JUDGMENT S.N. AGGARWAL, J. 1. R.F.A. Nos. 277 of 1984 and R.F.A No. 278 of 1984 along with cross objections are being disposed or by this judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals. The Government of Punjab issued notification dated 16.1.1980 with a corrigendum dated 16.3.1980 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. (hereinafter referred to as the’ Act’) and acquired the land measuring 2 kanals 17 marlas bearing Khasra Nos. 8/1 (1-10) and l)/ I (1-7) situated in Village Naloian, District Hoshiarpur for the purposes of Water Supply Scheme by the Punjab Water Supply and Sewerage Board. Half of the land belonged to Sh.Satya Narain (appellant in RFA No. 277 of 1984) and the remaining hair was owned by Sh.Vishwa Nath and Others (appellants in RFA No. 278 of 1984). The award under Section the said Act was announced on 15.4.1982 by the Land Acquisition Collector and the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.500/- per marla. The owners of the land acquired were dissatisfied with the award and they made applications under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation amount and claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.4.000/- per marla. 2. Both these land references were consolidated by the Additional District Judge -cum- Land Acquisition Tribunal. The learned Additional District Judge learned the following issues: To what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled in respect of the acquired land’ ? OP A ii) Relief. 3. In support of their case, the land owners (respondents herein) examined Makhan Singh draftsman as AWl. Paramjit Singh. as A W2. Joginder Paul. Registration Clerk from the officer of Sub Registrar, Hoshiarpur as AW3, Sardial Singh as AW4 and Satya Narain claimant himself appeared as AW5. 4. On the other hand, Ram Singh, Patwari appeared as R W I on behalf of the State of Punjab and documents R-2 to R-8 were also tendered in evidence. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, assessed the evidence led by the parties and enhanced the amount by awarding compensation @ Rs.1125/- per marla vide award dated 29.8.1983. 6. The State filed two separate appeals against the said award. The cross- objections have also been filed by the land owners in RF A No. 278 of 1984. 7. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, assessed the evidence led by the parties and enhanced the amount by awarding compensation @ Rs.1125/- per marla vide award dated 29.8.1983. 6. The State filed two separate appeals against the said award. The cross- objections have also been filed by the land owners in RF A No. 278 of 1984. 7. I have gone through the file and have considered the submissions advanced before me by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The perusal of the award reveals that the instances of sale relied upon by the land owners were rejected for the reason that these related to the land situated near Hoshiarpur. Similarly, the instances of sale relied upon by the State were rejected as these related to the land far removed from the road. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents has relied on EX. A6 which is a copy of the judgment dated 28.2.1983 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. under Section 18 of the Act relating to the land acquired in Village Sukhiabad by notification of the same date i.e. 16.1.1980. Vide the said judgment, the Court of learned Additional District Judge, had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1200/- per marla for the land acquired. Reference was also made to the land comprised in Khasra No. 13/1 and 18/1 which was sold at the rate of Rs. 1150/- per marla. The sale instance of the land comprised in Khasra No. 13/l and 18/l was considered to be relevant as it was in close proximity to the acquired land. The award dated 28.2.1983 EX.A.6 by which the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.1200/- per marla was also considered by the Court to be relevant and worthy of taking into consideration. It was also noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur in para 10 that the acquired land is at a low level by 2 feet/3 feet from the road. After considering these documents and the facts and circumstances surrounding the land acquired, the learned reference Court has increased the rate of compensation to Rs.1125/- per marla vide judgment dated 29.8.1983, as awarded by the Collector. 10. After considering these documents and the facts and circumstances surrounding the land acquired, the learned reference Court has increased the rate of compensation to Rs.1125/- per marla vide judgment dated 29.8.1983, as awarded by the Collector. 10. No reasons were brought to my notice by learned counsel for any of the parties, if the rate for compensation fixed by the learned reference Court needs any change either on the lower side or on the higher side. The judgment of the learned trial Court is a well reasoned order. The award passed in the land of adjoining village has been taken into consideration and the rate was fixed keeping in view the low lying nature of this land. I, therefore, hold that the rate of the land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 1125/- per marla is adequate and proper. 11. The next submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that solatium has been awarded only at the rate of 15% while they were entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% in view of the amendment made in Section 23 of the Act. In support of this submission, the reliance was made on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1933, in which it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under :- “In construing Section 30 (2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the award made by the collector under Section 11 of the Parent Act, and the award made by the Court is the award made by the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction under Section 23 of the Parent Act on a reference made to it by the collector under Section 19 of the parent Act. There can be no doubt that the benefit or the enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30 (2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30 (2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30 April, 1982.” 12. Likewise the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30 (2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30 April, 1982 and 24 September, 1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30 April, 1982.” 12. In the present case the award was announced by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, on 29.8.1983 while the amended provisions on solatium have come into force w.e.f. 30.4.1982. Obviously, therefore, the respondents are entitled to solatium on the increased rate of 30%. 13. Similar law is applicable relating to the rate of interest, as the rate of interest was also revised with effect from 30.4.1982. Since the award in this case was passed thereafter on 29.8.1983, the amended rate of interest would apply. Accordingly the respondents are held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession from the respondent for a period of one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per of annum till the date of realisation. 14. In view of the discussion held above, both the appeals are dismissed, the Cross-objections are allowed with regard to the solatium and the rate of interest, as discussed above.