JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section 96, C.P.C. has been filed by the land owner of plot No. 282 area 0.78 acres situate in village Bhainsee, Tehsil and District Mathura. The State Government acquired the said plot for the purposes of Industrial Development Corporation. A sum of Rs. 1,392.59 was awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant alongwith Smt. Sharda Devi filed a reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector for reference claiming Rs. 78,000/- as compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 Lakh per acre. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on February 5, 1977. It was followed by notification dated 7th of February, 1977 published under Section 6 of the Act. Possession of the acquired land was taken on May 13, 1977. Evidences documentary and oral were led by the parties before the Reference Court. The Reference Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues : (1) Whether the applicant Mahendra Kumar is entitled to recover compensation at the rate of Rs. 1 Lakh per acre, as claimed? (2) Whether the applicant is barred from claiming any amount of compensation in excess of what he had claimed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer? 2. Under issue No. 1 it was found that the applicant is entitled to claim compensation at Rs. 10,000/- for the land acquired. However, the reference was rejected in view of its finding recorded under issue No. 2. Under issue No. 2 it was found that in view of Section 25(1) of the Act as then it stood, the claimant is not entitled to claim compensation in excess of what he had claimed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The said finding was arrived at on the footing that the claimant appellant had not laid any claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming any higher amount of compensation. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal is at the instance of the claimant. Before proceeding further it may be placed on record that the reference application was filed by the appellant jointly with Smt. Sharda Devi but subsequently, Smt. Sharda Devi surrendered her rights in favour of the present appellant. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal is at the instance of the claimant. Before proceeding further it may be placed on record that the reference application was filed by the appellant jointly with Smt. Sharda Devi but subsequently, Smt. Sharda Devi surrendered her rights in favour of the present appellant. 3. Heard Shri Prakash Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant. None appeared on behalf of contesting respondents No. 1 and 2. The State of U.P. through Collector, Mathura has been impleaded as respondent No. 2. But the learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no concern with the appeal as the appeal is to be contested by the respondent No. 1, U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Kanpur. 4. While preparing the judgment it was noticed by me from the material on record that there is some discrepancy regarding the area of the acquired land. Copy of the award has not been filed in the paper book. It appears that in the reference application a grievance was also raised by the appellant that he is the owner of 0.78 acres of plot No. 282 and it has been wrongly decreased to 0.74 acres without any rhyme or reason as evident from the reference application filed before the Collector, Mathura, vide para 2. However, neither any issue was pressed nor any finding was recorded with regard to the extent of area of plot No. 282 acquired by the State Government. The reference Court without adverting to the question of extent of area of plot No. 282, has proceeded to decide the reference application straight way although in the opening part of the judgment it has been mentioned that the disputed area is 0.78 acres. Shri Prakash Gupta, the learned Counsel for the appellant also gave an impression to this Court that the area of the land acquired is 0.78 acres. Since this point was not agitated or pressed before the reference Court, it is not necessary to dilate further on this point. 5. Taking the issue No. 1 as first, it may be noted that a sum of Rs. 1,392.59 was determined by the District Land Acquisition Officer as compensation payable to the appellant. The reference Court under issue No. 1 has found that this very land was purchased for a sum of Rs. 5. Taking the issue No. 1 as first, it may be noted that a sum of Rs. 1,392.59 was determined by the District Land Acquisition Officer as compensation payable to the appellant. The reference Court under issue No. 1 has found that this very land was purchased for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the appellant alongwith Smt. Sharda Devi by means of a registered sale deed dated 24th of February, 1976 i.e. before the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The relevant notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 5th of February, 1977. It has been found that there is no evidence to show on behalf of the respondents that price mentioned in the sale deed dated 24th of February, 1976, Ext. 4 in favour of the appellant is inflated or so much price was not paid to the vendor Lajji. In other words, the sale deed dated 24th of February, 1976 was found by the reference Court, in absence of any evidence to the contrary as genuine transaction. The reference Court, thus, concluded, and in my view rightly, that the appellant should have been awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the land and the compensation awarded by the District Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. The said finding of the reference Court is well considered finding. 6. However, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that compensation should have been awarded more i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1 Lakh per acre. It was argued that the appellant has taken the land after its acquisition by the respondents at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. for installing petrol pump. To this extent there is no dispute. The opp. party No. 1, V.K. Agrawal, has admitted in his cross-examination that a part of the land acquired has been given to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. The defence set up by the respondent is that after acquiring the land huge amount was invested in its development and thereafter a small parcel thereof was given to the appellant. However, there is no material on record to show what amount was spent by the respondents in the development. But this subsequent grant of part of land at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. However, there is no material on record to show what amount was spent by the respondents in the development. But this subsequent grant of part of land at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. to the appellant by the respondent is no germane for the purposes of determination of the market value of the land on the date of relevant