JUDGMENT B.S. Verma, J. All these appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 30-9-2003, passed by Sri Kanwar Sain, Additional District Judge/1st F.T.C., Haridwar in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1 of 1994 to 22 of 1994. As the aforesaid appeals emerge from one and the same order, hence these were connected, heard together and are decided by this common judgment. 2. First Appeal Nos. 68 of 2003 to 74 of 2003, 77 of 2003, 78 of 2003 and A.O. No. 431/2003 entered at serial Nos. 1 to 9 and 25 have been preferred by the land owners, whereas appeal Nos. 75 of 2003, 76/2003, 79/2003 to 84/ 2003, 87/2003 to 92/2003 and 20 of 2003 entered at serial nos. 10 to 24 have been preferred by the Haridwar Development Authority. 3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that Haridwar Development Authority (hereinafter referred as the 'Authority') made a proposal of acquisition of land for construction of residential buildings, measuring 41-0-8 big has of village Jwalapur Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar relating to Gata Nos. 548 (0-6-0), 549 (0-10-0), 560 (0-8-0), 562 (1-0-0), 563 (0-10-0), 564 (0-4-0), 565 (4-19-5), 566 (3-17-14), 1253 (4-12-5), 1255 (3-8-19), 1262(10-12), 1263(1-1-7), 1258(0-5-0), 1259(1-9-0), 1260 (4-10-19), 1261(11-411), 1265(0-16-1) and 1264 (0-16-15). an the proposal the government invoked urgency clause under Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act') and thereafter Notification U/S 4 of 'the Act' was Issued on 712-1991 whereas notification under Section 6 of 'the Act' was issued on 16-5-1992. Thereafter notices were issued to the land owners as provided under Section 9 of the Amended provisions of the Land. Acquisition Act 1984 on 9-7-1992. The Special Land Acquisition officer, Saharanpur (for short S.L.A.O.) after scrutinizing the objections gave his award dated 9-5-1994. In his award the S.L.A.O. considered sale deeds of the same nature of land sold at the rate of Rs. 35/- per square feet to determine the compensation. He has however divided the land into three belts and after making 25% deductions as provided under para 236 of Land Acquisition Manual assessed the compensation @ Rs. 26.25, Rs. 17.50 and Rs. 13.12 respectively for the land divided into three categories. The S.L.A.O. also directed to pay additional amount at the ~ate of Rs. He has however divided the land into three belts and after making 25% deductions as provided under para 236 of Land Acquisition Manual assessed the compensation @ Rs. 26.25, Rs. 17.50 and Rs. 13.12 respectively for the land divided into three categories. The S.L.A.O. also directed to pay additional amount at the ~ate of Rs. 12% per annum on the market value of the land assessed by him and to pay Interest up to one year from the date of delivery of possession of the land @ 9% and thereafter @ 15% per annum. Solatium @ 30% was also awarded. Aggrieved, references were filed which came before the Additional District Judge/ I F.T.C. Haridwar for adjudication. The land owners raised the plea that the land acquired is situate on the bypass road running from town Jwalapur to Haridwar and on the main road going to Village Saray, having the facilities of water, electricity, telephone etc.; that in front of the land in question towards Saray motor road Krishi Utpadan Mandi construction activity is in progress; that Flour Mill is. situated near the Mandi Samiti; that as per the master plan of the 'Authority' the area is proposed to be developed as transport city; that since the land has such potential it was acquired for construction of residential buildings; that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 150-00 per square feet and that the land could not have been divided In to belts to assess the compensation. It was also alleged that the principle of deduction on account of large area was not legally applicable and the S.L.A.O. has thus erred in making provision of deduction to the tune of 25%. 4. The Collector, Haridwar and the 'Authority' flied objections .before the reference court and contested the claims mainly on the grounds that the land in question was not connected with any motor road; that the land was an agricultural land; that the S.L.A.O. took in to consideration the sale instances of the land of Gata Nos. 1260, 1261, 1266 and 566 mentioned at serial Nos. 1260, 1261, 1266 and 566 mentioned at serial Nos. 9, 78, 79, 85, 88 and 109 of the Schedule-2 annexed with the award which was sold one year before the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in regard to the land in question; that the S.L.A.O. took the sale instance at serial No. 9 as exemplar for determination of the compensation; that provision for 25% deduction was done by the S.L.A.O. as per the provisions of para 236 of the Land Acquisition Manual and that the solatium @ 30% and the interest @ 9% up to one year and @ 15% thereafter was awarded by the S.L.A.O. according to the provisions of Sections 23(2), and 28 of 'the Act' respectively. Accordingly they prayed for rejection of the reference. 5. On the pleadings of the parties the Additional District Judge, framed as many as six Issues for determination of the dispute. Parties led evidence and after hearing both the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, passed the Impugned Judgment and award. The learned Reference Court recorded the finding that the S.L.A.O. had wrongly determined the compensation. The land situate on the highway was placed in the third category viz. @ Rs. 13.12 per square feet, whereas the land situate downward the highway was placed in the first category and the price was determined @ Rs. 26.25 per square feet. It was also held that the belting system was not proper for the acquired land and the deduction of 25% was also against the law. The Reference Court determined the market rate of the land at Rs. 26.25 per square feet. However the land owners whose land was situated beyond 500 meters from the highway were awarded the compensation @ Rs. 17.50 per square feet. The reference court did not award solatium to the land owners. It also awarded interest @ 6% per annum only. Those land owners who had accepted the compensation without any protest, their references were dismissed by the learned reference court. 