JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This is an appeal by the claimants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for enhancement of compensation. 2. Some land for establishing a 220 K.V. Sub-station and construction of staff quarters for the Hydel department of village Kakretha in District Agra was acquired by the State of U.P. The preliminary notification proposing to acquire the land was issued on 1.3.1975 and was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 15.6.1975. The SLAO offered market value of the acquired land @ 3.50 per sq. yard as per award dated 14.12.1977. The award was not acceptable to the claimants and, therefore, they preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Act which came to be registered as LAR No. 70 of 1978 (Bengalimal and another v. Collector Agra and another). The reference was in respect of three plots of the claimants i.e. plot No. 339/1 area 1 bigha 6 biswa, 339/2 area 1 bigha 5 biswa and plot No. 341 area 1 bigha 19 biswa, total area 4 bigha 10 biswa which is equivalent to about 12403 sq. yard. The reference Court vide judgment, order and award dated 9.3.1984 determined the market value of the acquired land for the purposes of compensation to be Rs. 5 per sq. yard. 3. The claimants were not satisfied even by the market value awarded by the reference Court and therefore, had preferred this appeal for further enhancement claiming compensation at the market value of Rs. 14 per sq. yard. 4. I have heard Sri Santosh Kumar, learned counsel for the claimants-appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the defendant-respondent i.e. State of U.P. through Collector, Agra. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the market value of the acquired land as awarded by the reference Court is inadequate and is liable to be increased on the basis of the evidence on record. Secondly, the District Judge has incorrectly awarded solatium only @ 15% on compensation as under the amended provisions of the Act, solatium @ 30% is admissible. Thirdly, it has been argued that interest at the higher rate as provided under the amended provisions is payable not only on the market value but also on the solatium awarded. 6. Learned Standing counsel has defended the award of market value @ Rs. 5 per sq. Thirdly, it has been argued that interest at the higher rate as provided under the amended provisions is payable not only on the market value but also on the solatium awarded. 6. Learned Standing counsel has defended the award of market value @ Rs. 5 per sq. yard on the ground that there is no positive evidence in view of which the rate could be increased and as such there is no scope for further enhancement. 7. A perusal of the award of the SLAO indicates that the award was made treating the land as a developed land. The reference Court on the basis of the judgment, order and award dated 7.10.1983 passed in another LAR No. 48 of 1978, Shyamlal v. Collector (paper No. 58-C) wherein compensation @ market value Rs. 5 per sq. yard was awarded for the land of village Kakretha itself which was also acquired by the same notification dated 1.3.1975, awarded the same market value to the claimants-appellant herein. 8. The submission from the side of the claimants-appellant is that sufficient oral as well as documentary evidence was adduced to establish the higher market value of the acquired land but the same has not been properly considered and at least one another judgment of a reference Court has completely been ignored. 9. In the evidence the claimants-appellant apart from adducing oral evidence to establish the potentiality of the acquired land and its situation vis-a-vis the adjoining village, had filed revenue map of village Kakretha and Gailana, certified copy of the sale-deed dated 12.12.1973 executed by one Jaipal Singh, certified copy of the sale-deed dated 19/20.4.1974 executed by one Jaswant Singh, certified copy of the lease deed dated 19.2.1977, certified copy of the judgment and order dated 16.12.1982 of the reference Court deciding LAR No. 52 of 1978 and certified copy of the judgment and order dated 20.8.1983 of the reference Court passed in LAR No. 30 and 31 of 1978. Besides above, additional evidence in the shape of certified copies of the judgments and orders dated 19.11.98 passed in LAR No. 40 of 1978 and 31.5.1975 passed in LAR No. 64/81 were permitted to be taken on record by this Court by a separate order. 10. Besides above, additional evidence in the shape of certified copies of the judgments and orders dated 19.11.98 passed in LAR No. 40 of 1978 and 31.5.1975 passed in LAR No. 64/81 were permitted to be taken on record by this Court by a separate order. 