JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated March 13, 1997 passed by Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub Division Officer I Jaipur (for short 'LAO') whereby the additional award Rs. 4,14,027/- was granted in favour of respondents. 2. Contextual facts depict that respondents Madho Bihari Bagret and Vidhya Bagret (for short 'Khatedars') owned land in village Haiyawali of Sanganer town. After the land of Khatedar got acquired LAO on April 9, 1986 awarded a sum of Rs. 1,61,436/- to khatedars. In the meanwhile Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 1984 Act') came to be introduced and State Act had come to an end. On July 15, 1993 Khatedars sought enhancement of the award in view of 1984 Act. The LAO vide order dated March 13, 1997 directed the petitioner to make payment of additional amount to the Khatedars as indicated above. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the amended provisions as brought out by State Government the Khatedars were not entitled to the additional amount as the sanction was accorded by the President of India on April 3, 1987. Since award was made prior to this date it was not required to be amended. 4. Coming to the ratio indicated in Ummed Industries and Land Development Co. v. State of Rajasthan (1995) 2 SCC 563 , I notice that amendment in Land Acquisition Law was prospective in nature. Their Lordships of Supreme Court indicated as under (Para 5) : "In Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754 a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that in proceedings pending before the date of the introduction of the Amendment Act and the date of the commencement of the Amendment Act either before the Land Acquisition Officer or before the reference Court enhanced solatium would be payable. In view of the fact that the award was made by the District Court on 9-2-1983 i.e., prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act, the claimants are not entitled to solatium (a) 30%. However, since the proceedings are pending, they are entitled to payment of solatium at 15% from the date of commencement of the Act, namely 1-8-1987 till date of payment on the enhanced compensation awarded by the District Court. However, since the proceedings are pending, they are entitled to payment of solatium at 15% from the date of commencement of the Act, namely 1-8-1987 till date of payment on the enhanced compensation awarded by the District Court. As regards interest is concerned, till the State Amendment Act has been operating i.e., till 1-1-1987 the claimants are entitled to interest under the Central Amendment Act only on and from 1-9-1987 on the enhanced compensation at 9% per annum on the enhanced market value for one year from 1-8-1987. Therefore, after expiry of one year till date of payment or deposit, the claimants are entitled to interest at 15% on the enhanced compensation. With regard to additional amount under Section 23(1-A) this Court in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, (1994) 6 SCC 593: ( AIR 1995 SC 1012 ) held that the claimants would not be entitled to the additional amount, if the proceedings were not pending before the Civil Court as on the date of the commencement of Central Amendment Act. Since the Amendment Act was made applicable only on 1-8-1987, the claimants also are not entitled to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A)." 5. The LAO in my opinion had no jurisdiction to enhance the award on the basis of amended provisions since after making the award on April 9, 1986 the proceedings could not be treated as pending before the LAO. 6. For these reasons, I allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated March 13, 1997 passed by the LAO. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******