JUDGEMENT J.C.S. Rawat, J. All these six appeals have been filed by the Opp. party/appellant against the common judgment and award dated 29-06-1991 passed by the then I Additional District Judge, Nainital in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 72 of 1988, 290 of 1986, 289 of 1986, 247 of 1989, 246 of 1989 and 245 of 1989 respectively. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the impugned award dated 29-06-1991 the learned Reference Court allowed the references preferred by the claimants holding them to be entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 60/- per sq. metre for the iand acquired alongwith 15% solatium, interest @ 12% per annum from 24-12-1983 to 27-9-1985. The claimant Smt. Shanti Devi was held entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 60/- per sq. metre alongwith 15% solatium of the acquired land of plot No. 229. Claimant Sri Ram Nath was held entitled to get compensation @ Rs.60/- per sq. metre alongwith 15% solatium of acquired land of plot No. 225. It was further held that he shall be paid only 6/16 share out of the total amount of compensation and rest 10/16 share will be paid to real owner of the land. The Reference Court affirmed the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the S.L.A.O.) for the trees and ponds in each case. All the claimants were further held entitled to get interest on the enhanced amount Act) and interest under Sec. 34 of the Act on the amount of compensation. 3. Brief facts giving rise to these appeals are that the State Government had acquired 34.76 acres of land for the purposes of Land Development .and Grahsthan Yojana No. II, Kashipur District-Nainital), (now District Udham Stngh Nagar). The acquiring body was the U.P. Avas-Vikas Parishad, Lucknow. Notification under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was made on 24-12-1983 and notificatior under Section 32 of the Act was made on 29-09-1984. Undisputedly, the acquired land is situated within the municipal area. The S.L.A.O. calculated the price at the rate of Rs. 56.74 per sq. metre and after deducting 25%, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 42.56 per sq. Undisputedly, the acquired land is situated within the municipal area. The S.L.A.O. calculated the price at the rate of Rs. 56.74 per sq. metre and after deducting 25%, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 42.56 per sq. metre The S.L.A.O. had awarded compensation on different counts as follows :- (1) For the total land measuring 34.76; Rs. 59,73,010.80 acres i.e. 1,40,343.30 sq. mtrs., (2) For construction and ponds Rs. 15,925.00 (3) For fruit bearing trees Rs. 18,131.80 (4) For non-fruit bearing trees Rs. 24,148.00 (5) 30% solatium on the amount of Rs. 18,09,364.00 compensation Thus, vide award dated 27-09-1986 of S.L.A.O. total Rs. 78,40,580.20 was awarded to the land owners as compensation. 4. Aggrieved by the said award dated 27-09-1986, all the claimants made references through Collector, Nainital to the District Judge, Nainltal under Section 18 of the Act on 23-11-1987 for decision and determination on the grounds, inter alia, that the claimants/applicants are the owner of the land detailed in the scheduled placed sin the application. The compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. was inadequate. He has determined the compensation at the lowest rate. It was also contended before the Reference Court that the compensation paid for the acquired land was unreasonable. The claimants/ applicants demanded the compensation @ Rs. 250/- per sq. yard as the whole area of land was being acquired in one lot. The app. party/Avas Vikas Parishad, Lucknow contested the claim and filed its written statement in each case contending that the claimants are not entitled to get any enhanced compensation. 5. The Reference Court framed necessary issues on the pleadings of the parties and after appreciating the evidence. adduced by the parties held that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. is inadequate. He had relied upon the sale deed dated 02-12-1982 of the rate of Rs. 93.11 per sq. metre, sale deed dated 06-12-1982 of the rate of Rs. 96.84 per sq. metre and sale deed dated 02-07-1983 of the rate of Rs. 56.73 per sq. metre as exemplar sale deeds. 6. The learned Reference Court, while awarding the compensation, took out the average means per sq. metre @ Rs. 103.64 and after deducting 40% as development charges it comes to Rs. 63.64 per sq. metre. After hearing the parties, the" Reference Court in round figure held the rate of compensation as Rs. 60/- per sq. metre as exemplar sale deeds. 6. The learned Reference Court, while awarding the compensation, took out the average means per sq. metre @ Rs. 103.64 and after deducting 40% as development charges it comes to Rs. 63.64 per sq. metre. After hearing the parties, the" Reference Court in round figure held the rate of compensation as Rs. 60/- per sq. metre and awarded compensation accordingly, vide impugned judgment and award dated 29-06-1991. Feeling aggrieved by the said impugned award, the Opp. party/ appellant U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow has come up in these appeals. 7. Notices were issued to t-he claimant/respondents and they have filed cross objections in each appeal with the prayer to enhance the amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court, vide Impugned judgment and award dated 29-6-1991. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. The Reference Court, vide impugned judgment dated 29-6-1991 has fixed compensation @ Rs. 60/- per sq. metre. The Reference Court so fixed compensation by taking into consideration two sale deeds proved by the claimants and one sale deed proved by the appellant. The Reference Court average the price of all the sale instances and arrived at the aforesaid figure. After making the average of the amount the Reference Court had deducted 40%. After deduction the rate was fixed as Indicated above. