Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.— 1. All these first appeals have been preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act against the judgment and order dated 23.7.1997 passed by Mr. Niyaz Ahmad, Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Lucknow on five references, which were registered as Misc. Case No. 425 of 1990, 364 of 1990, 365 of 1990, 366 of 1990 and 367 of 1990 and were disposed of by a common judgment whereby the court has enhanced the value of the acquired land from Rs. 1.93 per square feet to Rs. 3.60 per square feet along with 12% of the total value as additional compensation and also solatium at the rate of 30% interest and interest was also awarded on the enhanced amount @ of 9%, if the total amount is paid within a period of one year otherwise, if the amount is paid after the aforesaid period of one year then the owners of the land would get interest at the rate of 15%. Since under these appeals, common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, the same are being disposed of by the common judgment. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment, Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'LDA'), who has acquired the land, has preferred appeals no. 4 of 1998, 5 of 1998, 88 of 1998, 89 of 1998 and 90 of 1998 and the owners of the land have preferred First Appeal No. 83 of 2002, 84 of 2002, 85 of 2002, 86 of 2002 and 87 of 2002. The land involved in all these appeals was acquired for residential colony and acquiring body was the LDA. The land acquired situates in village Behasa Pargana Bijnaur, Tehsil and District Lucknow. For acquisition of the aforesaid land, a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 21.4.1979. Thereafter notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 12.7.1980. On 31.12.1980 and 7.2.1981 the possession of the land was taken by the LDA. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide its award dated 12.2.1985 ascertained the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2.75/-per square feet but awarded Rs. 1.93/- per square feet after deduction of 25% of the assessed market value along with 15% solatium under Section 23 (2) of the amended Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide its award dated 12.2.1985 ascertained the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 2.75/-per square feet but awarded Rs. 1.93/- per square feet after deduction of 25% of the assessed market value along with 15% solatium under Section 23 (2) of the amended Land Acquisition Act. On 22.4.1985, the claimants received notices under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act from respondent no. 2 and thereafter on 17.5.1985, owners of the land filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sharda Sahayak Pariyojna Collector Lucknow. In all the references, the claimants claimed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 17/- per square feet and other benefits admissible under the law. Apart from the market value of the land, the claimants also demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- for change of the business and as damages for equipments. On 21.5.1990, the references so preferred by the owners were referred to District Judge, Lucknow and the same were registered in the office of District Judge, Lucknow and subsequently were transferred to the Court of Presiding Officer Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow for its adjudication. Misc. Case No. 425 of 1990 was made the leading case and all the five references were consolidated and were disposed of by the impugned judgment. 3. In the references, referred to above, on behalf of the LDA, some documents were filed and statement of Amin Shri Hari Prasad Gupta was also recorded. Prior to that, the claimants also filed certain sale deeds as exemplers. The issues were framed and thereafter by the impugned judgment, the Presiding Officer assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 6/- per square feet but deducted 40% of the market value on the ground of largeness of the land and ultimately the effective market value awarded was reduced to Rs. 3.60 per square feet. Apart from the market value, the court also awarded 12% additional compensation and 30% solatium under Section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% thereon from 31.12.1980 to 30.12.1981 and thereafter at the rate of 15% interest on the total compensation from 30.12.1981 to the actual date of payment was awarded. Similar orders were passed in all the five cases. The court has not awarded interest on the 30% solatium amount. 4. Similar orders were passed in all the five cases. The court has not awarded interest on the 30% solatium amount. 4. On behalf of the LDA, it is submitted that the award under challenge was based on ground that ought not to have been taken into consideration, the market value of the land as fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was correct and no interference in that was called for. