JUDGMENT Bajanthri, J. In these two appeals appellants have questioned the validity of award dated 29.02.2016 passed in the Arbitration Case No.120/2015(New) 179/2008 (old). Union of India and Another are appellants in MFA 4394/2016. Smt. Rukmini and three others are the appellants in MFA 5578/2017. Fifth respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer is the common respondent (For short Smt.Rukmini and three others are referred as claimants, Union of India and Anr. as appellants and 5th respondent as 'Spl. LAO'). 2. Union of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi had acquired and took possession of lands bearing Sy.No.21(part) measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and in Sy.No.22 (part) measuring 4 acres 0.8 guntas of Jarkabandekaval Village, Bengaluru North Taluk under the statutory provisions of Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (for short referred to as 'Act, 1952') in favour of the Air Force Station, Bengaluru through the Spl. LAO, Bengaluru vide notification No.MIL/LAQ/CRS/72-73 dated 02.03.1973 which was notified in the then Mysuru Gazette, dated 08.03.1973. Spl. LAO assessed the market value of the land @ Rs.16,000/- per acre and compensation in terms thereof was made in terms of the award notification dated 07.02.1981 and 07.12.1981 respectively. 3. In terms of Act, 1952 r/w the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, claimants submitted application for enhancement of compensation in the year 2008. An arbitrator was appointed for the purpose of consideration of the claimants enhanced compensation. Even though claimants enhancement application was rejected in part on 26.08.2011, however, 30% solatium and 6% interest was granted. The appellants have settled the award passed by the arbitrator to the extent of 30% solatium and 6% interest. In the meanwhile, claimants questioned the validity of the award dated 26.08.2011, preferred an appeal before this Court and their MFA No.1310/2013 was disposed on 14.07.2015 while remanding the matter to the arbitrator to pass a fresh order. 4. After remand of the arbitration case No.179/2008, it was renumbered as 120/2015. On 29.02.2016, arbitrator proceeded to pass award in favour of the claimants to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre with solatium @ 30% on the enhanced market price and interest @ 6% for one year from the date of taking possession viz., with effect from 30.01.1941 and @ 15% thereafter till make payment to the claimants. Thus, the appellants as well as claimants presented these appeals. 5. Thus, the appellants as well as claimants presented these appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Union of India submitted that appellants have acquired 694 acres of land in and around subject 'land' and uniform compensation has been awarded. Subject 'land' is an agricultural land unless and until it is converted into non-agricultural land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1952. It was contended that lands were with defence since 1941 under Act, 1952 and it was acquired in the year 1973. During the intervening period, claimants have been paid compensation rent. The arbitrator had not applied his mind to the above extent. The arbitrator's decision is with reference to 'J' Form, Notification, Record of Tenancy and Crop Certificate read with Exs.P.32 to P.50, land of Military, HMT, Jalahalli etc. Merely mentioning 'J' Form and there are no agricultural crops in the subject 'land', the arbitrator proceeded to take a totally different view as if it was a non-agricultural land, unless and until there was conversion of land from agriculture to non-agricultural, arbitrator cannot draw inference to the extent that subject 'land' is a non-agriculture land. Arbitrator has taken one more view to the extent that claimants had portion of the land adjacent to the subject 'land' which was sold to one Mohammed Ghose who converted agriculture to non-agriculture and sold certain sites for higher rates, which was much later than the date of acquisition of subject land. Such, view of the arbitrator is highly arbitrary and illegal having regard to the nature of the land at the time of acquisition is relevant as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases. Arbitrator has also taken a decision that subject' land' is adjacent to HMT Factory, Jalahalli and nearby Bengaluru City Corporation with reference to Ex.P.51 whereby it is evident that the portion of the land converted whereas the factual aspect of the present case is entirely different from Ex.P.51. The arbitrator has taken the current situation of the area which is impermissible with the current situation is taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding enhancement of compensation which would be exorbitant. Any potential growth or value of the property is taken care in solatium. The arbitrator has taken note of the decision of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. Any potential growth or value of the property is taken care in solatium. The arbitrator has taken note of the decision of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. v. M K Rafiq Saheb, reported in, (2011) AIR SC 3178. The factual aspect of the cited decision is that subject 'land' was developed whereas in the present case, it was not developed as on the date of acquisition. The learned counsel for the appellant entered the tract of land has been valued on the basis of square feet which is highly improbable since appellants have taken possession on 30.01.1941 and acquisition is in the year 1973-81 at that relevant point of time, agricultural lands were being sold with reference to acres and even to this day it will be valued based on standard of acre and not based on the square feet, only question of evaluation of price of the land relating to commercial in that event, question of evaluation would be with reference to square feet that too, in metropolitan cities. Therefore, arbitrator's reasoning are arbitrary and same cannot be appreciated. It was further submitted that respondents have not produced any material in respect of determination of compensation