The provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, including solatium and interest, are applicable to pending proceedings, and relief can be granted under O. 41, R. 33, CPC, even in the absence of a cross-objection, if circumstances justify.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State of U. P. , the Collector, Ballia and the Land Acquisition Officer, Ballia, against the judgment dt 25-9-1973 in Misc. Reference 3 of 1971 under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

( 2 ) SOME land belonging to the claimant-respondent 1 was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The relevant notification under S. 4 was issued on 4-11-1965. The notification under S. 6 was issued on 1-12-1965, and possession taken on 10-10-1966. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimant-respondent prayed for a reference being made to the District Judge and reference No. 3 of 1971 mentioned above was made. Reliance before the District Judge was placed on behalf of the claimant-respondent on certain sale deeds as exemplars. The District Judge was of the view that the sale deed dt. 3-8-1965 executed by Badri Lal in favour of Smt. Sujan Kumar in respect of 10 acres of land for a sum of Rs. 4500/- was the best exemplar, inasmuch as it was executed a few months before the Notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the land sold by it was barely one furlong from the land acquired and was of the same nature as the land acquired. Relying on the statement of Bhagwati Datt Tewari (P. W. 4) who stated that the value of the land at the time of its acquisition was Rs. 1000/- per Katha, the District Judge came to the conclusion that the proper compensation to be awarded in respect of the land of the claimant-respondent would be at the rate of Rs. 30,770/- per acre. This he did in view of the fact that the sale deed dt. 3-8-1965 which was found by him to be the best exemplar was in respect of a "small area whereas the land acquired under the Notification under S. 4 referred to above was more than 20 acres in area.

( 3 ) IT has been urged by the Standing Counsel, appearing for the appellants that the amount of compensation awarded by the District Judge is excessive. On the other hand it has been urged by the counsel for the claimant-respondent that the amount as awarded by the District Judge represented just compensation and that the claimant-respondent was also entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% in place of 6% in view of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act ).

( 4 ) HAVING heard counsel for the parties we find it difficult to agree with the submission made by the counsel for the appellants that the compensation as awarded by the District Judge is excessive. The reasons for holding that the sale deed dt. 3-8-1965 constituted the best exemplar are cogent reasons and as such it cannot be said that the District Judge committed any such error in determining the compensation on the basis of the said sale deed which may justify interference in the present appeal. It is true that the said sale deed was of a small piece of land measuring 10 acres, but in that regard it would be useful to keep in mind the following observations of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892 :"two principles relating to the matter of fixation of compensation relevant for the present purpose may be kept in view. When large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property. In certain other cases this Court indicated that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given. In Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty, (1959) Suppl (1) SCR 404, a reduction of 25% was indicated while there are certain other cases where the view is that the reduction should