The transitional provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, limit the applicability of the additional compensation, solatium, and interest under the amended sections 23 and 28 to specific categories of cases, and do not apply retrospectively to awards made before the amendments came into effect.

AGGARWAL, J.:- This appeal is by the original claimant whose land bearing Gat No. 493 admeasuring 4 hectares 26 ares (plus 1 are Pot-Kharab) situated at Varad-Seem, Taluka Bhusawal, District Jalgaon, has been acquired for construction of Waghur Project Colony and he is aggrieved of the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Jalgaon, in Land Reference being Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 388 of 1980. The brief facts are that section 4(1) Notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 25th August, 1977. The claimant made a claim at the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per hectare, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer by an Award dated 26th March, 1979 assessed the value at the rate of Rs. 6,500/- per hectare and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 31,845.80. In the Reference, the learned Assistant Judge increased the value of the land from Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 8,500/- per hectare and thus enhanced the compensation by Rs. 9,798/-in all.

2. In the present appeal, the claimant has limited the compensation to Rs. 14,945/-inclusive of solatium.

3. Shri Karandikar the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-claimant, contended that the lower Court was in error in fixing the price at Rs.8,500/- per hectare and that the price ought to have been fixed at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per hectare as claimed by the claimant. The learned Counsel took us through the relevant evidence and paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment. Shri Karandikar was unable to convince us that the lower Court has wrongly rejected the sale instances as discussed in the judgment. The lower Court has borne in mind the various circumstances brought on record, namely, that the acquired land was connected with the S.T. bus service and that it was possessed of N.A. potentiality and that there was a rising trend in prices in village Varad-Seem. The lower Court has taken into consideration the oral testimony of the claimant Hiraji to the effect that he was getting income to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 9,000/-, without his being in a position to substantiate his bare word by producing documentary evidence like tippans of income and expenditure. The lower Court has relied upon the sale instance dated 29th of April 1974 pertaining to Gat No. 678, which was sold at the rate of Rs. 7,870/- per hectare.

4. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the compensation fixed by the lower Court is just and fair and no case is made out for further enhancing the same.

5. Shri Karandikar next urged that the lower Court should have, in any event, granted interest from the date of the order enhancing the compensation from Rs. 6,500/- to Rs. 8,500/- per hectare. There is no merit in this contention. In this respect, the lower Court found that the claimant had not cared to produce evidence about the date of taking over possession of the acquired land either in his pleadings or in his testimony before the Court. The claimant also failed to produce any record to show on what date the possession of the acquired land was taken. On the other hand, it was found that the possession was taken by the Acquiring Body by private negotiations. The Award, Ex.20, itself shows that the Acquiring Body was directed to pay rent to the claimant from the date of taking possession. Thus, the claimant could not receive rent and interest at the same time. Therefore, interest was not rightly granted by the lower Court on the enhanced amount.

6. Shri Karandikar lastly referred to the amendments of sections 23 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, published on 24th of September 1984, and the transitional provisions enacted by section 30 of the said amending Act and submitted that the claimant in the present case is entitled to additional amount of compensation under the newly added section 23(1-A) and also additional solatium by virtue of the amendment of sub-section (2) of section 23 and also higher rate of interest b