Rakesh Tiwari and Anil Kumar, JJ.- Heard Shri Pramod Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri V. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 2. This first appeal has been filed by the State of U. P. under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003, passed by the Nagar Mahapallka Tribunal, Lucknow in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998, Brij lal and another v. State of U. P. and another, challenging the validity in correctness of the judgment and order dated 29.5.2003, passed by the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in Land Acquisition Misc. Case No. 1 of 1998, Brij lal and another v. State of U. P. and another, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court in the aforesaid judgment has partly allowed the miscellaneous case, enhancing the compensation of the land at the rate of f 6.50 per sq. ft. from f 2,09 paise per sq. ft. which was awarded by award dated 6.11.1990 by the S.L.A.O. 3. The award has been challenged on the ground that in the instant case the determination of the market value at the rate off 6.50 per sq. ft. on the basis of earlier decision of the Tribunal in Miscellaneous Case No. 516 of 1991, decided on 19.5.1999 and Miscellaneous Case No. 453 of 1992, decided on 21.11.1994, cannot be legally sustained. It is further argued by the learned standing counsel that the perusal of the award by the S.L.A.O. shows that opposite party had not submitted any letter of claim/demand, hence it was observed by the authorities that whatever compensation determined by the Tribunal, would be payable and in this view of the matter, it is permissible for the respondent to get reference under Section 18 of the Act for the enhancement of the amount. 4. Relying upon the aforesaid observations of the Tribunal, the standing counsel has argued that since the S.L.A.O. had determined the amount of ? 2.09p per sq. ft., the opposite parties are not entitled anything more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The counsel for the respondent submits that there is no bar for moving application for enhancement of the rate of compensation. 2.09p per sq. ft., the opposite parties are not entitled anything more than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. The counsel for the respondent submits that there is no bar for moving application for enhancement of the rate of compensation. He submits that not only the amount of compensation which is determined by the S.L.A.O. is payable but more, have prayer for enhancement is neither unjustifiable nor barred by any specific provision of law or even by the observation of the S.L.A.O. No other point has been raised. 5. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant as well as standing counsel and perused the record. 6. The aforesaid judgment of the S.L.A.O., by this award does not debar appellant from moving objections against the award for enhancing of the compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 7. Furthermore, it appears that in respect of the same acquisition, the Court has found that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. was inadequate and has enhanced the same to f 6.50 sq. ft. In this regard, reference may be made to C.M. No. 259/2002 in re; First Appeal No. 59 of 2002, State of U. P. through Collector, Lucknow v. Sri Prakash Agarwal, the Court observed that : "One more aspect which has been brought to the notice of the Court by Sri Aseem Chandra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that in similar award with respect to the land situated in that very area and pertaining to the same acquisition, with request to other claimants an amount of? 6.50 per. sq. ft. was awarded by the reference court and that amount has been paid without any objection by the Sate. This averment has been specifically made in paragraph of the counter-affidavit filed against the application for condonation of the delay, but while filing rejoinder-affidavit by the State, there is no denial of this fact till date. In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case for interference, as the delay in filing the appeal has not been explained at all. The application for condonation of delay is rejected ; consequently the first appeal is also rejected." 8. Reference may also, in this regard, be made to the Judgment appended as Annexure-2 within a large number of first appeals and other decided by a common judgment. The application for condonation of delay is rejected ; consequently the first appeal is also rejected." 8. Reference may also, in this regard, be made to the Judgment appended as Annexure-2 within a large number of first appeals and other decided by a common judgment. In those cases the Court had framed the following issues : 1. Whether the deduction of 25% made by the court below was justified? 2. Whether the appellants are entitled to the higher rate of compensation because of the escalation in the value of land of exemplars? 3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of ? 6.50 per sq. ft. as awarded in another case by the reference court and affirmed by this Court pertaining to the land powered by the same scheme? 9. As regards issue Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, the Court held and determined the compensation as under : "As regards points for determination Nos. 2 and 3, learned court below has, in detail dealt with potentiality of the land and has discussed each and every exemplars, filed in the case. Learned court below, in my opinion, rightly rejected exemplars on the ground of their location, distance from the plots in question and also their building potentiality other than exemplars paper Nos. C-13 and C-17 which had been found to be situated in close proximity to the land covered by the land of the appellants acquired in the case. As mentioned above, no exemplar was filed from the side of the State. For the reason stated in the judgment of the learned court below, I find that since land covered by exemplars C-13 and C-17 are in close proximity to the land of the appellants, they have been rightly accepted as exemplars for determining market value of the land. Sale deed paper No. C-13 was executed in 1987 while paper No. C-17 was executed in 1985. Learned court below calculated the value of land in two sale deeds at the rate of per sq. ft. and taking into account the 1 period at which they were executed determined the value of land covered by these appeals as f 6.26 paisa per sq. ft. on the basis of average of the land in two sale deeds. Learned court below calculated the value of land in two sale deeds at the rate of per sq. ft. and taking into account the 1 period at which they were executed determined the value of land covered by these appeals as f 6.26 paisa per sq. ft. on the basis of average of the land in two sale deeds. So far as escalation in the value of price is concerned, learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal u. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 , wherein it has been observed that for taking advantage of escalation, parties must prove by evidence that price had increased in the area. There is no evidence to establish escalation. However, it is true that in case of another land covered by the same scheme, the learned reference court in regard to the land situate in the same village approved compensation at the rate of? 6.50 paise per sq. ft. Which this Court also referred as the ground for rejecting the appeal of the State preferred beyond time on the ground of limitation. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellants should also be awarded compensation at the rate of f 6.50 paise per sq. ft. The points 2 and 3 are decided accordingly. As regards the interest, Section 28 of the Act provides that interest on enhanced amount will be payable at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession over the land and at the rate of 15% beyond the period of one year till the date of actual deposit. In Manipur Tea Co. Pvt Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi, AIR 1997 SC 1779 , the Hori'ble Supreme Court also has held that it is mandatory to grant rate of interest at 9% and 15% as provided under Section 28 of the Act. Thus, learned court below was wrong in awarding rate of interest on enhanced amount of compensation to be paid at the rate of 9% from the date of judgment for period of one year and at the rate of 15% thereafter till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount. In view of what has been discussed above, appeals succeed and are to be partly allowed. The appeals are partly allowed. In view of what has been discussed above, appeals succeed and are to be partly allowed. The appeals are partly allowed. Appellants shall be entitled to the compensation at the rate off 6.50 per sq. ft. They shall be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% on enhanced amount from the date of taking over possession for the period of one year and at the rate of 15% thereafter till the date of deposit of the enhanced amount. The judgment and order of the learned court below stands modified accordingly. The other benefits will be calculated accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs." 10. The appellant is the State of U. P., therefore it cannot be permitted to discriminate between two persons whose land was acquired under the same scheme of acquisition in the same area. The matter has already received thoughtful consideration in the aforesaid judgments. The standing counsel has also not been able to inform us as to whether any appeal from the judgments of the Court in various matters pertaining to the same acquisition have been subject-matter of appeal before the Apex Court or not. 11. In view of the matter and for all the reasons stated above as well as the law referred to above, the appeal is dismissed. The order of the Tribunal is confirmed. It shall be open for the opposite parties to take recourse in accordance with law for recovery of compensation. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.