with reference to various factors as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CHIMANLAL HARGOVINDDAS vs SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER reported in, (1988) AIR SC 1652. The Arbitrator has failed to appreciate payment of rental compensation from 1951 to 1973. The appellant relying on Section 105 read with Schedule IV of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (amendment) Ordinance, 2013 is held to be not applicable in respect of invoking Act, 1952. On this score also award dated 29.02.2016 passed in Ar.Case No.120/2015 (new), 179/2008 (old) is liable to be set-aside and appeal of the appellant is to be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the award in part and further, claimed that they are entitled for enhanced compensation in view of the fact that arbitrator has failed to take note of the several sale deeds and sale statistics which were placed before the arbitrator and from the sales statistics it is evident that what has been awarded by the arbitrator is without considering above mentioned statistics. That apart, claimants are entitled to compensation in terms of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (amendment) Ordinance, 2014. Further, in support of their case claimants relied on the right to fair compensation and transparency in land acquisition, rehabilitation and resettlement (amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015 Gazetted on 30.05.2015 whereby Section 105 of the Principal Act has been substituted whereby the appellants contention relating to exclusion of Act, 1952 with reference to the then Section 105 read with IV Schedule. Therefore, Fair Compensation Act supra is applicable to the present case. 7. The appellants contention that respondents are not entitled to solatium and interest as it is not attracted for the purpose of invoking Act 1952, is untenable in view of Amendment to Section 105 read with IV Schedule of the Fair Compensation Act. He relied on a reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in DILAWAR SINGH vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS, (2010) 14 SCC 357 . in C.A.Nos.9198-9202 of 2010 , wherein Supreme Court has held that solatium and interest is to be extended. He has also relied on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA vs M/s SUSAKE PVT. LTD. & ORS. in C.A.No.8530/2009. 8. It was further contended that claimants' grand mother was illiterate and so also, their father was minor at the relevant point of time and they were incapable in approaching competent authority, insofar as determination of just and reasonable rental compensation, whereby there is a violation of Article 300A of the Constitution. Status of the land in question, even though it was an agricultural land, having regard to the fact that adjacent land which was purchased by one Mohammed Ghouse and it was converted into non agricultural land. Similarly, HMT Ltd., Company is adjacent to the subject land. Therefore, determination of compensation was highly unreasonable. Hence, appellants are entitled to appropriate enhanced compensation. That apart, there is non compliance to Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act, 1952. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there is inordinate delay on the part of the competent authority in respect of notifying the acquisition for the reason that under the Act 1952, land was taken over way back in the year from 1941 whereas acquisition notification was issued on 02.03.1973. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that there is inordinate delay on the part of the competent authority in respect of notifying the acquisition for the reason that under the Act 1952, land was taken over way back in the year from 1941 whereas acquisition notification was issued on 02.03.1973. Further, there is a delay in issuing final notification by the Special Land Acquisition officer which was issued in the year 1980-81. While compensation was fixed at Rs.16,000/- per acre. Thus, there is a delay of seven years from 02.03.1973. There is violation of Section 8(b) of the Act 1952 in not complying the said provision. Further, there is a delay in appointing arbitrator and even though there is a specific provision if there is a dispute in that event arbitrator is required to be appointed for the purpose of settling the dispute. The arbitrator was appointed for the first time in the year 2007. Appellant No.4 had accepted compensation under protest. As on 06.09.2004, market price is about four crore per acre which is evident from the record produced before the arbitrator. In view of these facts and circumstances, claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation more than the determined compensation by the Arbitrator. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. The Core issue in the present lis is, “Whether claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation, solatium and interest with reference to acquisition of their land by the appellant that they were in possession from 1941 and acquisition was in the year 1973?. Further, impugned award is arbitrary or not?” 11. The appellants have extended the compensation in the year 1981 whereas for the first time the claimants have raised an issue relating to enhancement of compensation with reference to acquisition proceedings in the year 1973-81, in the year 2007-2008. After receipt of the claimants enhancement application, matter was referred to arbitrator and it was decided in their favour in respect of extending the benefit of solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9%. Feeling aggrieved by the 2013 award, claimants approached this Court by filing MFA No. 1310 of 2013 and it was allowed in their favour only to the extent of remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Thus, the impugned award dated 29.02.2016. 12. Feeling aggrieved by the 2013 award, claimants approached this Court by filing MFA No. 1310 of 2013 and it was allowed in their favour only to the extent of remanding the matter for fresh consideration. Thus, the impugned award dated 29.02.2016. 