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the Reference Court ought to have deducted more from the value of the land. Keeping in view the fact that the claimants would be getting the amount of compensation in lump sum. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Reference Court should not have acted upon the sale deeds filed and proved by the claimants. The learned Reference Court should have acted on the sale deed filed by the appellant before the S.L.A.O. because the said sale deed pertains to the same area. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents who had placed counter claim before this Court on the other hand, contended that the Reference Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the land situated in Village-Ujjain Tanda were fully developed and it was also within the municipal limits. The Additional District Judge has erred in deducting 40% from the compensation. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents who had placed counter claim before this Court on the other hand, contended that the Reference Court failed to take into consideration the fact that the land situated in Village-Ujjain Tanda were fully developed and it was also within the municipal limits. The Additional District Judge has erred in deducting 40% from the compensation. He should have considered that the area of the claimants was a small area. It was further contended that the deduction both for the largeness as well as for the development is not permissible. The perusal of the record reveals that the Reference Court has taken into account the sale deed dated 02-12-1982 of the rate of Rs. 93.11 per sq. metre (for 96.65 sq. metres), sale deed dated 06-12-1982 of the rate of Rs. 96.84 per sq. metre (for 260.22 sq. metres) and sale deed dated 02-7-1983 of the rate of Rs. 56.73 per sq. metre (for 1.02 acres) as exemplar sale deeds. In these appeals the land of the claimants was acquired as under :- SI. Name of claimant Plot No. Area Total No. acouired 1. Harnam Sinah 232 M 3.51 acres 3.51 acres 2. Ramnath Bhasin 225 1.10 acres 1.53 acres 171 0.43 acres 3. Smt. Shanti Devi 227 1.34 acres 5.74 acres 228 0.06 acres 229 0.27 acres 230 0.01 acres 231-A 0.14 acres 232 Min 3.00 acres 233 0.92 acres 4. Nanhey, Ramkrishna 165 A 1.05 acres 1.38 acres and Dan Singh 165 B 0.33 acres 5. Dori Lal 162 1.76 acres 1.76 acres 6. Nathu Singh 160 2.98 acres 2.98 acres 10. It is admitted to both the parties that the disputed land falls within the municipal limits of Kashipur. The land is adjacent to the Avas Vikas colony, Railway Station and the land in dispute is surrounded by the main roads. Thus,. this fact reveals that the said land is already situated within the municipal limits. It Is well settled position of law that the amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to the various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to the various positive and negative factors vis-a-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The Court while awarding the compensation will have to consider the development charges which may occur to make it potential for the purposes. The appellant/Avas Vikas Parishad had acquired the land because they have to construct a colony over the land. The land would have the potential value after its acquisition. The Reference Court has rightly considered the aforesaid sale deeds dated 02-121982, 06-12-1982 and 02-7-1983. The said deeds are pertaining to the area 96.65 sq. metres, 260.22 sq. metres and 1.02 acres, where in the present case the land is being acquired for 34.76 acres. 11. It was contended that the Reference Court has erred in not considering the other instances proved by the claimants. The instance proved by the claimants pertains to the period and proximity of the land etc. Thus, the Reference Court has rightly taken into consideration all the three deeds. We are completely in agreement with the findings recorded by the Reference Court that rate of the said area was 103.64 per sq. metre. The Reference Court has deducted a sum of 40% out of the said amount which comes to 63.64 per sq. metre and thereafter in round figure fixed Rs. 60/- per sq. metre as rate of compensation. 12. Now we have to consider as to whether the deduction is justified or not. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Reference Court ought to have deducted more than 40% whereas the learned counsel for the Claimants have placed the counter claim stating therein that there should be no deduction on the said amount. It is also in the evidence that the said area is within the municipal area and is fully developed but the land acquired in each case is more than one acre. It is also in the evidence that the said area is within the municipal area and is fully developed but the land acquired in each case is more than one acre. Thus, the court while awarding the compensation will have to see that what is the potentiality of the land and whether any amount' for the development will be required for the same. Generally the courts adopt a principle that when a large area is acquired and the same is not fully developed, a deduction of about 33% from market value is made but in this case there is evidence on record that the acquired land is situated in a developed area and there is a approach road to the land, railway station and also other facilities are available there. In such circumstances, it would be justified to deduct 20% from market value of the land for development. We are fortified in our view by the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Kiran Tandon versus Allahabad Development Authority and another, reported in (2004) 10 Supreme Court Cases, page 745, in which in Para 16, the Apex Court held as under: "Sri Gupta has submitted that when the Reference Court had not made any deduction .in the compensation amount on account of internal development, there was no justification for the High Court to allow 20 per cent deduction on that account. According to the learned counsel the land is situate in a developed area where electricity supply, road and sewer lines were already in existence and as such there was no occasion for any further " deduction from the market value of the land, Normally, the principle is that when a large area is acquired and the area is not fully developed a deduction of about 33 per cent from the market value is made. This view has been taken in, Vijay Kumar Moti Lal v. State of Maharashtra, [(1981) 2 SCC, 719], Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust.