T. CHATTERJEE,J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals have been preferred against a common judgment and award passed by Shri A. K. DUTTA, additional District Judge, Birbhum dated 2nd august, 1969 whereby the application filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")was disposed of F. A. 682 of 1972 has been preferred by the State of West Bengal whereas f. A. 266 of 1970 has been preferred by the claimant Arun Kr. Ghosh. ( 2 ) THE plot in question was the Plot no. 1643 of Mouza-Saithia, P. S. Saithia, District Birbhum as fully described in the sheet submitted in this case by the Government of west Bengal. The plot in question was acquired by a notification made on 30th October, 1964. The Land Acquisition Collector made his award on 28th January, 1967. For enhancement of the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, a reference application under Section 18 of the Act was filed at the instance of the claimant Sri Arun Kumar Ghosh. One of the disputes that was raised by the claimant before the Reference Court related to the price that was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector relating to awarding of compensation to the claimant in respect of the acquired land It is an admitted position that an area measuring 69 acres of land out of the aforesaid plot was acquired by the above said notification The acquired land was classified as the Danga Class of Land. The price of the acquired land was assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector at rs. 24,000/-per acre and accordingly, the value of land under the award in respect of the acquired land came to a sum of Rs. 16,560/-and added to this price a compensation of 15% amounting to Rs. 2484/ -. The total amount as price on compensation awarded in favour of the claimants came to be a sum of Rs. 19,000/. The claimant however, in his objection-petition claimed the value of the acquired land prevailing in or about the time of notification and declaration at the rate of Rs. 7,000/-per cottah which on calculation amounted to over 4 lacs per acre. At the time of hearing before the Reference Court, the claimant however, relented to bring down this price of the acquired land to about 5,000/- per cottah which would also amount to Rs. 3 lacs per acre. 7,000/-per cottah which on calculation amounted to over 4 lacs per acre. At the time of hearing before the Reference Court, the claimant however, relented to bring down this price of the acquired land to about 5,000/- per cottah which would also amount to Rs. 3 lacs per acre. In support of the claim of the claimant regarding the valuation of the land acquired on the date of notification, the claimant produced and or filed documents before the reference Court. The State of West Bengal also in support of their case regarding the valuation of the acquired land also produced and/ or filed documents. On consideration of the documents produced by the respective parties and also the oral evidence adduced by them, the Reference Court came to a conclusion that neither of the documents produced by the State authorities could be acceptable for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation payable in respect of the acquired land. The Reference court also held that the price of the land acquired on the basis of the sale deed produced by the State of West Bengal in order to assess the probable market price of the land acquired was improper and unjust. From the aforesaid finding of the Reference Court, it is, therefore, clear that the documents produced by the state of West Bengal in order to show the valuation of the land acquired in or about the time of issuing the notification could not be relied on by it for the purpose of fixing the rate of compensation for the land acquired. However, the Reference Court after coming to a conclusion of fact that the documentary evidence adduced by either of the parties was of no help in coming to a proper decision as to the price of the disputed land held that the only alternative left with it to fall back upon the estimated net submitted by the State of West Bengal and to pick up those particular lands mentioned therein which, according to maps Exhibits 4 and 4/1, and in consequence of the Court's personal inspections could be thought to be somewhat comparable to the disputed land. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Reference court took the average of valuation of the plots mentioned in the judgment and came to finding that Rs, 35. On the basis of the aforesaid, the Reference court took the average of valuation of the plots mentioned in the judgment and came to finding that Rs, 35. 000/- per acre should be fixed for payment of compensation in respect of the acquired land. Accordingly, the Reference court allowed the petition under Section 18 of the Act by holding that the market value of the acquired land was fixed at Rs. 38,000/-per acre and the claimant would be admissible to interest upon the estimated amount of price at the rate of 6% from the date of order till realisation. Both the parties were aggrieved by this award and, therefore, have preferred the aforesaid two appeals. ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr. Subhas Ch. Bose for the State of West Bengal and Mr. Jyotirmoy bhattacharyya for the claimant. Let us first deal with the F. A. No. 687 of 1972 which has been filed by the State of West Bengal. According to Mr. Bose, the valuation shown in the documents produced by the State of West Bengal in the facts and circumstances of the case ought to have been accepted by the Reference Court and on the basis of such valuation ought to have assessed or fixed valuation of the acquired land. Mr. Bose further argued that in any view of the matter, the valuation shown in the plots mentioned in the judgment under reference on which reliance was placed by the Reference court was improper and illegal and, therefore, no reliance could be placed on such valuation for the purpose of fixing the rate of compensation in respect of the land acquired. For this purpose, we have carefully perused the judgment of the Reference Court and we are in full agreement with Reference Court that the valuation shown in the documents produced by the State of West Bengal could not be treated in the facts and circumstances of the case and on materials on record as the comparable unit for the purpose of fixation of the rate of compensation in respect of the acquired land. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the argument of Mr. Bose that the documents produced by the State of West Bengal ought to have been taken as a comparable unit for the purpose of fixing the valuation of the land acquired That apart, in view of our findings made hereinafter in F. A. N 266/1970 we do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Bose. ( 4 ) SINCE no other argument was advanced by Mr. Bose in support of this appeal, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal being fa No 687 of 1972 is dismissed. ( 5 ) NEXT we take up the hearing of the first Appeal No. 266 of 1970 filed by the claimant We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appeal of the claimants must be allowed to the extent indicated hereinbelow:-"so far as fixation of the valuation of the land acquired is concerned, we have already seen that the Reference Court had taken an average of the lands in respect of the plots indicated in the judgment under reference for fixing the rate of compensation At the same time, we have also seen from the judgment under reference that the documents produced by the claimants were not accepted on certain grounds. Mr. Bhattacharyya, appearing on behalf of the claimants / appellants in this appeal did not dispute the rejection of the document for fixing the rate of compensation by the Reference Court relating to documents filed by the claimants excepting Exhibit 1. Let us, therefore, consider, whether Exhibit I can be considered to be a comparable unit for our purpose; Exhibit 1 which has been admitted into evidence without objection is a sale certificate which was issued on 6th January, 1961. As noted herein earlier, the date of notification for the acquisition of the land was made on 30th october, 1964 that is to say the land in question was acquired subsequent to issuance of the sale certificate (Exhibit 1 ). As noted herein earlier, the date of notification for the acquisition of the land was made on 30th october, 1964 that is to say the land in question was acquired subsequent to issuance of the sale certificate (Exhibit 1 ). We have already seen that Exhibit 1 related to a part of the acquired land that is a part or portion of the plot No. 1643 of Mouza Saithia, P. S. Saithia, Birbhum therefore, there is no reason why the valuation of the acquired land as shown in the sale certificate could not be accepted as a comparable unit for fixing the valuation as it related to the same plot and the notification was issued at least three years after the issuance of the sale certificate which was in jespect of 34 decimals of land out of the same being plot No. 1643 of Mouza Saithia, p. S. Saithia, Birbhum. The reference court however rejected the valuation shown in Exhibit 1 on the ground that the price that was paid by the appellants for 34 decimals of land could not be a comparable unit for the purpose of fixing market price unless it was shown from independent evidence that it reflected the market price of the land acquired on the date of notification as from the sale certificate Exhibit 1, it is evident that the aforesaid plot was sold in auction. In our view, the ground on which the Reference Court rejected the valuation of the land shown in the sale deed (Ext. 1) cannot at all be accepted there is no doubt that order was passed by the Reference Court on 12th July, 1969 from which it appears that the learned Additional District Judge made a personal inspection of the land acquired and thereafter the memorandum of local inspection was filed by him from a perusal of the memorandum of local inspection, it appears that the learned Additional District Judge himself found that the acquired land was on the main road which was running East to West. He had also found that this main road has run from Seuri to Saithia as one proceeds towards the east It is also evident from the said memorandum that Saithia station is accessible by a diversion road which starts from opposite of the western corners of the disputed plot and proceeds towards the north-east corner passing through a bazar and terminating at the railway station. It is also evident from the memorandum, that the aforesaid main road passing by the north of the acquired land runs over an over-bridge upon the railway line a little distance from the acquired land and has gone east ward. It is, therefore, clear from the said memorandum of inspection that the acquired land was in a very busy commercial place. The documents produced by the state of West Bengal and even by the claimants excepting Exhibit 1 admittedly did not disclose that the lands indicated in those documents were on a busy road with a commercial background. That being the position, we are of the view that the valuation shown in the Exhibit 1 cannot be thrown out only on the ground that those land was sold in an auction sale. There is no law that only because the particular land was sold in the auction sale, the valuation must have been shown at a very higher rate. In the absence of any document to show that the valuation of the land acquired cannot be fixed on the basis of Exhibit 1 by which a part of the plot No. 1643 which is a subject matter under reference as acquired. Accordingly, we have no other alternative but to fix the valuation of the land acquired at rs. 17,000/- for 34 cents of the land acquired. Accordingly, the award passed by the Reference Court is modified or varied to the extent indicated above. " ( 6 ) THE next question that needs to be gone into is whether the claimants were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the aforesaid market value in terms of section 23 (2) of the Act and also interest at the rate of 9% instead of 6% as originally contained in the unamended Act from the date on which the collector had taken possession of the land acquired to the date of payment of such excess into court. Mr. Mr. Bhattacharyya, appearing on behalf of the appellant in F. A. 266 of 1970 had drawn our attention to two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of punjab v. Manohar Singh and Anr. , and also in the case of Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union territory of Chandigarh. From a plain reading of the aforesaid two decisions on which mr. Bhattacharyya placed strong reliance, we find that the decision on the case of State of punjab v. Manohar Singh and Anr. (supra), in