JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. 1. This Land Acquisition Appeal, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the Order and Decree dated 19.01.1984 passed in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”). 2. By the impugned order, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) from Rs.1,320/- per acre to Rs.3,500/- in respect of dry lands and from Rs.2,720/- to Rs.5,000/- in respect of wet lands, which were acquired for the purpose of submergence under Lower Manair Dam (LMD) Reservoir. 3. Aggrieved by the said enhancement being inadequate, the present Appeal is filed by the Appellants, who are the legal heirs of the claimant/original owner. I . FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4. The Appellants herein are the legal heirs of the petitioner in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 before the Reference Court by virtue of a succession certificate obtained by them vide O.P.No.394 of 1997. The lands of the petitioner therein (father of the appellants) in O.P. No. 865 of 1982 i.e., the lands situated in Hasanpur Village, Karimangar District, were acquired for the purpose of submergence under L.M.D. Reservoir. The details of the acquired lands are as under: Sy. No Nature of Land Extent (Ac.-gts) 614/A Dry 0-04 441 Dry 1-20 442 Dry 3-39 40 Dry 1-30 528 Dry 2-12 399 Dry 0-25 ¾ 220 WSC 0-06 ½ 248/A WSC 0-04 II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD: 5. A notification under section 4(1) of the Act, was published on 24.03.1977, followed by issuance of notices under sections 9(3) and 10 of the Act, after which an award enquiry was conducted. 6. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award dated 15.07.1978 in respect of acquired lands, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.1,320/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.5,000/- for wet lands. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 865 of 1982 before the Reference Court. III. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT: 7. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following point for consideration for determination: “Whether there are reasonable grounds for enhancing the compensation granted by the L.A.O”? IV. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT: 8. III. POINT FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT: 7. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following point for consideration for determination: “Whether there are reasonable grounds for enhancing the compensation granted by the L.A.O”? IV. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REFERENCE COURT: 8. To substantiate his claim for higher compensation, the claimant himself was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 on his behalf and whereas, on behalf of the respondent-State, RW1 was examined and no documents were marked. V. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT: 9. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the lands of Hasanpur village under acquisition were correctly classified by the LAO as dry and wet single crop lands based on revenue records and personal inspection. There was no dispute regarding such classification. The Court noted that the claimant, who was examined himself as PW1, asserted that the acquired lands were fertile and situated close to Karimnagar town, where he cultivated maize, chillies, and vegetables in the dry lands and two paddy crops in the wet lands, yielding substantial income. However, the claimant did not produce any sale deeds to substantiate his claim regarding the prevailing market value. 10. The Reference Court considered the evidence placed by both parties and particularly relied upon Ex. A2, a certified copy of the decree in O.P. No.1 of 1982 passed by the Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, which determined higher rates for similar lands of Hasanpur village. Although such judgment was not binding, the Court treated it as a guiding factor, observing that comparable awards for neighboring lands could serve as a reasonable basis for assessment, provided the fertility, potentiality, and locational advantages were similar. 11. Taking into account the nature of the acquired lands, their fertility, the crops raised, proximity to Karimnagar town, and their potential for future non-agricultural use, the Reference Court concluded that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. 12. Consequently, the Reference was allowed in part enhancing the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.1,320/- to Rs.3,500/- per acre in respect of dry lands and from Rs.2,720/- to Rs.5,000/- in respect of wet lands along with 15% solatium on the enhanced amount and interest at 4% per annum from the date of possession. 13. 12. Consequently, the Reference was allowed in part enhancing the market value of the acquired lands from Rs.1,320/- to Rs.3,500/- per acre in respect of dry lands and from Rs.2,720/- to Rs.5,000/- in respect of wet lands along with 15% solatium on the enhanced amount and interest at 4% per annum from the date of possession. 13. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.01.1984 passed by the Reference Court, the legal heirs of the claimant/PW1, have preferred the present Appeal for further enhancement of compensation. VI. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: A) Contentions of the Appellants (Claimants): 14. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the Reference Court erred in fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.3,500/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.5,000/- per acre for wet single crop lands. It is further contended that the Reference Court failed to grant adequate compensation by taking into consideration the fertility, potentiality and locational advantages of close proximity to Karimnagar Town in respect of the acquired lands. 15. It was further contended that the Reference Court failed to maintain uniformity and parity with other similarly situated land holders whose lands were acquired under the same section 4 (1) Notification. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in view of the later judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Krishna Reddy and others v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Unit-II, L.M.D., Karimnagar , 11988 (4) SCC 163 substantially higher compensation was upheld for lands acquired under same project, the market value fixed by the Reference Court requires suitable enhancement in this appeal. 16. The learned counsel for the Appellants additionally urged that the Reference Court omitted to grant statutory benefits of solatium, additional market value and interest as mandated under Section 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Act. It was contended that the Reference Court failed to apply the principle laid down in Talluri Venkata Subba Rao and others v. The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kakinada , 1988 (2) A.L.T. 29 , wherein the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh held that claimants in identical land acquisition proceedings are entitled to claim the benefit of a higher compensation fixed in connected cases under Section 54 of the Act. 17. 17. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel for the Appellants has prayed that, the appeal may be allowed by further enhancing the compensation amount in respect of acquired lands. B) Contentions of the Respondent (State/LAO): 18. The learned Government Pleader for Appeals, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, contended that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was just, reasonable, and based on proper appreciation of evidence. It was submitted that the Reference Court had already enhanced the market value substantially from the amount originally fixed by the LAO, after considering the fertility, location, and cultivation pattern of the acquired lands. Hence, there was no justification for any further enhancement as claimed by the appellants. 19. It is further submitted that the Judgments relied upon by the appellants, including those of the Honourable Supreme Court and the High Court for the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, pertain to different nature of lands, where the lands were situated in more advantageous locations and has distinct potentialities. It is also asserted that the acquired lands in the present case, though fertile, were purely agricultural in nature and situated at a distance from the main town, and therefore could not be equated with lands involved in other cases, where compensation was fixed at Rs.25,000/- per acre. 20. It is further contended that the LAO had properly relied upon registered sale transactions that reflected the prevailing market value in the village of Hasanpur at the relevant time, and those sale deeds were duly verified during the award enquiry. Thus, fixation of market value at Rs.1,320/- per acre for dry lands and Rs.2,720/- per acre for wet lands was based on sale exemplars in the locality. 21. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the Learned Government Pleader for Appeals has prayed that, there being no merit in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. VII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 22. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on record, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal: i. Whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation to Rs.25,000/- per acre on the strength of judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra) which is covered by the same subject notification under section 4 (1) of the Act? ii. ii. Whether the appellants are entitled to parity in compensation treatment with other similarly situated land owners whose lands were acquired under the same Section 4 (1) notification? iii. Whether the appellants are entitled to the statutory benefits of solatium, additional market value and interest as mandated under the Act, and the judicial precedents governing such benefits. VIII. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 23. We have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellants/claimants and learned Government Pleader for appeals appearing for the Respondent and also examined the record of the case, including the pleadings, oral evidence of PW1 and RW1, documentary evidence under Exs.A1 and A2. Issue No. (1): Applicability of Krishna Reddy’s case (supra) for enhancement 24. At the outset, the lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of submergence under L.M.D. Reservoir, pursuant to a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 24.03.1977. The appellants contended that the Reference Court failed to grant compensation at Rs.25,000/- per acre, though the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra) in respect of the very same acquisition under the Lower Manair Dam Project and involving lands situated in Hasanpur village, had categorically fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre. 25. It is not in dispute that the present acquisition also pertains to lands covered by the same Section 4(1) notification and for the same public purpose. However, the award of the Reference Court preceded the Judgment in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra). Therefore, there was no occasion for the Reference Court to apply the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra) while determining compensation in the present case. 26. However, in appellate jurisdiction, this Court may take into account subsequent authoritative pronouncements that clarify the legal basis for valuation. The lands involved in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra) were acquired under the same project and same Section 4 (1) notification. 27. The Honourable Supreme Court upheld substantially higher compensation in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra), reflecting fertility, potentiality and location of these project affected lands. The appellants’ lands being similarly situated, the principles laid down therein apply to this appeal. Issue No. (2): Parity of treatment: 28. 27. The Honourable Supreme Court upheld substantially higher compensation in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra), reflecting fertility, potentiality and location of these project affected lands. The appellants’ lands being similarly situated, the principles laid down therein apply to this appeal. Issue No. (2): Parity of treatment: 28. The appellants claim that in view of the ratio laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra), wherein the Apex Court, while considering the acquisition of lands in Hasanpur and neighbouring villages under the same notification, had categorically fixed the market value at Rs.25,000/- per acre for all categories of lands, irrespective of their classification as dry or wet, they are entitled for the same amount of compensation. 