6. Aggrieved, some of the land owners and 'the Authority' have come up in appeals as stated above. 7. The reference court did not award solatium to the land owners. It also awarded interest @ 6% per annum only. Those land owners who had accepted the compensation without any protest, their references were dismissed by the learned reference court. 6. Aggrieved, some of the land owners and 'the Authority' have come up in appeals as stated above. 7. The land owners have filed appeals mainly on the ground that the S.L.A.O. had determined the rate @ 35/- per square feet whereas the Reference Court has determined the market value at lesser rate which is illegal; that the land acquired was less than 8 acres hence deduction was not permissible; that the market rate of the land in question prevailing at the time of acquisition was Rs. 150/- per square feet and the Reference Court has not taken into consideration the sale deeds property. It was also pleaded that the Reference Court has no jurisdiction to deprive the appellants of additional amount of 30% as provided under Section 23(2) of 'the Act'. It was also alleged that the interest up to one year should be paid @ 9% and thereafter @ 15% per annum. 8. The Haridwar Development Authority filed the appeals mainly on the grounds that the Reference Court wrongly held the belting system adopted by the S.L.A.O. as incorrect as the belting system is a time tested, most appropriate and universally applicable system for classification of land and that the area of acquired land being large, 25% deduction made by the S.L.A.O. was justified in view of the expenditure to be incurred in the development etc. of the land. 9. So far as the first appeal 431/2003 is concerned, it is to be stated that the reference filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Reference Court on the ground that appellants had accepted the compensation awarded without any protest. The plea taken by the appellants is that the court below did not take into consideration that the appellants have not received any compensation from the respondents. It was also pleaded that the court below has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, which provides that, the Collector shall grant enhanced compensation in accordance with the award of the Reference Court, even to those persons who have not made any reference. 10. It was also pleaded that the court below has not taken into consideration the provisions of Section 28-A of the Act, which provides that, the Collector shall grant enhanced compensation in accordance with the award of the Reference Court, even to those persons who have not made any reference. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully. 11. Learned Senior Advocate Sri Alok Singh assisted by Sri Lokpal Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the land owners submitted that the land in question was acquired for construction of residential buildings by 'Authority' and since it had building potential the Reference Court has erred In assessing the compensation at much lesser rate and further making deduction of 25% on the ground that land acquired has large area. It was also argued that the S.LA.O. after perusing the sale instances fixed the compensation @ Rs. 35/- per square feet and the Reference Court should not have reduced the rate of the land. Learned counsel also submitted that Collector had fixed the circle rate of the area @ 46.50 per Sq. feet and the -land owners should have been awarded compensation at that rate. It was also submitted that the land owners are also entitled to get solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum up to one year of delivery of possession of the land and 15% thereafter. 12. On the other hand Sri Sudhansu Dhulia, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the 'Authority’ submitted that belting system adopted by the S.L.A.O. is a time tested, most appropriate and universally applicable system for classification of land and the Reference Court has erred in removing the belting system and fixing one rate which is wholly incorrect, without any application of mind and in violation of the law presently applicable in the case. 13. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the following points arise for decision of these appeals :- 1. Whether the rate of the land in question fixed by the Reference Court is just and proper? 2. Whether the deduction @ 25% from the compensation amount as provided by the Reference Court was just and proper? 3. Whether the land owners are entitled to get the benefit of Section 23(2) and 23(1-A) of the Act ? 14. Whether the rate of the land in question fixed by the Reference Court is just and proper? 2. Whether the deduction @ 25% from the compensation amount as provided by the Reference Court was just and proper? 3. Whether the land owners are entitled to get the benefit of Section 23(2) and 23(1-A) of the Act ? 14. Point No.1: Perusal of record reveal that 41-0-8 bighas land was acquired for construction of residential buildings. The S.L.A.O. adopted belting system and after making 25% deductions on the basis of the acquired land having a large area, fixed the-rate @ Rs. 26.25, Rs. 17.50 and Rs. 13.12 per square feet. However, the Reference Court determined the rate @ Rs. 26.25 per square feet for the land situate near the highway and @ Rs. 17.50 per square feet for the land situate beyond distance of 500 meters from the highway. 15. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether or not the rate determined by the Reference Court Is just and proper and whether or not the belting system adopted by the S.L.A.O. was valid and just approach in the matter. According to the land owners the acquired land is situate on a highway nearer to which Krishi Utpadan Mandi is also situate and the entire land is situate in a well defined and developed block. It is pertinent to mention here that after perusing the oral as well as documentary evidence it is amply clear that despite the entire land situate in a well developed block the S.L.A.O. divided the land in to three parts (belts) and the Reference Court also divided the same in to two parts. The Hon'ble Apex Court In the matter of Meharban and others vs. State of U.P. and others; (1977) 6 Supreme Court Cases 54 has held that where the land is situate in well-defined and developed blocks, belting system is not reasonable. In the present case the acquired land being situate in well-defined and developed block the belting system adopted by the S.L.A.O. was not a valid approach and the finding of the S.L.A.O. was therefore rightly subscribed by the Reference Court. 16. Now it is to be seen that what will be the proper method to determine the rate of the land in question. 16. Now it is to be seen that what will be the proper method to determine the rate of the land in question. The S.L.A.O. took in to consideration the sale deed entered at serial No. 9 of the Schedule-2 annexed with the award as exemplar. While considering the other sale Instances entered at serial Nos. 9, 78, 79, 85, 88, 109 the S.L.A.O. has recorded finding that either the land in these sale deeds was sold by the property dealers to other. property dealers or was transferred between the partners and therefore the S.L.A.O. accepted the rate of the land similar to the land acquired vide sale instance entered at serial No.9 by which land was sold by Lohar Singh to Krishna Kumar Sharma @ Rs. 35/- per square feet. The land involved in the sale deed was less than half bigha only. 17. To determine the market value, the Reference Court has however, divided the land in to two parts, one which was abutting the main road up to the distance of 500 meters and the other beyond 500 meters and fixed flat rates of Rs. 26.25 per square feet and Rs. 17.50 per square feet respectively for these two parts. The Reference Court while deciding the issue gave a finding that the S.L.A.O. erred ina90pting the belting system but on the other hand itself divided the land in to two parts. It is admitted to the parties that the acquired land is surrounded by three roads; on the one side of the land national highway runs, on the other side the Saray road exists and on the third side the land in having the link road which make a triangle having the acquired land inside it an the Saray road there exists Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Jwalapur and there is Abadi also near the national highway of Jwalapur towards the acquired land. It is well settled that while determining the compensation the Court must sit in the armchair of a willing and prudent vendor and put a question whether the market value sought to be determined would be capable of fetching that hypothetical price and should determine a just and adequate compensation for the land acquired. It is the duty of the court to take all the relevant factors in to account before determination of compensation by applying the said acid test. 18. It is the duty of the court to take all the relevant factors in to account before determination of compensation by applying the said acid test. 18. The land owners also took the plea that the Collector had fixed the circle rate of Rs. 46.50 per square feet of the land of the area and therefore the land owners should have been awarded the .compensation at the circle rate. It is well settled that the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the realization of stamp duty is a guideline as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal and others versus District Magistrate/Collector Ghaziabad and others; (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases 62. The Hon'ble Judge of the Court have observed .as under :- "As we have said, the assessment by the Collector is only prima facie and is not final and is open to both the authorities or persons seeking registration to prove to be contrary the actual market value of such property. This circle rate in no way affects any party when finally determining its value." 19. We find that in the present case the S.L.A.O. has rightly determined the rate as per the selected sale deeds. The rate of the land as per the sale deed was Rs. 35/c per square feet and the S.L.A.O. was justified in determining the rate of the land @ Rs. 35/- per square feet. In a situation like this is circle rate was not adopted there was no illegality and the above reported decision can safely be taken to support this view. The Reference Court in its judgment also framed a question as to whether the acquired land was situated within 500 meters of the highway or not and it held that the acquired land is within 500 meters of the highway and the land was surrounded by roads from three sides. The Reference Court also made reference of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs. Mangatu Ram and others; (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 59 and classified the land into two parts. In the cited case the land situated around 500 yards from the main road was classified as A class land irrespective of its quality and compensation at uniform rate of Rs. In the cited case the land situated around 500 yards from the main road was classified as A class land irrespective of its quality and compensation at uniform rate of Rs. 1,00,000/ - per acre and for rest of the 'A' class land compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre was granted. 