The Amendment Act has not been made generally retrospective with effect from any particular date and such retrospectivity as appears is restricted to certain areas covered by the parent Act and must be discovered from the specific terms of the provision concerned. Since it is necessary to spell out the degree of retrospectivity from the language of the relevant provision itself, close attention must be paid to the provisions of section 30(2) for determining the scope of retrospective relief intended by Parliament in the matter of enhanced solatium. The learned Attorney-General is also right when he points out that it was never intended to define the scope of the enhanced solatium on the mere accident of the disposal of a case in appeal on a certain date. Delays in superior courts now extend to limits which were never anticipated when the right to approach them for relied was granted by the statute. If it was intended that section 30(2) should refer to appeals pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court between 30th April, 1982, and 24th September, 1984, they could well refer to proceedings in which an award had been made by the Collector from anything between 10 to 20 years before. It could never have been intended that rates of compensation and solatium applicable to acquisition proceedings initiated so long ago should now enjoy the benefit of statutory enhancement. It must be remembered that the value of the land is taken under section 11(1) and section 23(1) with reference to the date of publication of the notification under section 4(1), and it is that date which is usually material for the purpose of determining the quantum of compensation and solatium. Both section 11(1) and section 23(1) speak of compensation being determined on the basis, inter alia, of the market value of the land on that date and solatium by section 23(2) is computed as a percentage on such market value. [Para 33]