SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) SOMETIMES bonafide and queer mistakes do happen creating a riddled situation. Application of strict rules of law to such cases may not all the time advance cause of justice. Strict application of rules of Law jettisoning the principles of equity when permissible may cause more mischief than remedy the grievance of the parties. Here in this case, the land belonging to one S. V. Koujalagi in Saudathi village was purchased by the second defendant under private negotiations for putting up construction of buildings for water works to provide water facility to Hubli-Dharwad Corporation. Under the mistaken identity on the adjoining land belonging to the respondents measuring 1 Acre and 25 guntas in R. S. No. 9a/1/b of Saundathi village has been encroached and constructions have been put up for the buildings. The plaintiff/respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession and for mandatory injunction for demolition of structures in O. S. No. 22/85 renumbered as O. S. No. 11/98. The Suit came to be allowed. ( 2 ) THE Judgment and decree was challenged in R. A. No. 43/91 before the II Addl. District judge, Belgaum. The learned Appellate judge allowed the appeal remanding the suit for reconsideration with a specific direction to the trial Court to consider whether the damages in lieu of mandatory injunction would be an adequate remedy, if so, to ascertain quantum of damages accordingly to dispose of the Suit only on the aforesaid points. The parties were directed to lead evidence. In the course of judgment, a reference is also made by the learned Appellate Judge about the submission made by the plaintiff/respondent about his willingness to take proper compensation by way of damages for the loss of land. Even in the statutory notice issued, it is mentioned that the plaintiff claimed damages and was not serious about getting the possession of the land. Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions made at the bar and the inclination of the plaintiff to be satisfied with the compensation, remanded the case for fresh consideration as to whether the damages would be adequate remedy and if so, that would be the quantum of damages to be paid. ( 3 ) THE Judgment rendered by the II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum, was not challenged. As such, after remand, evidence was let in by the parties before the trial Court. ( 3 ) THE Judgment rendered by the II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum, was not challenged. As such, after remand, evidence was let in by the parties before the trial Court. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent acquiesced to the order passed in appeal and let in evidence with regard to the quantum of compensation payable. In the evidence of the respondent before the trial Court after remand, in his Examination-in-Chief, he has stated thus:"if the land encroached is ordered to be given to our possession necessarily Karnataka Urban Water Supply authorities will be put into heavy loss and there will be stoppage of supply of drinking water to Hubli-Dharwad Corporation. In the event of payment of reasonable market value -with interest as provided in land Acquisition Act, we are prepared to give up our claim of possession including entire rights, over the Suit land. Therefore, i pray that reasonable market value with interest and other benefits flowing from the Amended L. A. Act be awarded to us. " ( 4 ) THE trial Court adjudicated the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 15,000- per gunta, besides granted solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% for a period of one year and 15% thereafter, till payment. Before the trial Court, two Sale Deeds have been produced. In one of the sale deed, the land sold is at the rate of Rs. 40. 000- per gunta in Ex. P. 23 dated 4. 8. 1996 and another at the rate of Rs 15. 000- per gunta in Ex. P. 22 dated 7. 7. 1997. The trial Court adopted the sale price in Ex. P. 22 for assessing the compensation and fixed the rate at Rs. 15. 000- per gunta with interest at 21% P. a. from the date of suit till realisation. ( 5 ) THE defendants being aggrieved, have filed this appeal,contending that, the compensation ordered by the trial Court is too excessive and disproportionate to the market velue and the compensation payable. In the Course of the arguments before us, the Counsel for the first respondent agreed to receive just and proper compensation and to forego the relief of possession and reiterated that the compensation adjudicated by the trial Court is just and proper. In the Course of the arguments before us, the Counsel for the first respondent agreed to receive just and proper compensation and to forego the relief of possession and reiterated that the compensation adjudicated by the trial Court is just and proper. ( 6 ) THE suit is basically filed for declaration, possession and mandatory injunction by the respondent. The respondent himself concedes in his evidence that general public and the appellant would be put to great hardship and that he is prepared to forego the land if the compensation is paid as per the provisions of the Land acquisition Act. The respondent, by his categorical submission, both in the trial Court and in the Appellate Court and as well as before us, has consented to receive compensation and to forego the reliefs of possession and mandatory injunction. The required amendment of relief appears to be only a technical formality at this stage. It would not be illegal to convert the suit for the relief of damages. If treated so on the question of Court fee, the resultant position would be too inconsequential since on determination of the compensation, whatever liability of Court fee payable would be passed on the appellants who should finally bear the Court fee and costs of the proceedings. ( 7 ) THE appellants filed a Memo proposing the compensation in a sum of Rs. 2,91,295- with solatium at 15% and interest at 12%. ( 8 ) THE other question that remains to be decided in the case would be the just and proper compensation. Before the trial Court, ex. P. 22 the sale deed dated 7. 7. 1997 is produced, wherein, 5 guntas of land has been sold for Rs. 27,000- and in Ex. P. 23 dated 4. 8. 