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants have submitted that the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Lucknow prior to deciding these references in Misc. Case No. 32 of 1998 (Bhanu Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) and 33 of 1998 (Ganesh Bux Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) awarded the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square feet besides other benefits under Land Acquisition Act in the said village, which was acquired for the same scheme. Appeal No. 129 of 2006 (LDA Vs Bhanu Pratap Singh) in Misc. Case No. 32 of 1998 was preferred, which was dismissed on 8.12.2010 and Appeal no. 130 of 2006 (LDA Vs. Bhanu Pratap Singh and others) against the judgment passed in Misc. Case No. 33 of 1998 was also dismissed on 20.7.2012. Apart from it on 3.5.2006, the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 62 of 1998 (Uday Krishan Dhawan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others), Misc. Case No. 60 of 1998 (Rakesh Dhawan Vs. State of U.P. and others), Misc. Case No. 61 of 1998 (Vinay Krishan Dhawan Vs. State of U.P. and others), Misc. Case No. 27 of 2001 (Pratap Krishan Dhawan Vs. State of U.P. and others) were disposed of by a common judgment and the Court awarded the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 5 per square feet besides other benefits admissible under the Land Acquisition Act. The land involved in these Misc. Cases was also part of the same scheme and was situated in the same village, therefore, the claim of the claimants is that they had adduced evidence that the value of the land was Rs. 17/- per square feet but the court has committed error in assessing the market value of the acquired land below Rs. 5/- per square feet. Cases was also part of the same scheme and was situated in the same village, therefore, the claim of the claimants is that they had adduced evidence that the value of the land was Rs. 17/- per square feet but the court has committed error in assessing the market value of the acquired land below Rs. 5/- per square feet. Prior to the decision of the Court, the land acquired for the same scheme situated in the same village, the market value of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square feet and therefore, the market value of the land so acquired subsequent to the aforementioned judgments can never be less than Rs. 5/- per square feet. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Printer House Private Limited Vs .Saiyadan reported in [AIR 94 SC 1160], and P. Ram Reddy and others Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority reported in 1995 All India Acquisition and Compensation Cases 184, has discussed the principles on the basis of which the market value has to be determined. It is now settled law that the building potentiality of the acquired land existing on the date of notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, is the correct market value of the acquired property, which has to be judged on consideration of various factors and material which are brought on the record and such building potentiality is not only to be judged merely on the basis of its existing value but also after taking into consideration the future advantages. The learned District Judge while determining the market value of the acquired land in his impugned order dated 24.12.1983, has ignored all the aforesaid relevant factors, which are required to be looked into while determining the market value of the acquired land on the basis of its building potentiality. A perusal of the impugned judgment would apparently show that he has not addressed himself to the determination of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of its existing building potentiality on the date of Notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act alongwith its future advantages in the light of the material brought on the record. 7. 7. It was the case of the claimants-appellants that the land in question has a great potentiality as it was adjucent to the Kanpur-Lucknow Highway and there were several other developed areas and establishments like P.A.C., Scooter India Limited, Sainik School and Airport. Apart from it, the Krishna Nagar residential colony also situates within a very close distance. Learned court below has relied upon the evidence of (PW-1) Ravindra Nath Singh in this regard and was also of the view that the land in question has great building potentiality and is also valuable land. The learned trial court fixed the market value of the land in question at the rate of 6 Rs. per square feet but on the ground of largeness of the area reduced this market value to the extent of 40%. 8. The grievance of the claimants/land owners is that such huge deduction on the basis of large area was not justified keeping in view the building potentiality and the value of the land. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed much reliance on the pronouncement of this Court in the first appeal No. 47 of 1985 State of U.P. Vs. Tej Krishan Dhawan wherein the market value of the land adjucent to the land in question was enhanced to Rs. 4/- per square feet and this amount was fixed with regard to the acquisition of the year 1976, while instant acquisition was made in the year 1979. 9. We have gone through the record of the case, it is evident from the perusal of the record that the learned reference court has placed reliance on the sale deed (53-Ga) as exempler and on the basis of the same, the market value of the land in question, was determined @ Rs. 6/- per square feet. It was regarding the land, which was not only close in proximity with the acquired land but was executed very close to the time of the date of acquisition in the instant case. The other sale deed was filed as exempler for lesser sale consideration, which were mentioned in the judgment. The law is settled on the point that the exempler of the higher value must be considered. It has been so held in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in [ AIR 2012 SC 2721 ]. The law is settled on the point that the exempler of the higher value must be considered. It has been so held in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in [ AIR 2012 SC 2721 ]. Hon'ble the Apex Court while considering this aspect has held in paragraph-15 as under:- "It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale-deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation." 