10. Now to determine the fair market value for the award of compensation so that there is neither any undue enrichment nor deprivation, let me examine the evidence one by one and to see if the reference Court selected the relevant and the best exemplar/evidence for awarding the compensation. 11. The lease deed dated 19.12.1977 (paper No. 37-C) relied upon by the claimants-appellant is in respect of land of Transport Nagar Complex which had some buildings situate over it. The lease is not an outright sale of the land. Therefore, the lease rent is not a safe guide for evaluating the market value of any land. Thus, for the above reasons the reference Court has rightly not placed any reliance upon it. 12. The sale-deed dated 19/20.4.1974 (paper No. 45-C) is in respect of land of village Kakretha having an area of 40 bigha 7 biswa 1 biswansi which was sold by one Jaswant Singh, Nathi and Lalram all sons of Tularam and Fateh Singh for a total sale consideration of Rs. 5,500/-. According to this sale deed the market rate of the land is much below the market value already awarded. Therefore, this sale-deed is of no relevance for the enhancement of compensation. Similar, is the position with regard to sale-deed (paper No. 46-C). 13. The other evidence is judgment and order of the reference Court dated 16.12.1982 (paper No. 48-C) passed in LAR No. 52/1978. This judgment and order is concerning land of village Gailana which was acquired by a different notification dated 29.5.1975 and as such has rightly not been relied upon by the reference Court inasmuch as the best exemplar is one which relates to the acquired land itself or in its absence of the same village. Similar is the position with the judgments and orders dated 20.8.1983 (paper No. 61-C) passed in LAR No. 30 of 1978 and judgment and order dated 20.8.1983 (paper No. 62-C) passed in LAR No. 31 of 1978. Similar is the position with the judgments and orders dated 20.8.1983 (paper No. 61-C) passed in LAR No. 30 of 1978 and judgment and order dated 20.8.1983 (paper No. 62-C) passed in LAR No. 31 of 1978. Moreover, the judgment and order dated 16.12.1982 (paper No. 48-C) cannot otherwise form the basis for any enhancement as under the same the reference Court has determined the market rate to be Rs. 4 per sq. yard only. 14. Now comes the turn of the additional evidence. 15. First the judgment and order dated 31.5.1991 passed in LAR No. 64 of 1981. A perusal of this judgment reveals that it relates to land of village Kakretha which was acquired by a different notification dated 29.3.1975 which is proximate in time to the acquisition in dispute. In this reference compensation @ Rs. 50 per sq. yard has been awarded but the award is not based on any exemplar sale-deed or on any previous judgment and order of the reference Court but solely on the basis of the oral evidence with regard to the potentiality of the acquired land and on mere possibility of sale of land between Rs. 80-100 per sq. yard. This on the face of it cannot be a relevant criteria under law for determining the market value. The award of higher rate of compensation in one strong case without any evidence that the rate so awarded has been upheld cannot be a safe guide for enhancing the market value particularly, in the light of the certified copy of the judgment and order dated 10.9.1982 passed in LAR No. 69 of 1978 (paper No. 57-C) wherein market value @ Rs. 4 per sq. yard has been awarded by the reference Court in respect of 7 bigha and 2 biswa of land of village Kakretha itself which was also acquired by the same notification as the land in dispute and the judgment and order dated 7.10.1983 (paper No. 58-C) passed in LAR No. 48 of 1978 (Shyam Lal v. Collector, Agra) which has been taken to be the basis of determining the market value to be Rs. 5 per sq. yard as it pertained to be the land of village Kakretha, which was acquired by the same notification as the land in dispute. 16. Second additional evidence is the judgment and order dated 19.11.1998 passed in LAR No. 40 of 1978. 5 per sq. yard as it pertained to be the land of village Kakretha, which was acquired by the same notification as the land in dispute. 