notification i.e. 5th of February, 1977. The reference Court has rightly taken into consideration that a judicial notice be taken of the fact that UPSIDC, respondent No. 1, allots land in small plots to the individuals after making necessary developments so that industrial units may have proper roads for transportation. It also provides water and electricity connections. in this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court rightly discarded the subsequent allotment of small piece of land to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr., specially in view of the fact that the appellant himself has purchased the land about a year before of the relevant notification. In the case on hand the sale deed standing in favour of the appellant, in absence of any material that the price mentioned therein was inflated or towards the lower side, itself is the best exemplar for determining the market value of the land on the date of relevant notification. There is no evidence to show any escalation of price in between the date of the sale deed standing in favour of the appellant and of the date of relevant notification. The finding recorded by the Reference Court on issue No. 1 is, therefore, hereby confirmed and needs no interference. 7. Coming to the issue No. 2, the reference Court on the basis of the unamended Section 25 of the Act (as it stood prior to the amendment by Act No. 68 of 1984 which came into effect from 24th of September, 1984) held that the claimant is not entitled for any additional amount of compensation as determined by the authority concerned as he failed to make any claim for enhancement before the authority concerned. 8. 8. Before embarking upon an inquiry as to the correctness of the contentions raised, it would be appropriate to notice the provisions of Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, as it stood prior to its amendment and the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as it stand subsequent to the amendment. Section 25, prior to its amendment by Act 68 of 1984 : "25. Rules as to amount of compensation.—(1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. (2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the Court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. (3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the Court shall not be less than and may exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.” Section 25 after the amendment : “Section 25. Amount of compensation by Court not be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector.—The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.” 9. The contention of the appellant is that in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 754 ; Special Tehsildar (L.A.) PWD, Schemes Vijaiwara v. M.A. Jabbar, JT 1995 (1) SC 383; Siddappa Vassappa Kuri and another v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, 2001 (8) Supreme 89 ; and Panna Lal Ghosh and others v. Land Acquisition Collector, 2003 (8) Supreme 821 , the section 25 as amended by the Act No. 68 of 1984 will apply. Under the amended section the only restriction on the power of Court is that the amount of compensation awarded by it shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Under the amended section the only restriction on the power of Court is that the amount of compensation awarded by it shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. He submits that since the amended Section 25 is more beneficial to the land owners whose land has been acquired, it should be made applicable even to those cases wherein the acquisition proceedings had taken place even earlier to the commencement of the Amending Act. In other words, according to him, the provisions of Section 25 as amended should be given retrospective effect specially keeping in view the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Raghubir Singh (supra). 10. It may be noted here that in the case on hand the judgment of the Reference Court is dated 28th of July, 1984 i.e. prior to the commencement of the Amending Act which came into force w.e.f. 24th of September, 1984. 11. The controversy involved herein is no longer res integra and has been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal, (2000) 7 SCC 756 . This was a Division Bench decision and the matter was referred to a larger bench in view of the decision given by it in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (supra), in Land Acquisition Officer D.S.W.O.A.P. v. B.V. Reddy and Sons, (2002) 3 SCC 463 . It has been held therein that Section 25 can never be’ held to be procedural and it is substantive in nature. Being substantive in nature the amended provision of section 25 will not be given retrospective effect as it nowhere indicates that the same would have any retrospective effect. It was concluded that. "It would apply to all acquisitions made subsequent to 24th of September, 1984, the date on which the Act No. 68 of 1984 came into force.” It also considered the fact that Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill of 1982 was introduced in Parliament on 30th of April, 1982 and came into operation w.e.f. 24th of September, 1984. Distinguishing the Raghubir Singh’s case it observed that in Raghubir Singh case the Constitution Bench was dealing with sub-section (2) of Section 30 which has got absolutely no relevance or connection with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. Distinguishing the Raghubir Singh’s case it observed that in Raghubir Singh case the Constitution Bench was dealing with sub-section (2) of Section 30 which has got absolutely no relevance or connection with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. The authoritative pronouncement made by the Apex Court in the case of B.V. Reddy and Sons (supra) the argument of the appellant that in view of ratio laid down by the Constitution Bench in Raghubir Singh case amended Section 25 will be applicable to the references also on the date of introduction of the Amending Bill in Parliament, has got no force and the same is hereby rejected. 12. However, there is another aspect of the case which cannot be lost sight of. 13. The Reference Court under Issue No. 2 after examining the evidence on record has reached to the conclusion and rightly so that the appellant did not make any application for compensation before the District Land Acquisition Officer. No attempt was made by the appellant to challenge the said finding before this Court. The Reference Court then observed that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25 are mandatory and there is no sufficient reason on record which may have prevented the appellant to make such claim. Therefore, it rejected the reference application although under Issue No. 1 it was found that the appellant was entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and the compensation awarded by the authority concerned was inadequate. 