JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. - This appeal and cross-objection arise out of order of reference court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). 2. Notification under Section 4 of the Act pursuant to which land was acquired, was issued on 30.1.1973. Land was acquired for development and utilisation for residential and commercial area in the Urban Estate at Hissar. The collector vide award dated 5.9.1973 determined market value of the acquired land at the rates of Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 12,000/-, Rs. 8,000/- per acre, respectively for blocks A, B and C. Block A comprised of land abutting Delhi-Hissar road, Block B comprised of land which is purely agricultural and Block C was inferior land away from the Delhi-Hissar road and near the railway line. Land of the appellant was included in Block A. 3. The reference court vide award dated 16.2.1985 enhanced compensation payable to the appellant to Rs. 23/- per square yard apart from damages assessed at 50% of the market value on account of severance from the acquired land. Solatium and interest were awarded at the rate of 30% and 9% per annum respectively. Aggrieved by the award of the reference court, the State of Haryana preferred this appeal while cross-objections have been filed by the land-owner. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the land-owner pointed out that there is no scope for reduction of compensation in view of judgment of this court dated 12.10.1981 in RFA No. 595 of 1979 in respect of land covered by the same notification which has been referred to and followed by the reference court in paras 7 and 10. He also submitted that the reference court ought to have awarded higher compensation in view of judgment of this court dated 10.10.1980 in RFA No. 253 of 1979 Ex. PA on record whereby compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 42/- per square yard. He also submitted that the reference court ought to have awarded higher compensation in view of judgment of this court dated 10.10.1980 in RFA No. 253 of 1979 Ex. PA on record whereby compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 42/- per square yard. Learned counsel submitted that the said judgment was distinguished in the later judgment of this court and in the impugned judgment on the ground that land in question in Ex.PA was situated on the main road itself while land of the appellant was on side road away from the main stream but in a subsequent order of this court dated 9.12.1998 in RFA No. 1602 of 1979 (Shanti Parshad Jain and others v. The State of Haryana), the said precedent was followed without any discussion about the location of the land. 6. Learned counsel for the State submitted that three orders in question passed by this court being orders dated 10.10.1980, 12.10.1981 and 9.12.1988 have to be clearly analysed and while order dated 10.10.1980 fixing Rs. 42/- per square yard was held to be confined to that case by the subsequent order dated 12.10.1981 on the ground of peculiar location of the land in question on the GT road and close to residential colony. It was made clear that the said judgment could not be the basis for determination of market price of the remaining land for which market value was held to be Rs. 23/- per square yard. Order dated 9.12.1988 does not contain any discussion and proceeds on concession that the case was covered by order dated 10.10.1980 without there being any dispute by the State. 7. I find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the State that order dated 12.10.1981 made it clear that order dated 10.10.1980 did not have universal application while order dated 9.12.1988 is a consent order. Thus, order dated 12.10.1981 which is on contest between the parties on merits, is not washed away by subsequent order dated 9.12.1988 and as rightly held by the reference court and as contended by the counsel for the State, the land in the present case being similar to the land covered by order dated 12.10.1981, present case is covered by order dated 12.10.1981 and compensation awarded on that basis calls for no further enhancement. I find in this impugned award that apart from market value, 50% of the market price of unacquired land has been given towards damages. No argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the State in that regard nor any argument has been raised in the grounds of appeal. I, therefore, do not go into correctness or otherwise of the said question. Interest and solatium already stand granted as per amended Act No. 68 of 1984 at the rate of 30% and 9% PA respectively. It is made clear that interest on enhanced compensation from the date of possession till the date of payment of enhanced amount is 9% PA as per Section 28 of the Act and under the proviso if the amount is paid after expiry of period of one year from the date possession, interest applicable is at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of expiry of period of one year. The appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of in the above terms. Order accordingly.