'Banjar Quadim', 'Banjar Jadid' and 'Gair Mumkin' lands were classified as 'B' class lands and granted compensation @ Rs. 30,000/- per acre. In the present case the Reference Court despite a categorical finding that the acquired land was situated within 500 meters of the national high way was not justified in determining two different rates; one for the land within 500 meters of the national highway and the other for the land beyond 500 meters of the national high way i.e., Rs. 26.25 and Rs. 17.50 per square feet respectively. 20. From the above discussion we are of the firm view that the S.L.A.O. was justified in accepting the sale deed at serial No.9 as representing the market value of the land acquired as Rs. 35/- per square feet and further the Reference Court was justified in rejecting the belting system adopted by the S.L.A.O. We are of the view that Reference Court was also not justified in dividing the land in to two parts for determination of compensation. 21. Point No.2: Learned counsel for the land owners has vehemently argued that the Reference Court has not adopted belting system even though awarded Rs. 26.50 per square feet after deducting 25%, hence deduction of 25% should not have been made from the compensation determined at the rate fixed by the S.L.A.O. On the other hand learned counsel for the 'Authority' refuted the said submission and argued that the land in dispute do not fall in the category of fully developed area and -although the land was having potential value but was yet to be developed fully. There is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value and therefore deduction of 25% towards development charges can safely be said to be just and proper. In support of the argument he cited the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana; (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 354. We have gone through the reported case. In support of the argument he cited the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana; (2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases 354. We have gone through the reported case. The facts in the reported case were that a large area of 84.23 acres of land was acquired by the State of Haryana for development of residential and commercial area of Bhiwani. The claimants not being satisfied with the award preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court disposed of the references by awarding uniform rate of compensation @ Rs. 125/- per square yard. Against the order of the Reference Court both the parties filed appeals before the High Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court reduced the amount of compensation to Rs. 79.98 per square yard after applying a cut of 20% towards development charges. The Division Bench dismissed the appeals filed against the judgment of learned Single Judge. On appeal being filed, the Apex Court upheld the finding of the learned Single Judge of the High Court and observed that :_ "The appellants herein did not establish that the entire area of 84 acres of land acquired was fully developed having all the facilities such as roads, drains, sewers, water, electricity lines and civic amenities. In order to convert the land in to plots for the purpose of construction of residential and commercial buildings certain area was to be earmarked for the above mentioned purposes in accordance with the law governing in the matter of creating lay-outs in addition to incurring of expenditure for the development area. Hence the claim of the appellants that there should have been no deduction out of the compensation amount determined for the entire area acquired is unsustainable. May be, the acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and commercial buildings had some advantages, which aspect is taken note of by the High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against 1/3rd normal deduction." 22. Later on this view has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) vs. The Land Acquisition Officer and Mnandal R. Officer; 2004(1) L.A.C.C. 631. We find that the ratio of the above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Later on this view has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) vs. The Land Acquisition Officer and Mnandal R. Officer; 2004(1) L.A.C.C. 631. We find that the ratio of the above decisions squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Although the land before us was developed and having potential but was not fully developed having all the facilities such as drain, sewers, water and civic amenities and in order to convert the land in to plots for the purpose of residential buildings certain area was to be earmarked in accordance with the law governing in the matter of creating layouts in addition to incurring of expenditure for the development of the area. 23. Learned counsel for the land owners argued that the government has issued a G.O. that the deduction should not have been made from the compensation in regard to the land holders having less than 8 acres. These are the guide lines and in view of the ratio of the decision in the case of V. Hanumantha Reddy (supra) in the facts and circumstances of the case a suitable developmental deduction has to be made. We see no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the land owners. 