JUDGMENT 1. - A notification was issued on 9.4.1975 under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for acquisition of a large chunk of land measuring 1257 bighas situated in Harmara Badharna & Ankra Doonger for the purpose of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment (RIICO). The Competent Authority directed the Tehsildar to submit survey report. On 3.7.1975 Notifications under Sections 6 and 17 of the Act were issued by the Government directing to take the possession of land On 23.7.1975 notice under S. 9 of the Act was served upon the persons interested. On 30.9.1978 possession of 479 bigha 12 biswa of the land acquired was delivered to RIICO and on 1.6.1979 award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer giving compensation at the rate of Rs. five thousand per bigha. Aggrieved by the award, claimants filed applications under S. 18 of the Act for referring the matter to determine compensation by civil court. All the applications were consolidated by civil court and evidence was recorded. The claimants examined seventeen witnesses to prove market value of the property and also produced Exhibit 1, the sale deed dated 3.5.1972 executed by Hanuman Sahai and Exhibit 2, another sale deed dated 3.5.1972. The claimants also produced a certified copy of the award passed by reference court on 14.2.1991 regarding acquisition in respect of some of the lands acquired under the same Notification wherein the market value of binani land was assessed to be Rs. twelve thousand per bigha and for chahi land Rs. eiahteen thousand per bigha. The reference court after consideration of evidence placed, passed a common order dated 15.10.1997 enhancing the compensation from Rs. five thousand per bigha to Rs fifteen thousand per bigha, disallowed additional compensation under S. 23(1A) of the Act and solatium as per the amending Act of S. 23(2) and interest under S. 28 of the Act. 2. Aggrieved by the order of reference court, RIICO filed appeals. Appeal (Defect) No. 429 of 1998 and appeal No. 68 of 1999 are filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount to the extent of Rs. twenty thousand per bigha. Since common questions of law and facts have arisen in these appeals, all of these are decided by common order. 3. It is contended by the counsel for RIICO that compensation awarded does not reflect the true market value of the property acquired. twenty thousand per bigha. Since common questions of law and facts have arisen in these appeals, all of these are decided by common order. 3. It is contended by the counsel for RIICO that compensation awarded does not reflect the true market value of the property acquired. Compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer of Rs. five thousand per bigha was the market value available of the land acquired on the date of Notification under S. 4 of the Act was issued and thus the reference court has erred in enhancing the compensation. On the other hand counsel for the respondent claimants have submitted that market value assessed by reference court is the true market value on the date of Notification under S. 4 of the Act and further submitted that although claimants have not filed separate appeals except appellants in appeal (defect) No. 429/98 and appeal No. 68/99, the court can exercise the powers under O. 41 R. 33 CPC and grant a compensation under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and interest under S. 28 of the Act. The counsel for appellants in these two appeals submitted that the two sale deeds executed on 3.5.1972 are of the neighbouring lands of similar qualities being acquired and thus that should have been made basis for grant of the compensation. 4. One of the recognised principles determining the market value is with reference to the price fetched by a sale deed effected recently of land with similar advantages situate in the neighbourhood. At the sometime the sale deeds containing smaller areas cannot be made sole basis for determination of market value of the land acquired. Sale deeds containing a smaller area can be made guide with certain modifications keeping in view the surroundings of the land and its potentiality. The court has also to consider the potential value of the land acquired i.e. market value of the land must be estimated not by the existing use of such land but the best use which a willing purchaser would make of it and, therefore, its potentiality in foreseeable future either as a building or an industrial site should be taken into account. 5. 5. In paragraph No. 25 of the judgment the reference court has recorded a finding on the basis of overall evidence led and the documents produced, that the acquired land is situated on national highway No. 11 of about 10 to 11 kms. from Jaipur City. Near the land acquired, Vishwakarma Industrial Area was under development and Jhotwara residential colonies have developed. Near the land acquired there are facilities available for water supply, electricity and telephone and taking these into consideration there is a potentiality of the land to be used for non-agricultural purposes or for development of industry. The court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. fifteen thousand per bigha also taking into consideration the compensation awarded of Rs. twelve thousand per bigha for binani and Rs. eighteen thousand per bigha for chahi lands. The court, if has taken into consideration the potentiality of the land while enhancing the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, and also taken note