14. Section 25 (3), reproduced above, gives power to the Court, where the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason, to award such amount which may exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. It, thus, carves out an exception to Section 25(1) of the Act in specified cases when there is an omission on the part of the applicant. The reference Court on sufficient reason may allow the applicant to claim compensation amount over and above the amount awarded by the Collector. It follows that a limited power is there with the reference Court. Now, on the facts of the case on hand, question arises whether the compensation be awarded at Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 1,392.59 as awarded by the Collector. Two relevant factors are there. Firstly, the case of filing of claim before the Collector for enhanced amount has not been found to be established. Now, on the facts of the case on hand, question arises whether the compensation be awarded at Rs. 10,000/- instead of Rs. 1,392.59 as awarded by the Collector. Two relevant factors are there. Firstly, the case of filing of claim before the Collector for enhanced amount has not been found to be established. Secondly, the land in question was purchased by the appellant for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- about a year back, is it legally justified to hold that he would be entitled to Rs. 1,392.59 only. The answer appears to be in negative, keeping in view of Section 25(3) of the Act. The said provision is to be liberally construed to advance the cause of justice. 15. The Courts are meant for justice and while dispensing justice the justice should not be dispensed with. Awarding a sum of Rs. 1,392.59 to a person as compensation with regard to a property purchased by him for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- would be inexpedient and will defeat the justice. To meet such situation, the sub section (3) to Section 25 is on the statute book. Taking the help of Section 25(3) of the Act, the amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 10,000/-. 16. Lastly, it was submitted that in view of the amendment brought by Act No. 68 of 1984 in Sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimant appellant is entitled to enhanced rate of interest as well as solatium. 17. The issue is no longer res integra and has been set at rest by a Constitution Bench decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. Raghuveer Singh, AIR 1989 SC 1933 , wherein it has been held that in every such case where the award of the Collector or of the Court has been made in between 30th of April, 1982 and 24th of September, 1984, the benefit of amended section shall be extended. The award by reference Court, as noted above was made on 31st of March, 1983 the day in between 30th of April, 1982 and 24th of September, 1984. The contention that the appellant is entitled for solatium at the rate of 30 per cent in view of aforesaid Amending Act has got substance and deserves acceptance in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Raghuveer Singh (supra). The contention that the appellant is entitled for solatium at the rate of 30 per cent in view of aforesaid Amending Act has got substance and deserves acceptance in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Raghuveer Singh (supra). The learned Standing Counsel too could not place anything to the contrary. 18. K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 581 is an authority of the Apex Court for the proposition that in such cases the claimant is entitled to higher rate of interest as per the amended provision. It has relied upon its Constitution Bench judgment given in the case of Union of India v. Raghuveer Singh (supra) and after rejecting the argument of the State held that Section 30 (2) of the Amending Act deals with both the amendments made under Section 23 (2) and amendment to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act referred as Principal Act therein. In the above case, award of the civil Court was made after the commencement of Amending Act. It has been clarified in para 4 by the following words : “The restricted interpretation would not be understood to mean that Section 23 (2) would not apply to the awarded decree of the civil Court pending at the time when the Act has come into force or thereafter.” 19. In Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Anoop Singh and another, AIR 2003 SC 1004 it has been held, following Raghuveer Singh’s case (supra) : “What applied to solatium is equally applicable to interest. This position has not been disputed before us and cannot be disputed in view of legal position declared by Three Judges Bench of this Court in 1995(1) SCC 367 .” 20. In the above case the award of Collector was dated 26th of June, 1967 and that of the reference Court was dated 31st of May, 1984. The award of the reference Court was made in between the relevant dates 30th of April, 1982 to 24th of September, 1984. 21. Strong reliance, on the other hand, was placed on K.U.M.S. v. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 2000 SC 3282 wherein the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is dated 27th of December, 1977, and the reference was decided by the award dated 28th of February, 1981. 21. Strong reliance, on the other hand, was placed on K.U.M.S. v. Kanhaiya Lal, AIR 2000 SC 3282 wherein the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is dated 27th of December, 1977, and the reference was decided by the award dated 28th of February, 1981. It may be noted that the reference was decided by the civil Court, prior to 30th of April, 1982. In this factual setting, the Apex Court, after taking into consideration its earlier judgement given in the case of Union of India v. Raghuveer Singh (supra) and K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 581 has held that awards made by the Collector and the reference Court prior to 30th of April, 1982 will not attract the amended Section 28. The claimants would be entitled for grant of interest at the rate of 6 per cent as per unamended provision. The said decision was obviously given in a different fact situation. Marked difference is that the award given by the reference Court was prior to the relevant date i.e. 30th of April, 1982. 22. In the case on hand the award of the reference Court being after 30th of April, 1982, it is, therefore, is governed by the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala, AIR 1995 SC 581 . There is sufficient force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the appellant is entitled to get interest and solatium as per amended Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and thus, enhanced interest and solatium accordingly. The said point is decided accordingly in favour of the appellant. 23. In nutshell the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 9 per cent and 15 per cent as per amended Section 28 of the Amending Act from the date on which he was dispossessed to the date of payment of such excess amount. 24. The appeal is allowed in part to the extent mentioned above with proportionate cost. ————