16. Second additional evidence is the judgment and order dated 19.11.1998 passed in LAR No. 40 of 1978. This relates to the land of village Kakretha which was acquired by notification dated 10.5.1975 i.e. subsequent to the acquisition of the land in dispute. The reference Court determined the market value in this reference on the basis of the exemplar sale-deed dated 12.12.1973 which was executed by one Dr. Jaipal Singh in respect of a plot of land having an area of 504 sq. yard for a total sale consideration of Rs. 7,056/- and as such calculated the market value to be Rs. 14 per sq. yard and awarded compensation @ Rs. 10 per sq. yard. 17. The aforesaid sale-deed dated 12.12.1973 (paper No. 20-C) is on record. I have considered the same. Undoubtedly, the land therein has been transferred @ Rs. 14/- per sq. yard but it relates to a very small piece of land in comparison to the land acquired and at the same time this sale-deed relates to a land situate in village Gailana which is adjacent to village Kakretha as established by the revenue map on record. Therefore, this sale-deed cannot be a good exemplar when on record there is a final and conclusive judgment and order of the reference Court pertaining to the acquired land of the same village i.e. judgment and order dated 7.10.1983 (paper No. 58-C) of LAR No. 48 of 1978 awarding market value of Rs. 5/- per sq. yard. Thus, neither on the basis of the aforesaid sale-deed nor in view of the aforesaid judgment and order of the reference Court any case for enhancement of compensation is made out. 18. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the reference Court has committed no error in law in awarding compensation at the market value of Rs. 5 per sq. yard on the basis of the earlier judgment and order dated 7.10.1983 passed in LAR No. 48 of 1978 (paper No. 58-C) (Shyam Lal v. Collector, Agra) wherein also in respect to the land acquired by the same notification of the village Kakretha itself compensation @ Rs. 5/- had been awarded. 5 per sq. yard on the basis of the earlier judgment and order dated 7.10.1983 passed in LAR No. 48 of 1978 (paper No. 58-C) (Shyam Lal v. Collector, Agra) wherein also in respect to the land acquired by the same notification of the village Kakretha itself compensation @ Rs. 5/- had been awarded. This award appears to be final and conclusive as there is no evidence on record that it has been set aside or modified on appeal or that any appeal is pending against it. Accordingly, compensation awarded is not liable to be enhanced any further. 19. The second aspect, apart from determination the market value of the land acquired, is with regard to the rate of solatium which may be admissible to the claimants. In the instant case the award of the Collector was made on 14.12.1977 and that of the reference Court on 19.3.1984 against which the present appeal arises. Initially under Section 23(2) of the Act solatium was payable @ 15% on the market value. It was increased to 30% of the market value w.e.f. 24.9.1984 vide Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 68 of 1984. The five Judges bench of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Raghuveer Singh (dead) by LR’s etc., AIR 1989 SC 1933 , while interpreting the above provisions of the Amendment Act categorically held that the terms in which Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act is coughed indicates a limited extension of the benefit. It extends the benefit of enhanced rate of solatium to the award by the Collector or by the Court made between 30th April, 1982 (date of introduction of the bill) and 24th September, 1984 (when the Act was passed) or to an appellate order of the High Court or of the Supreme Court which arises out of an order of the Collector or the Court made between the said two dates. The relevant extract of the aforesaid decision in this regard is reproduced hereinbelow : “In other words Section 30(2) of the Amendment Act extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court is made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 or to appeals against such awards decided by the High Court and the Supreme Court whether the decisions of the High Court or the Supreme Court are rendered before 24th September, 1984 or after that date. All that is material is that the award by the Collector or by the Court should have been made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th Sept., 1984.” 20. In view of the above, there remains no doubt that as in the instant case the award of the reference was made on 9.3.1984 which is within the aforesaid two dates, the claimants are certainly entitled to the enhanced rate of solatium. 21. Learned Standing Counsel in this connection submitted that this matter has been referred to a larger bench and has placed reliance upon reference order of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 AIR SCW 2723, Smt. Leelawati Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand and another. In this decision the Supreme Court appears to be in approval with the Raghuveer Singh (supra) case but in view of the three Judges bench decision in the case of K.S. Paripoornan II v. State of Kerala and others, 1995 (1) SCC 367 wherein it was observed that restrictive interpretation should not be given to Section 30(2) of the Amended Act, referred the matter to a larger bench but at the same time expressed inability to subscribe to the view taken