1996, which is produced before the trial Court, 11 guntas of land has been sold for Rs. 1,45,000- In the evidence of P. W. 5, relating to Ex. P. 23, it is stated that the land purchased by him under Ex. P. 23 immediately adjoins the bye-pass Road, whereas, the land of the respondent is about 200 to 300 ft. away from his land. Similarly, the purchaser of the land in Ex. P. 22 is examined as P. W. 6 His evidence discloses that the land of the appellant is at a distance of 150 ft. away from his land. P. 23 immediately adjoins the bye-pass Road, whereas, the land of the respondent is about 200 to 300 ft. away from his land. Similarly, the purchaser of the land in Ex. P. 22 is examined as P. W. 6 His evidence discloses that the land of the appellant is at a distance of 150 ft. away from his land. The evidence of D. W. 2-Junior Engineer, KUWS,discloses that, out of Sy. No. 98, they have purchased 2 acres and 5 guntas from one Kaujalagi in the year 1980 at the rate of Rs 1,150- per gunta. It is also stated that, in the year 1997 itself, possession was taken from Kaujalagi and constructions were put up and in the course of said construction, by mistake, the constructions have been put up in the suit land. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, the sale deed obtained from 'kaujalagi is not produced to prove the fact of purchase at the rate of Rs. 1,150-per gunta. The respondent himself has valued the land for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction in a sum of Rs. 75. 000. ( 10 ) THE valuation stated by D. W. 2 is virtually equivalent to the valuation made by the plaintiff in the suit. ( 11 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents in this regard that the value for the purpose of computing the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act should be different from the valuation for damages made, cannot be countenanced as it lacks in a rational basis to make distinction. ( 12 ) THE other question that crops up for consideration would be the date of determination of the market value. It is not a case of a formal acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. It is only by way of analogical application of the provisions. The market value is being fixed with reference to the principle laid down under the Land acquisition Act. In the case of formal acquisition of land, date of issuance of Section 4 (1) Notification shall be determining factor for assessing the market value. In case of urgency when the land is acquired, the date of possession shall be reckoned for determining the market value. Even while awarding the interest under the Land acquisition Act on the compensation amount, the date of taking possession is also one of the crucial factors for granting enhanced rate of interest. In case of urgency when the land is acquired, the date of possession shall be reckoned for determining the market value. Even while awarding the interest under the Land acquisition Act on the compensation amount, the date of taking possession is also one of the crucial factors for granting enhanced rate of interest. In view of the aforesaid legal propositions envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, the contention of the Counsel for the respondents to take the date of judgment or the present date as the basis to fix the market value does not appear to be a tenable proposition. Keeping in view the date of encroachment 19. 7. 1977 as stated by the plaintiff as the basis for fixing the market value, if accepted, the valuation of Rs. 75,000-as the market value made by the respondent himself in the plaint should alone be considered as the market value of the land. ( 13 ) UNDER the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the solatium is enhanced to 30% by the Amendment Act No 68/84. Earlier it was only 15%. The Additional market value under Section 23 of the Act, 12% is also made payable, retrospectively and as well prospectively. ( 14 ) THE provision regarding interest under Section 28 of the Land acquisition Act declares that, interest payable is 9% on the compensation amount for a period of one year from the date of taking possession and if the compensation or any part of it remains unpaid beyond the period of one year, the interest payable is 15% p. a. Evidently, the suit is filed subsequent to the amendment Act, 1984. When by analogy the compensation is being determined by application of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, in the instant case, it would be just and equitable to grant the solatium, additional market value and the interest as per the Law as it stood on the date when the suit came to be filed. Therefore, the respondent would be entitled to the compensation as follows: (i) Market value Rs. 75,000. 00 (ii) Solatium at 30%. . Rs. 22,500. 00 (iii) Interest from 19. 7. 1977 to 19. 7. 1978 at 9% Rs. 6,750. 00 (iv) Interest from 19. 7. 1978 to 19. 7. 2000 at 15% Rs. 2,47,500. 00 (v) Addl. Market Value at 12% on Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 9,000. 00 total Rs. 3,60,750. 75,000. 00 (ii) Solatium at 30%. . Rs. 22,500. 00 (iii) Interest from 19. 7. 1977 to 19. 7. 1978 at 9% Rs. 6,750. 00 (iv) Interest from 19. 7. 1978 to 19. 7. 2000 at 15% Rs. 2,47,500. 00 (v) Addl. Market Value at 12% on Rs. 75,000/- Rs. 9,000. 00 total Rs. 3,60,750. 00 ( 15 ) AFTER thoughtful consideration, the grant of enhanced solatium, additional market value and the interest appears to be more just and proper in serving the cause of equity and justice. Since under the normal circumstances, even assuming in a case of private sale for a sum of Rs. 75,000 in the month of July, 1977, had the respondent invested the amount in reinvestment scheme in any of the nationalised Bank or in Government securities for over a period of 23 years, he would have earned much more than the present compensation. However, such hypothetical assumptive calculations would not be permissible under law to determine the compensation. Therefore, going by the scientific methods and assessing the compensation by applying the provisions of the Land Acquisition act, a just compensation has been arrived at. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the trial Court is modified. The compensation payable is fixed at Rs. 3,60,750 with future interest at 15% P. a. on sum of Rs. 1,06,500 till date of payment. --- *** --- .