of the fact of the lands acquired under the same Notification and the order passed by the court, it has not committed any error of facts or law. 6. The counsel for appellant in appeal (defect) No. 429/98 and appeal No. 68 of 1999 have relied on two saledeeds of 3.5.1972 (Exhibits 1 & 2) and submitted that the compensation should have been enhanced to Rs. twenty thousand per bigha instead of Rs. fifteen thousand per bigha, it may be noticed that the sale deeds on which the counsel have placed reliance are of much prior date and are of smaller areas. A sale deed executed much prior to the acquisition of the land and that too of smaller areas, cannot be a basis for arriving at a market value. Having considered all these aspects the learned reference court has rightly determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. fifteen thousand per bigha and it does not require any interference by this court. 7. The general principle of O. 41 R. 33 is that a decree is binding on the parties to it until it is set aside in an appropriate proceeding. fifteen thousand per bigha and it does not require any interference by this court. 7. The general principle of O. 41 R. 33 is that a decree is binding on the parties to it until it is set aside in an appropriate proceeding. Hence as an ordinary rule, the appellate court would not reverse or vary a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal or cross objection against it, but in exceptional cases the rule unable the appellate court to pass such decree as ought to have been passed, or as the nature of the case may require even if such decree would result in favour of a party who had not filed any appeal or cross objection against the lower court's decree. In the present case the relief is claimed under O. 41 R. 33 by the respondents on the ground that they are entitled to the enhanced interest and amount of soiatium under the amended provision of the Act. I have considered the case of respondents as under O. 41 R. 33 CPC. 8. As regards claim made under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2), as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984, it is well settled in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754 , and in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, (1994) 5 SCC 593 , that the Land Acquisition Amendment Act 68 of 1984 does not apply to so an award made by the civil court prior to introduction of the Land Acquisition Amendment Bill and S. 23(2) as amended by Act 68 of 1984 would apply to an award made by the Collector or civil court between 30.4.1982 to 24.9.1984 and have no application to pending appeals in the High Court or Supreme Court. In relation to proceedings which were initiated prior to the date of the commencement of the amending Act S. 23(1-A) would be applicable if no award had been made by the Collector in those proceedings before 30.4.1982. In the present case the Notification was published on 9.4.1975, the award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer on 1.6.1979 and the decree passed by reference court was on 15.10.1997. On these admitted facts the claimants are not entitled for enhanced payment or payment of solatium 12% or 30% respectively under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act. 9. In the present case the Notification was published on 9.4.1975, the award was passed by Land Acquisition Officer on 1.6.1979 and the decree passed by reference court was on 15.10.1997. On these admitted facts the claimants are not entitled for enhanced payment or payment of solatium 12% or 30% respectively under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act. 9. The respondents have also requested for a decree to be passed for enhanced interest under S. 28 of the Act as per the amendment introduced by Act No. 68 of 1984. In K.S. Paripoornan (II) v. State of Kerala & others, (1995) 1 SCC 367 , it was argued that amended S. 28 of the principal Act should be construed as S. 23(2) of the principal Act is construed in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (supra). The contention has been negatived and it has been held by the Supreme Court that restricted interpretation given in Raghubir Singh's case should not be interpreted to mean that S. 28 would not apply to the award of civil court pending at the time when the Act came into force or thereafter. The Supreme Court has found that the award was passed after the amending Act came into force and gave interest as per S. 28 of the Act. In the present case also, admittedly the award of civil court was passed on 15.10.1999, after amendment of S. 28 of the Act and thus the respondents shall be entitled to the interest as provided under S. 28 of the Act after amendment and accordingly it is directed that the Collector shall pay interest over enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land till the date of payment of such excess into the court. By virtue 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 possession is taken, interest shall be paid at the rate of 15% per annum 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. 10. 10. Consequently the appeals filed by RII CO are dismissed, the respondent-claimants in those appeals and appellants in appeal (defect) No. 429/1998 and appeal No. 68/99 are entitled to enhanced interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession viz. 30.9.1978, for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of deposit made by the lector. The decree of civil court stands modified accordingly.Order accordingly *******