by the Paripoornan’s case. A careful reading of the Paripoornan’s case also does not reflect that it has anywhere disagreed with the view taken in the Raghuveer Singh’s case with regard to the extension of benefit of higher rate of solatium in cases where the award of the Collector or the Court was made between 30.4.1982 to 24.9.1984. Apart from the above the view which has been taken in Raghuveer Singh’s case till date has not been overruled or held not to be a good law. 22. Apart from the above the view which has been taken in Raghuveer Singh’s case till date has not been overruled or held not to be a good law. 22. Therefore, in my opinion the view taken in the Raghuveer Singh’s case which is a decision of a larger bench of 5 Judges still holds the field and would prevail irrespective of the reference made. Therefore, the benefit 30% solatium would be admissible to the claimants in the present case. 23. Last submission of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellants is that interest under Section 28 of the Act is admissible on solatium also and the reference Court has erred in not awarding the same. A plain reading of Section 23 indicates that the compensation includes market value, additional amount and solatium. Interest under Section 28 is payable on compensation. The above three items being the components of the compensation, interest is payable on each of them. In Sundar Lal v. Union of India, JT 2001 (8) SC 130, the 5 Judges bench of the Apex Court has clearly ruled that interest is payable on aggregate amount of compensation including solatium. Therefore, I hold that the claimants-appellant are entitled for interest under Section 28 of the Act on the amount of solatium also. 24. In the end learned Standing Counsel states that the land was acquired for the Hydel department and it has not been made part, the matter requires to be remanded. In support of his argument he has placed reliance upon AIR 1995 SC 724 , U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi and the subsequent decisions 2003 (7) SCC 693 , Kanak (Smt.) and another v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others and 2004 (13) SCC 125 , Regional Medical Research Centre Tribals v. Gokaran and others, both of which have followed the ratio laid down in Gyan Devi’s case and has held that local authority or the company for whom the land is acquired has a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings before the Collector and the reference Court and to adduce evidence for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. There is no dispute to the above legal preposition but in the instant case the State of U.P. through Collector has effectively contested the matter and had led evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. There is no dispute to the above legal preposition but in the instant case the State of U.P. through Collector has effectively contested the matter and had led evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. The market value as determined by the reference Court below is not being enhanced but is being upheld. The said market value as determined by the reference Court has not been challenged by the State of U.P. by means of a separate appeal or by the Hydel department i.e. U.P. State Electricity Board or U.P. Power Corporation. They have not even come up seeking impleading at any stage and have also not challenged the award directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as has been provided in Gyan Devi (supra). It may also be clarified that local authority or company for whose benefit the land is acquired has been held to be a proper party only entitle to appear and adduce evidence so as to oppose enhancement of compensation and not otherwise. Now as in the appeal enhancement is not being made therefore, no prejudice is being caused to such a third party. The grant of higher rate of solatium and interest on the solatium awarded is purely a legal matter as per the provisions of the Act which does not involve grant of hearing to such a third party as these legal aspects of the matter can effectively be decided in the presence of the State of U.P. Accordingly, the submission advanced by the learned Standing Counsel is of no merit under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment, order and award of the reference Court dated 9.3.1984 passed in LAR No. 70 of 1978 is upheld in so far it awards market value @ Rs. 5 per sq. yard for the acquired land but is modified in respect of grant of solatium which would now be @ 30% on the market value and interest as awarded would also be payable on the solatium so awarded. 26. The appeal as such succeeds in part and is allowed to the extent indicated above. Parties to bear their own costs. ————