10. In view of the aforesaid proposition of law, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby reliance was placed on 53-Ga as exempler. But in our opinion, the deduction of 40% made thereon which reduced the market value of the land in question of Rs. 3.60 per square feet does not appear to be justified in view of the building potentiality of the land. Ordinarily a sum of 30% is deducted towards development charges but this is not a universal rule. Keeping in view the building potentiality of the land of adjoining areas, the same may be reduced. In Kasturi Vs. State of Haryana reported in [( 2003 1 SCC 354 ] the Apex Court has held as under:- "However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. State of Haryana reported in [( 2003 1 SCC 354 ] the Apex Court has held as under:- "However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3 rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose." The aforesaid view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (D) by L.Rs. And Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. reported in [ AIR 2012 SC 2709 ]. 11. In the present case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has himself admitted that the land in question is adjacent to the Lucknow Kanpur Highway and situated on the eastern side of the said road. It has also been mentioned that P.A.C. Establishment, Scooter India Factory, Sainik School and Airport Establishment are also situated within the close proximity. It has been mentioned that facility of conveyance, transportation and electricity is also available near the land in question. Therefore, these factors ought to have been taken into consideration while fixing the percentage of deductions in the market value. In the case of Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs. and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in [(2008) LAC 209 SC], the Apex Court had found deductions of only 10% to be correct, towards development charges but in that case the land was acquired for the purposes of establishment of Sugar Factory while the land in question was acquired for a residential colony. and others Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in [(2008) LAC 209 SC], the Apex Court had found deductions of only 10% to be correct, towards development charges but in that case the land was acquired for the purposes of establishment of Sugar Factory while the land in question was acquired for a residential colony. The claimants had specifically claimed that the level of the land is even and nothing is to be done for levelling the land to make it usable for residential colony. This point has not been disputed. In these circumstances, the assertions of the LDA that the finding recorded by the court below are perverse or unreasonable cannot be accepted. 12. In view of the above circumstances, we hold that the deduction of 40% was much higher and the same must be reduced. Thus, the deduction of 15% of the market value as assessed by the court below and applying deduction of 15% the value of the land in question comes to Rs. 5.10/- per square feet, which is close to the market value, which was awarded earlier with regard to the land acquired in the vicinity. 13. Other grievance of the claimants/appellant is that interest of solatium was not granted. This aspect has been considered by the Apex Court in the constitution Bench decision in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India reported in [ AIR 2001 SC 3516 ] while considering the various decision of the High Court and approving the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in [AIR 1980 Punjab & Haryana 117] held that interest awardable under Section 28 includes within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium and it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the person is entitled to the compensation and is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. This view of the Apex Court has been followed in a recent judgment in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in [ AIR 2012 SC 2721 ]. Therefore, the claimants/appellants were also entitled to the interest on the solatium amount. 14. The claimants have made out the case for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, market value of the land is hereby fixed as Rs. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in [ AIR 2012 SC 2721 ]. Therefore, the claimants/appellants were also entitled to the interest on the solatium amount. 14. The claimants have made out the case for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, market value of the land is hereby fixed as Rs. 5.10/- per square feet and the appellants/claimants are also entitled to the interest on solatium. If the enhanced amount is paid within a year, the claimants shall be entitled to interest thereon @ 9%, if the enhanced amount is not paid within a period of one year, they shall be entitled to interest @ 15% thereafter. 15. Accordingly, appeals preferred by the claimants/land owners are allowed and the appeals preferred by the Lucknow Development Authority are accordingly dismissed. The order of the court below is modified to the extent mentioned above. _____________