12. This Court on 22.09.2016 passed an interim order which reads as under: “We have heard Sri.Unnikrishnan.M., learned counsel appearing for appellants and Sri.M.R.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for private respondents and Sri.Vasanth V. Fernandes, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.5 for admission as well as for interim order. It prima facie appears that one document which was already produced before the Arbitrator is a registered sale deed of the year 1973 and as per the said document for an area of 900 sq. ft. the consideration paid was of Rs.3,000/- coupled with the aspect that it was a nonagricultural land. Even if we consider the provisional assessment the value would be around Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Since it was a small piece of land of 900 sq. ft. Covered under said sale deed and the land in question is of 5 acres and 38 guntas which is roughly around 2,59,182 sq.ft, if the matter is considered for appropriate deduction of 50%, the market value would be approximately Rs.75,000/- per acre for the agricultural land of a larger area running to 2,59,182 sq.ft. Further so far as solatium and the interest is concerned, it appears that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Defence Estate Officer Vs. Syed Abdul Saleem and others reported at, (2015) AIR SC 946, it would be @ 30% and appropriate interest would be 9% per annum on equity basis. Further the acquisition has taken place in the year 1973 whereas the Arbitrator has awarded interest from 30th January 1941 which prima facie cannot be accepted because from 1941 to 1973, the rental compensation has been paid. As per the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court in the case of Defence Estate Officer (supra), interest was awarded at the rate of 9% per annum and hence the interest awarded at the rate of 15% per annum prima facie may also not be acceptable. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / land owner submits that this Court may go by the wholesome approach of directing the appellants to deposit 25% of the award amount. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent / land owner submits that this Court may go by the wholesome approach of directing the appellants to deposit 25% of the award amount. But in our view, the aforesaid aspects as it appears from the award of the Arbitrator itself, we find it appropriate to go by the rough calculation made and as observed hereinabove instead of wholesome statutory deposit of 25% as canvassed. We record that it is not a matter pertaining to the recent acquisition or a recent award. But it is pertaining to acquisition of 1973 and the award is passed in the year 2016. Hence the following: ORDER The appeal is admitted. By interim order, it is directed that the amount of compensation provisionally shall be calculated at the rate of Rs.75,000/- per acre with solatium at the rate of 30% on the aforesaid price and the interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be calculated from 3.2.1973 till the amount is deposited. The aforesaid amount shall be deposited within a period of four weeks from today by the appellants with this Court. After the amount is deposited, respondent Nos.1 to 4 shall be permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount from the amount so deposited as per the earlier direction after proper record is produced of identification of the party concerned and the payment shall be made by account payee cheque. The remaining 50% of the amount shall be invested proportionately in the names of all the four respondents by the Registrar General of this Court, for a period of one year with State Bank of India and the original Fixed Deposit Receipts shall be retained by the Registrar General of this Court. After the aforesaid interim direction is complied with and the record is received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, either of parties may move this Court for final hearing of the appeal. The observations made by this Court for directing to deposit and the reasons recorded are only for limited purpose of passing interim order and they shall not prejudice the rights of the parties at the time of final hearing. Parties shall be at liberty to satisfy the court for independent view at the time of hearing”. 13. The observations made by this Court for directing to deposit and the reasons recorded are only for limited purpose of passing interim order and they shall not prejudice the rights of the parties at the time of final hearing. Parties shall be at liberty to satisfy the court for independent view at the time of hearing”. 13. The arbitrator has not appreciated the basic issue, “Whether claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation at exorbitant rate with reference to standard of calculation in terms of square feet?” 14. It is to be noted that claimants land was an agricultural land. Their enhancement claim is with reference to as if it was a non-agricultural/commercial land. For the purpose of conversion of agricultural to non-agricultural land, certain statutory provisions are required to be invoked like Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act etc. Unless and until, claimants land is declared as non-agriculture/commercial in accordance with law as on the date of land acquisition of the claimant viz. 07-02-1981 and 07-12-1981 notification. That apart, arbitrator has given importance to the latest prices of the land so also claimants portion of agricultural land which is stated to have been sold to one Mohammed Ghouse in turn he has converted agricultural land to that of non-agricultural land and his sites were sold at higher rate, cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of awarding enhanced compensation to the claimants. Record of Tenancy and Crop Certificate read with 'J' Form and Exs.P.13 to P.50 relating to position of certain land during the period from 1966-2015 and Ex.P.51 with reference to acquired land was nearer to HMT Factory, Jalahalli and Bengaluru City Corporation. These records could have been appreciated for the purpose of extending enhanced compensation provided acquired land was a nonagricultural land. The claimants have been extended enhanced compensation on 26.08.2011 in part i.e., 30% solatium + 6% interest with reference to compensation of Rs.16,000/- per acre. The appellants have complied the aforesaid award dated 26.08.2011 in depositing before the Land Acquisition Officer 5th respondent. It is undisputed that not only claimants land has been acquired by the appellants, infact, they have acquired 694 acres of other lands while extending uniform compensation to each one of the claimant. Thus, there is no discrimination in extending compensation to the land holders. 