authority under the Land Acquisition Act), AIR 1995 All 98 , a Division Bench of this Court after taking into consideration the provisions of section 28a of the Act, observed as under : "this Court had an occasion to consider the implications arising under Section 28a of the Land acquisition Act, in its decision in the case of Jai Narain a State of U. P. , decided on 4. 8. 1988, civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16782 of 1988, wherein a Division Bench of this Court had observed that Section 28a a socio beneficial legislation added with avowed objective that if a person whose land had been acquired could not file an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for any reason he may do so even after the reference of another person had been decided and compensation had been enhanced. It was further observed that it was to put at par all those whose land was acquired by same notification in respect of compensation. In yet another decision of this Court In the case of Smt. Sonapatti v. State of U. P. , decided on 17. 11. 1988, a Division Bench of this Court had observed that the provisions contained in Section 28a of the Land Acquisition Act being socio-beneficial legislation, it should be construed liberally so that benefit may extend to every person whose land was acquired. In that case since it had been found that enhanced compensation had been awarded to other persons affected by the same scheme it was held just and proper to permit the petitioner of that case also to avail of the benefit of Section 28a of the Act. In that case since it had been found that enhanced compensation had been awarded to other persons affected by the same scheme it was held just and proper to permit the petitioner of that case also to avail of the benefit of Section 28a of the Act. " ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions and in view of the fact that spirit of Section 28a of the act is that owners of similarly situated land acquired by the same notification and for the same purpose, should get same compensation, any interpretation of Section 28a of the Act to the contrary would defeat the object and spirit as the same would place the person who had no courage or capacity to challenge the validity of the award given by the Special Land Acquisition officer in a better position, and without challenging the award the amount of compensation, etc. cannot be enhanced, and benefit flowing from said provision cannot be availed of by anyone including the dormant owner of the land. Therefore the view taken by the Court below to the contrary cannot be accepted. The compensation awarded to the appellant for the land in dispute by the Court below, cannot be said proper and adequate. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, appellant is entitled to compensation @ Rs. 3. 50 per sq. ft. with other consequential benefits as per term of the judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1984 referred to above. ( 14 ) THIS appeal succeeds and is allowed with costs. The case is sent back to the Special Land acquisition Officer, to calculate compensation of the land in dispute in terms of judgment and order dated 11. 5. 1984 passed in Case No. 17 of 1982 Arvind Bajpai v. State of U. P. The amount shall be calculated and paid within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned. The amount, if any already paid to the appellant, as compensation etc. for the land in dispute, shall be adjusted. .