24. We accordingly hold that the acquired land has potentiality for construction of residential buildings and had some advantages and taking note of the small area of selected sale deed cut of only 25% as against 1/3rd deduction will be just and proper in the present case and after making deduction of 25% from the rate of Rs. 35/- per square feet of the acquired land comes to Rs. 26.25 per square feet. In other words the compensation need to be determined at this rate for the entire land acquired. 25. Point No.3 :- The S.L.A.O. in his award, made provision of payment of 30% solatium and the interest @ 9% up to one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum but the Reference Court did not award solatium and awarded interest @ 6% per annum. Section 23 of the 'Act' deals with the matters to be considered in determining compensation. Section 23 of the 'Act' deals with the matters to be considered in determining compensation. Sub clause (2) of Section 23 of the Act provides as under :- 'In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market value in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition.' The Reference Court awarded interest @ 6% per annum whereas the S.L.A.O. had awarded the interest @ 9% up to one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum. It will not be out of place to mention here that the Apex Court in the matter of Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Anoop Singh and another; (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 484 has held that amended Section 28 was to apply to any award by the Collector or Court, or an appellate order of High Court or Supreme Court passed in appeal against such award, made after 30-4-1982 and before the commencement of the Amendment Act. Admittedly the award in the present case was given after the date 30-4-1982, that is, 9-5-1994. The S.L.A.O. was justified in awarding the interest as provided by the 'Act'. 26. Section 23(1-A) of 'the Act' provide that the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The land owners/appellants are also entitled to get an additional amount @ 12% per annum on the market value determined by the court. The finding of the Reference Court on this count also is liable to be set aside and we are of the view that the land owners are entitled to get the benefit of Section 23(2) and 23( 1-A) of 'the Act' and the interest at the rate awarded by the S.L.A.O. The point is decided accordingly. 27. Now there remains the point to be determined as to whether the Reference Court was justified or not in dismissing the reference of the appellants entered at serial No. 25 (A.O. No. 431/2003). 27. Now there remains the point to be determined as to whether the Reference Court was justified or not in dismissing the reference of the appellants entered at serial No. 25 (A.O. No. 431/2003). The Reference Court dismissed this reference simply on the ground that 'the' land owners had received the compensation as awarded by the S.L.A.O. without protest and hence the reference was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Section 28-A of the Act provides that who are aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Ajit Singh and others versus State of Punjab and others; (1994) 4 Supreme Court Cases 67 in which the Apex Court has observed that the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation and the persons who have not preferred the references under Section 18 of the Act, are also entitled to get the enhanced' compensation as adjudicated and fixed by the reference court. In the present case the Reference Court dismissed the reference of the appellant holding that, they received the compensation Without any protest and hence they are not entitled to get compensation at the enhanced rate. The finding of the Reference Court are not perverse. We are of the view that the Reference Court has rightly rejected the references as not maintainable. In a recent decision in the matter of State of Karnataka and another vs. Sangappa Dyavappa Biradar and others; AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2204 the Apex Court has observed as under:- "The respondents having accepted the award without any demur were estopped and precluded from maintaining an application for reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act. It is also trite that by reason of such agreement, the right to receive amount by way of solatium or interest etc. can be waived." 28. It is also trite that by reason of such agreement, the right to receive amount by way of solatium or interest etc. can be waived." 28. However under Section 28-A of 'the Act' re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court is provided and if the appellants had already moved their applications under Section 28-A of the Act within the stipulated time according to the rule, the Collector shall decide the applications of the appellants expeditiously. 29. For the reasons aforesaid the appeal Nos. 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 77 and 78 of 2003 filed on behalf of land owners are party allowed and the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is modified to the extent that the market rate of the acquired land is determined @ Rs. 26.25 paise per square feet and these appellants shall be entitled to compensation at the said rate: These appellants/ land owners are a/so held entitled to the benefit of Section 23(2) and 23( 1-A) of 'the Act' and also the interest as provided under Section 28 of 'the Act'. 30. The A.O. No. 431/2003 preferred by the land owners/appellant is dismissed. 31. The appeal Nos. 75, 76, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 20 of 2003 filed by the 'Authority' are dismissed. 32. The land owners shall be paid the compensation after computing the same as per the above within two months, after deducting the actual amount already received by them. 33. The costs are easy.