15. It is undisputed that not only claimants land has been acquired by the appellants, infact, they have acquired 694 acres of other lands while extending uniform compensation to each one of the claimant. Thus, there is no discrimination in extending compensation to the land holders. 15. The contention of the claimants' counsel in the written statement, factual aspects have been reiterated. It was pointed out that claimants' grand mother and their father were illiterate and father was a minor. Therefore, they could not lay their hands in seeking just rental compensation in not extending just compensation would violate Article 300A of the Constitution. Rental compensation is not the subject matter before the arbitrator. Rental compensation was already determined by the competent authority. Even though, learned counsel for the claimants' submitted that there is non compliance to Sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Act 1952, he has failed to appraise which portion of the statutory provision has been violated. Entire case of the claimant is that subject land was surrounded by non agricultural land, HMT factory and it is part of Bengaluru City Corporation. It is to be noted that the said issue could be decided only as on the date of acquisition of land in the year 1973 and nature of the land. Merely subject land is surrounded by non agricultural land, industry and nearer to City Corporation, such a situation would not give any benefit to the claimants unless and until subject land status has been converted into non-agricultural land in accordance with law that too at the relevant point of time i.e. as on date of land acquisition. Appellant's father Sri P.Hanumantha Naidu and claimant No.4 herein Sri P.H. Sreenivasalu were stated to have been filed objection on 24.04.1987 to the compensation amount and they are not willing to accept the compensation @ Rs.16,000/- per acre and sought for referring the matter to an arbitrator. Such pleading is not supported by document so as to determined that there is a lapse on the part of the competent authority- Union of India. Therefore, Section 8(1) (b) of the Act, 1952 has not been complied is not appreciable. Such pleading is not supported by document so as to determined that there is a lapse on the part of the competent authority- Union of India. Therefore, Section 8(1) (b) of the Act, 1952 has not been complied is not appreciable. For the purpose of determining the market value of subject land, what is required is, as on the date of land acquisition by the competent authority, market value and agricultural land is required to be taken into consideration, whereas, claimants' all along contended that their agricultural land is surrounded by non agricultural land. Therefore, compensation is required to be determined with reference to the non agricultural land and market value. Such contention is impermissible. In case of award of compensation, so many factors are required to be taken into consideration including the status of the land like agricultural, nonagricultural, commercial, cosmopolitan area etc., Therefore, claimants' grievance relating to enhancement of compensation is highly unreasonable and so also contrary to the principle in determination of compensation in the case of land acquisition. The contention of the claimants that there is a delay on the part of the competent authority namely from 1955- 1973, 1973 to 1980 thereafter in appointing arbitrator in the year 2007. Question of delay in respect of 1955 to 1973 concerned, competent authority have extended rental compensation in accordance with law and it was not a subject matter. Even though there is a delay from 1973 to 1980 at the same time appropriate compensation has been awarded @ Rs.16,000/- per acre. Thereafter, it was modified by the 1st arbitrator and it was complied by the competent authority. Even taking the delay issue. This Court while granting interim order determined as an interim measure a sum of Rs.75,000/- per acre. Thus, there is a decision to enhance the compensation while taking into delay issue by the competent authority as well as by this Court as an interim measure on 22.09.2016. 16. Therefore, the claimants have not made out a case for the purpose of claiming enhanced compensation. 2nd Arbitrator award is with reference to the subsequent events and dates like adjacent land are commercial and near to City Corporation. Therefore impugned award is highly unreasonable and arbitrary. 17. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER (i) MFA No.4394/2016 and MFA No.5578/2017 are allowed in part. (ii) Impugned award No.ARB 120/2015(New) 179/2008 (old) dated 29.02.2016 is set-aside. 2nd Arbitrator award is with reference to the subsequent events and dates like adjacent land are commercial and near to City Corporation. Therefore impugned award is highly unreasonable and arbitrary. 17. Hence, we pass the following: ORDER (i) MFA No.4394/2016 and MFA No.5578/2017 are allowed in part. (ii) Impugned award No.ARB 120/2015(New) 179/2008 (old) dated 29.02.2016 is set-aside. (iii) Claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in terms of interim order dated 22.09.2016 of this Court and it is treated as final. If the appellants are still to make any payment, in that event, appellants are hereby directed to settle the dues/balance of the claimants in terms of the interim order dated 22.09.2016 of this Court and this order, at the earliest, not beyond three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order/production of this order.