JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1894') has been filed against the order dated 01.02.2002, passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District Jaipur in reference case No.32/1986, Hanuman & Ors. v. RSEB & Anr. whereby the reference application of the respondents-applicants was allowed in part and the amount of compensation for the land acquired enhanced from Rs. 25,000/- per bigha to Rs. 39,000/- per bigha. Additionally the respondents-applicants were also given the benefit of the then extant Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as then applicable in the State of Rajasthan and allowed interest @ 9% p.a. for the first year and thereafter @ 15% p.a. as also solatium @ 30% of the compensation amount. 2. Mr. Alok Garg, appearing for the appellant, has agitated two grounds in support of this appeal. He has submitted that the interest and solatium under the Act of 1894 could not have been granted in view of the fact that the reference petition was filed not under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1853 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1853'). He submits that in this view of the matter, interest only @ 4% p.a. could have been granted and the solatium @ 15% of the compensation amount. His second submission is that there was no material before the court below to enhance the compensation for the land acquired from Rs. 25,000/- per bigha to Rs. 39,000/- per bigha. It was submitted that the only evidence relied upon by the court below as laid before it was the fact that the land adjoining to that of the respondents-applicants belonging to one Ummed Kumari was acquired at the rate of Rs. 39,000/- per bigha. The court below however overlooked, counsel for the appellant submitted, the fact that Ummed Kumari's land was situated on the main highway and that of the respondents-applicants behind the said land albeit adjoining it. Counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the valuation of the respondents-applicants' land for the purpose of determination of compensation could not have been at par with that of Ummed Kumari. 3. Mr. Counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the valuation of the respondents-applicants' land for the purpose of determination of compensation could not have been at par with that of Ummed Kumari. 3. Mr. Kamal Parswal, appearing for the respondents-applicants has submitted that the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was repealed on 24.09.1984 and consequently albeit the application for enhancement of compensation granted by the LAO vide award dated 08.01.1985 was filed with reference thereto, the learned court below rightly proceeded to determine the application for enhancement of compensation under the extant law i.e. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as applicable on the date of the award of compensation of the land acquired in issue. It has been submitted that consequently the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was relevant for the determination of compensation of the land belonging to the respondents-applicants acquired by the State. As far as the valuation of the land is concerned, counsel submitted that the land of Ummed Kumari was acquired pursuant to the very same notification as that of the respondents-applicants i.e. Section 4 notification of the Act of 1853 issued on 07.10.1982. He submitted that in determining the compensation of Ummed Kumari's land, both interest and solatium were determined with reference to the Act of 1984 and therefore it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to contend to the contrary in the case of the respondent-applicants. Counsel has further submitted that the land was acquired under the award dated 08.01.1985 where after the land belonging to Ummed Kumari or the respondents-applicants has been utilised for the same purpose i.e. for setting up a 400 KV grid Sub-station. Further submission is that in any event there was no evidence with regard to any belting method adopted by the LAO in determining the compensation where under the land upto a particular depth from the Highway was compensated at a given rate and the land at the depth thereafter at another rate. Counsel submitted that in the absence of any reasonable criteria for varying compensation in respect of lands acquired under a particular notification, the learned court below has acted justly and fairly in holding that the respondents-applicants were entitled to the compensation for the land acquired at the rate at which the land of other khatedars was acquired under the same acquisition proceedings. 4. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents-applicants as also perused the impugned order dated 01.02.2002. 5. In my considered opinion, in the facts obtaining, there is no substance in this appeal. For one, admittedly the land in issue belonging to the respondents-applicants was acquired on 08.01.1985 with the passing of the award. The Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1853 was repealed effective 24.09.1984. Consequently, at the time of passing of the award dated 08.01.1985, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was the operative law. See Prahladi Devi & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) WLN 113 The award of interest as also solatium under the Act of 1894 therefore cannot by any stretch of imagination held to be either arbitrary or contrary to law. With regard to the valuation of the respondents-applicants' land at par with that of Ummed Kumari, the fact is that the acquisition in respect of both the land was commenced with Section 4 notification under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1853 issued on 07.10.1982. Land of both the khatedars was acquired under the award dated 08.01.1985. There was no evidence laid before the LAO to distinguish the quality or utility of the land acquired of the respondents-applicants vis-a-vis a land acquired of Ummed Kumari. It is also on record that the land acquired was used for the same purpose i.e. for setting up a 400 KV grid Sub-station. Consequently, in my considered view, the learned court below has not committed any error or resorted to any unsound reasoning in concluding that the respondents-applicants were entitled to same compensation for the land acquired i.e. Rs. 39,000/- per bigha as was granted to Ummed Kumari. 6. I therefore find no force in this appeal. The same is dismissed. 7. It transpires from the case file that vide order dated 19.04.2002, this Court had directed the appellant to deposit the enhanced amount of award along with interest with the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court, if has not been earlier deposited with the trial court and disbursed to the respondents-applicants. The Registrar (Admn.) was directed that in the event of the receipt of the compensation under the orders of this Court, it was to be invested in a long term FDR with the UCO Bank, LIC Building, Jaipur. 8. Mr. Alok Garg states that an amount of Rs. The Registrar (Admn.) was directed that in the event of the receipt of the compensation under the orders of this Court, it was to be invested in a long term FDR with the UCO Bank, LIC Building, Jaipur. 8. Mr. Alok Garg states that an amount of Rs. 4,98,477/- as directed by this Court under its order dated 19.04.2002 was deposited with the Registrar (Admn.). 9. In this view of the matter, it is directed that the said amount along with accrued interest be disbursed to the respondents-claimants.Appeal dismissed. *******