[(1982) 1 SCC 419] and Special Tehsildar, Land Acquisition v. A. Mangala.Gowri [(1991) 4 SCC, 218]. The evidence on record indicates that the acquired land is situate in a developed area and approach road to the land and also power lines are available. The evidence on record indicates that the acquired land is situate in a developed area and approach road to the land and also power lines are available. However, in construction of multi-storeyed residential flats a considerable portion of the land has to be left out for Internal roads, sewer line, open space, - etc, In such circumstances the" High Court was justified in directing deduction of 20 per cent from the market value of the land: 13. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as foll9win9 the ratio of the Apex Court judgment referred ,to above, we are of the view that deduction of 40% as held by the Reference Court is excessive and it Is reduced to 20%. 14. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents submitted that solatium @ 15% on the market value of the land is inadequate and they should be paid solatium @ 30% on the market value. 15. In the Amendment Act, 1984, solatium @ 30% was increased but it was made applicable to the award made by the Collector or the Court between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 and not before. The benefit of the amended Act could not be granted by the High Court and the Supreme Court in respect of the award made, by the Collector or the Court- prior to April 30, 1982. The five Judge bench of the Apex Court in Union of India and another versus Raghubir Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. etc; Prithipal Singh and others versus Union of India; Ram Mehar Raj Kumar and others versus Union of India' and others and Delhi Cattle Breeding Farms Pvt. Ltd. etc. versus Union of India, reported in (1989) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 754 has approved the decision of twoJudge bench of the Apex Court, rendered in K, Kamalajammunniavaru versus Special Land Acquisition Officer [(1985) 1 see 582J and overruled the view taken by two-Judge bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Shag Singh versus Union Territory of ehandigarh [(1985) 3 see, 737J. The Apex Court held that the benefit of the enhanced solatium to be given is confined to an appeai against an award of the Collector or of the Court rendered between April 30, 1982 and September 24, 1984 only, Admittediy, in the present case, the award of S.L.A.a. was made on 27-9-1986 which was after to the specified date i.e, Sept., 24, 1984 and the benefit of amended provision in the Act by Amending Act No. 68 of 1984 cannot be extended in the present case. 16. Therefore, the Reference Court has rightly ordered for payment of solatium @ 15% on the market value of the land and in view of the aforesaid settled position of law, we hold that the claimants/respondents are entitled to get the solatium @ 15% and not at the increased rate i.e. 30%. 17. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents also contended that the award of compensation towards constructions existing on the acquired land, ponds and fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees Is not adequate. We find that the claimants failed to adduce any cogent evidence before the Reference Court. The S.L.A.O. awarded the compensation Rs. 15,925/- for constructions and ponds, Rs. 18,131.80 for fruit bearing trees and Rs. 24,148/- for non-fruit bearing trees. We have scrutinized the statement of P. Ws. Their statements cannot be given much importance on this score. The Reference Court has rightly rejected the contention of the claimants and affirmed the award passed by the S.L.A.O. on these counts. No infirmity or illegality was pointed out to us to substantiate this contention. 18. Accordingly, after deducting the amount of 20% out of the amount of rate as held by the Reference Court i.e. Rs. 103.64 per sq. mtr., the amount comes to (Rs. 103.64 - Rs. 20.73) = Rs. 82.91 per sq. mtr. and in round figure It is fixed as Rs. 80/- per sq. mtr. Thus, the actual compensation for the land acquired shall be paid to the claimant @ Rs. 80/- per sq. mtr. instead of Rs. 60/ - per sq. mtr. as fixed by the Reference Court. 19. For the reasons and discussion aforementioned, the impugned judgment and award dated 29-06-1991 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nainital is modified to this extent alone. The claimants/respondents shall be entitled to get market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs. mtr. instead of Rs. 60/ - per sq. mtr. as fixed by the Reference Court. 19. For the reasons and discussion aforementioned, the impugned judgment and award dated 29-06-1991 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nainital is modified to this extent alone. The claimants/respondents shall be entitled to get market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs. 80/- per square metre instead of Rs. 60/- per sq. mtr. as held by the Reference Court. The compensation shall be worked out at the rate of Rs. 80/- per sq. metre. On the enhanced amount of compensation, the claimants shall also be entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum. Rest of the findings recorded by the Reference Court regarding compensation towards constructions, ponds, fruit bearing and non-fruit bearing trees as well as solatium @ 15% and the interest @ 12% per annum amount of compensation are maintained. 20. All these appeals are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the claimants/respondents in all these appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.