all probability followed the decision of the supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh and ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (supra ). In the case of Union of India v. Raghuvir Singh (Dead) fay legal representatives etc. , the Supreme Court has already reversed its aforesaid decision in the case of Bhag singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (supra ). This fact has also been noted by the Supreme Court in the case of K. S. Paripoornam v. State of Kerala, In paragraph 53, the Supreme Court observed as follows:-"the said decision in Bhag Singh has been reversed by the Constitution Bench of this court in Union of India vs. Raghuvir Singh wherein the earlier decision in K. Kamalajammannaia has been affirmed. In this view of the matter, no further detail consideration on this question is now required in view of the settled position of law enunciated by the Supreme Court. In our view, applying the principles laid down in union of India v. G. Raghubir Singh, (1984) SCR 317. We held that the appellants are not entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the land acquired. Similar is the position in respect of the payment of interest at the rate of 9% in terms of Section 28 of the Act which was enacted by the amending act that came into force on 24th September, 1984. The Supreme court in the case of State of M. P. v. Harisankar Goel and Anr; AIR 1996 sc 3478 laid down the principle that grant of solatium and interest at enhanced rate cannot be granted when the determination of compensation by the reference Court was made long before the amendment Act 68 of 1984 had come into force. The Supreme court in the case of State of M. P. v. Harisankar Goel and Anr; AIR 1996 sc 3478 laid down the principle that grant of solatium and interest at enhanced rate cannot be granted when the determination of compensation by the reference Court was made long before the amendment Act 68 of 1984 had come into force. In paragraph 5' of the said decision, the Supreme Court made the following observations:-'the learned Judges were wholly wrong in applying the Amendment act 68 of 1984 since the acquisition was made in the year 1964 and the Collector had made the award on March 14, 1966 and the Reference Court itself determined the compensation on May 15, 1975. Under these circumstances the claimants are not entitled to the additional benefits of enhanced solatium under Section 23 (2) at 30% interest under proviso to Section 28 at 9% for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% till date of deposit on the enhanced compensation and additional amount under Section 23 (1-A ). The judgment in that behalf also stands set aside. Instead, the claimants will be entitled to solatium at 15% on the enhanced compensation and interest at 4% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit into court. " (Emphasis supplied)similar view has been expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan mandi Samiti v. Ganga Sahai5, in which the supreme Court also held that enhanced solatium and interest at the enhanced rate could not be paid to a claimant when the award by the Reference Court was made long before the introduction of the Amendment Act of 1984. In this case, there is no dispute that the Reference Court made the determination long before the Amendment Act, 1984 had come into force. Such being the position, we are unable to agree with Mr. Bhattacharyya that the claimants were also entitled at the enhanced rate of solatium and interest in view of Amendment act, 1984. Accordingly, we nagative the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya on this question. ( 7 ) IN this connection the learned junior of Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that the claimants were also entitled to interest on solatium. In support of this contention a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Annie vargese and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. Accordingly, we nagative the submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya on this question. ( 7 ) IN this connection the learned junior of Mr. Bhattacharyya submitted that the claimants were also entitled to interest on solatium. In support of this contention a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Annie vargese and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , was relied upon. In that decision the Supreme court observed that the special leave could not be granted only on the ground whether interest on solatium can be granted or not, as the said question of law was pending before a constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. From a reading of the said judgment of the supreme Court it is evident that the Supreme court has given liberty to the concerned parties to move the High Court for amendment of the judgment and decree for carrying out the legal position to be declared by the Constitution Bench in this regard. In view of the admitted fact that the claimants have not claimed interest on solatium we are unable to grant any interest on solatium. In any view of the matter, it will be open to the claimants to apply for modification of this judgment and decree for the purpose of carrying out the legal position to be declared by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court by making an appropriate application to that effect in this court. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal filed by the claimants being F. A. 266 of 1970 is allowed to the extent indicated above that is to say the valuation of the land acquired is fixed at Rs. 17,000/- for 34 cents in addition to this, the appellant shall be entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% of the market value of the acquired land, and interest @ 6% on such excess per annum from the date on which the collector had taken possession of the acquired land to the date of payment of such excess into court. It is needless to mention that the state of West Bengal would be entitled to adjustment if already deposited or paid to the claimants/appellants and shall only deposit the amount that has been awarded in the appeal filed by the claimant with interest and solatium in the manner indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal No. 266 by claimants allowed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal No. 266 by claimants allowed. Other appeal dismissed.