29. The principle of parity is well-settled. The lands which are acquired under the same notification, with similar physical characteristics, must receive uniform compensation unless distinguishing features exist. 30. The respondent/State has not demonstrated any material distinction between the lands of the appellants and those considered in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra). Uniformity in compensation must, therefore be maintained. 31. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation in respect of acquired lands at Rs.25,000/- per acre. Difference in the fixation of market value in respect of acquired lands situated in the same locality for same purpose leads to arbitrary and unequal treatment among land owners, whose lands were acquired under the same notification and for the very same public purpose, thereby violating the principles of uniformity and parity which are fundamental to the scheme of the Act. Issue No. (3): Statutory benefits: 32. The contention of the appellants that the Reference Court also failed to award statutory benefits such as solatium and interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is sustainable. It is noticed that the Reference Court granted solatium only at 15% on the enhanced compensation and interest rate at 4% per annum as per the un-amended provisions of the Act. However, since the date of the Reference Court’s award i.e. 19.01.1984 falls within the transitional period of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, once the compensation is re-determined, the claimants automatically become entitled to the amended statutory benefits. However, since the date of the Reference Court’s award i.e. 19.01.1984 falls within the transitional period of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, once the compensation is re-determined, the claimants automatically become entitled to the amended statutory benefits. These include solatium at 30% solatium under Section 23(2) and interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter till the date of realization as provided under Section 28 of the Act. At the same time the claimants are not entitled to the additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A). 33. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Raghubir Singh , (1989) 2 SCC 754 , considered the issue as to whether the enhanced rate of solatium, the increased rate of interest, and the additional market value introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (in short ‘Act, 1984’) could be extended to awards that were pending or made during the transitional period. The Honourable Court while interpreting Section 30 (2) of the Amendment Act, observed as follows: “31 . In construing Section 30(2), it is just as well to be clear that the award made by the Collector referred to here is the award made by the Collector under Section 11 of the parent Act, and the award made by the Court is the award made by the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction under Section 23 of the parent Act on a reference made to it by the Collector under Section 19 of the parent Act. There can be no doubt that the benefit of the enhanced solatium is intended by Section 30(2) in respect of an award made by the Collector between 30-4-1982 and 24-9- 1984. Likewise, the benefit of the enhanced solatium is extended by Section 30(2) to the case of an award made by the Court between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, even though it be upon reference from an award made before 30-4-1982.” 34. Further, in the case of K.S. Paripoornan (II) v. State of Kerala and Others , (1995) 1 SCC 367 , the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the legal position regarding the applicability of Section 30 (2) of the Amendment Act, 1984 holding as under: “4. Further, in the case of K.S. Paripoornan (II) v. State of Kerala and Others , (1995) 1 SCC 367 , the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated and clarified the legal position regarding the applicability of Section 30 (2) of the Amendment Act, 1984 holding as under: “4. This Court thereby clearly held that even in the pending reference made before 30-4-1982, if the civil court makes an award between 30-4-1982 and 24-9-1984, Section 30(2) gets attracted and thereby the enhanced solatium was available to the claimants. Since Section 30(2) deals with both the amendments to Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Principal Act by Section 15(b) and Section 18, respectively, of the Amendment Act by parity of the reasoning the same ratio applies to the awards made by the civil court between those dates. The conflict of decisions as to whether Section 23(2) as amended by Section 15(b) of the Amendment Act through Section 30(2) of the transitory provisions would be applicable to the pending appeals in the High Court and the Supreme Court was resolved in Raghubir Singh case' by the Constitution Bench holding that the award of the Collector or the court made between 13-4-1982 and 24-9-1984 would alone get attracted to Section 30(2) of the transitory provision. The restricted interpretation should not be understood to mean that Section 23(2) would not apply to the award of the civil court pending at the time when the Act came into force or thereafter. In this case, admittedly the award of the civil court was made after the Act has come into force, namely. 28-2-1985. 5. Therefore, if the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation, is in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the court shall direct the Collector to pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9% per annum from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into the court. By operation of the proviso, if such excess or any part thereof is paid into the court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into the court before the date of such expiry. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced interest @ 9% from the date of taking possession, namely, 15-1-1981 and 11-3-1981 respectively for one year and thereafter @ 15% till the date of the deposit made by the Collector. Admittedly, the deposit of the enhanced compensation was made on 20-10-1986 and 3- 12-1986. Therefore, the interest shall be calculated at the enhanced rates for the aforesaid period. 6. The question relating to the payment of 12% additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) over the excess compensation has already been covered by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in K.S. Paripoornan (1) v. State of Kerala. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to this benefit as the Collector made the award prior to the date of the Amendment Act came into force.” 35. In the case of Lilawati Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand , (2016) 6 SCC 566 , the Honourable Supreme Court, while affirming the principles laid down in Raghubir Singh’s case (supra) and K.S. Paripoornan’s case (supra), reiterated that the applicability of the enhanced solatium, additional amount and increased rate of interest introduced by the Amendment Act, 1984 is strictly governed by the transitional provisions under Section 30 of the Amendment Act. The Court held as under: “10. On a perusal of the principle stated in Raghubir Singh case and what has been clarified in K.S. Paripoornan (2) case, we do not find that the three-Judge Bench decision runs counter to the authority in the Constitution Bench. It also does not give a different interpretation to Section 30(2) than what has been stated by the Constitution Bench. In fact, K.S. Paripoornan (2) clearly postulates about the awards that have been passed by the court after the Act has come into force which is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Raghubir Singh case. It also does not give a different interpretation to Section 30(2) than what has been stated by the Constitution Bench. In fact, K.S. Paripoornan (2) clearly postulates about the awards that have been passed by the court after the Act has come into force which is in consonance with the ratio laid down in Raghubir Singh case. The three-Judge Bench has only observed that the restricted interpretation placed by the Constitution Bench in Raghubir Singh should not convey that Section 23(2) would not apply to the awards of the civil court pending at the time when the Act came into force or thereafter. Thus, the controversy with which the three-Judge Bench was dealing with was absolutely different and the view expressed by it is absolutely in accord with the principles laid down in Raghubir Singh case. Additionally, it is also in consonance with the provisions contained in Section 23(2) of the Act. Therefore, we do not see any reason to disagree with the view expressed in K.S. Paripoornan (2) as we are of the convinced opinion that it has appositely understood the rule exposited in Raghubir Singh case. 12. The High Court by the impugned judgment has opined that the principle stated in K.S. Paripoornan (2) would not be applicable. The said view is perceptibly erroneous. We are of the considered opinion that the appellant shall be entitled to the benefits as per the law laid down in K.S. Paripoornan (2)3. It is not disputed at the Bar that the appellants are not entitled to the benefits under Section 23(1-A) in view of the decision in K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala. 27. In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principles of interpretation. Hence, the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The reference is answered accordingly.” 36. In the light of the principles laid down in Raghubir Singh’s case (supra), K.S. Paripoornan’s case (supra) and reaffirmed in Lilawati Agarwal’s case (supra), it is evident that the benefits of the Amendment Act, 1984 can be extended only if the award of the Collector or the civil court falls within the statutory window created under Section 30(2), namely, awards made between 30.04.1982 and 24.09.1984. In the present case, although the award of the Collector dated 15.07.1978 falls outside the window, the decree of the Reference Court dated 19.01.1984 squarely falls within the transitional period. Consequently, the claimants are entitled to the enhanced solatium under Section 23(2) and the increased rate of interest under Section 28 as amended by Act, 1984. However, in view of the ratio laid down in K.S. Paripoornan’s case , the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) cannot be granted since the award of the Collector was made prior to 30.04.1982. Thus, the amended solatium and interest are applicable to the present case, but the additional market value under Section 23(1-A) is not. IX. CONCLUSION: 37. This Court concludes that the valuation adopted by the Reference Court, does not reflect the fair market value. The ratio in K. Krishna Reddy’s case (supra) , being applicable to lands acquired under the same notification for the same project, must necessarily be applied in the present case to ensure consistency, parity and fairness. 38. Such uniformity ensures fairness, equity, and legal consistency in terms of the principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court. 39. The appellants are also entitled to all statutory benefits as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 which were not granted by the Reference Court, in its order. X. RESULT: 40. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The order and decree of the Reference Court dated 19.01.1984 passed in O.P.No.865 of 1982 is set aside to the extent of valuation, and the compensation is re-determined at Rs.25,000/- per acre, with all consequential statutory benefits, such as solatium at 30% together with interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and 15% per annum thereafter till the date of realization, in accordance with Sections 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 41. The enhanced compensation and statutory benefits shall be computed and paid within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the amount shall carry further interest as admissible in law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also stand closed.