S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) APPEALS admitted. Mr. Vin waives service of notice of appeals. As the point involved is a pure question of law which is concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Kamala-jammanniavaru v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1985 SC 576 (= 1985 GLH 546 ) we have fixed all these appeals for final hearing today. Mr. Vin learned Government Pleader had no objection to the hearing of the appeals finally. It may further be stated that from the common judgment and awards passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol dated 31-1-1984 the respondent-Special Land Acquisition Officer had preferred appeals Nos. 19 to 42 of 1985 in this court. At the admission stage these appeals filed by the respondent came to be dismissed by this court by a reasoned order dated 21-2-85. Consequently the only short question which now survives for consideration centres round the grant of proper solatium and interest to the claimants. The claimants 11ave also not claimed any enhanced compensation in these appeals. In view of this factual matrix Mr. Vin agreed to argue these appeals finally on the short point of law involved in the matter and that is how these appeals are being disposed of by this judgment after hearing the concerned partics on merits. ( 2 ) AS noted above the only question involved in this group of appeals is as to whether the learned trial Judge was justified in awarding only 15 solatium on the market value as computed by him to the concerned claimants and whether he was justified in awarding only 6% interest from the date of delivery of possession of land on 21 till the amounts were deposited in court. In order to answer this question background of a few relevant facts will have to be noticed at the out-set. Certain pieces of agricultural land situated within the limits of village Zundal in Taluka and district of Gandhinagar were sought to be acquired by the State of Gujarat for the purpose of construction of high-level canal connected with Narmada project. Relevant notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 27-12 1966 which was followed by a notification under Section 6 dated 8/1/69. Relevant notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 27-12 1966 which was followed by a notification under Section 6 dated 8/1/69. Possession of the concerned acquired land belonging to various claimants however was obtained by the Land Acquisition Officer on 21/3/1978. The concerned claimants who were owners of the land submitted their claim applications before the Land Acquisition Officer in response to individual notices issued to them under Section 9. After hearing them the Land Acquisition Officer declared his award dated 27-12-78. The claimants were not satisfied with the amount offered by way of compensation to them by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence they got their disputes referred under Section 18 of the Act to the trial court. These references were registered as land acquisition cases Nos. 1 to 27 and 94 and 95 of 1982 Thus in all 29 land references came to be filed in the trial court. The learned Second Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol who heard these references after recording evidence offered by the concerned parties came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to get enhanced compensation and proper market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. metre as we have already noted earlier that part of the common award is not in challenge. Having granted additional compensation to the concerned claimants the learned trial judge how-ever granted solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value to each of the claimants and also allowed 6 interest from the date of delivery of possession of lands on 21-3-1978 till the amounts are deposited pursuant to the order of the trial court. These twin directions have been seriously challenged by the claimants-appellants in these appeals. ( 3 ) MR. Amin for the appellants heavily leaned on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Kamalajammanni avarus Case (supra ). These twin directions have been seriously challenged by the claimants-appellants in these appeals. ( 3 ) MR. Amin for the appellants heavily leaned on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. Kamalajammanni avarus Case (supra ). In the said decision O. Chinnappa Reddy J. speaking for the Supreme Court has held that Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 by which the words 15% solatium have been substituted by the words 30% solatium in Section 23 of the Principal Act would be applicable to all the awards passed by either the Land Acquisition Officer or the concerned reference courts between 30 and September 24 84 The Supreme Court construing Section 30 (2) of the Amending Act clearly ruled that the benefit of the provision of Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Principal Act as amended by Clause (b) of Sections 15 and Section 18 respectively would apply to such cases wherein awards were made by the Collector or by the trial courts between these relevant two terminal dates. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement of the Supreme Court it is obvious that the present appellants would he entitled to get benefit granted by Sub-section (2) of Section 23 as well as amended Section 28 of the Principal Act by virtue of the provisions of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 as the trial courts order is dated 31-1-1984 and it squarely falls between the two relevant dates 30 and 24-9-1984. Mr. Amin also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this court rendered in first appeal No. 734 of 1985 and others decided by D. C. Gheewala and B. S. Kapadia JJ. on 16/30-4-1985. In the said decision the Division Bench of this court relying upon the aforesaid Supreme Court judgment has held that in cases of awards passed by the trial court between the aforesaid two dates the concerned claimants would be entitled to the benefit of the amended provisions. In fact this is precisely what the Supreme Court has ruled. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position these appeals will have to be allowed to the limited extent of granting proper solatium and interest to the claimants on the market value as computed by the trial court at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. metre. In fact this is precisely what the Supreme Court has ruled. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position these appeals will have to be allowed to the limited extent of granting proper solatium and interest to the claimants on the market value as computed by the trial court at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. metre. Each of the claimants will be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value as computed by the trial court instead of 15% as awarded by the trial court and the solatium amount payable to each of them will be computed and paid accordingly. Similarly interest will have to be awarded to each of the appellants at the rate of 9% from 21-3-1978 to 20 i. e. for the first year after taking of the possession and thereafter at the rate of 15% till the amounts are deposited in the trial court. The aforesaid direction will have to be issued in view of Section 28 as amended by Section 18 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 1984 ( 4 ) MR. Vin for the respondent vehemently submitted that interest cannot be granted at the enhanced rate of 15% as per the aforesaid provision to the concerned claimants as the award of interest would be discretionary and when the provisions have been retrospectively applied as per Section 30 (2) of the Amendment Act 1984 as interpreted by the Supreme Court the claimants are not entitled to such enhanced rate of interest. It is not possible to agree with the aforesaid contention of Mr. Vin for the simple reason that even this question has been examined and answered against the respondent by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court in first appeal No. 734/85 and group. For the reasons recorded therein we reject this objection put forward by the learned Government Pleader. ( 5 ) MR. Amin further submitted that the direction of the trial court to the effect that the amount awarded should be paid to the claimants after deducting court fees in each of the reference is also lead as the Full Bench of this court in the case of Lady Tanumati v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Ahmedabad 14 GLR 537 has ruled that no court fees are payable on references under Section 18 of the Bombay Court Fees Act. Even this contention of Mr. Even this contention of Mr. Amin remains unanswerable in the light of the aforesaid Full Bench judgment of this court. ( 6 ) IN the result all the appeals are allowed as under: ( 7 ) THE common judgment and awards passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol on 31-1-1984 will stand confirmed subject to the following modification. Each of the claimants-appellants will be entitled to 30% solatium on the market value as computed by the trial court and the compensation will be payable to them alongwith solatium accordingly. ( 8 ) EACH of the claimants-appellants will be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% interest from 21-3-1978 to 20-3-79 on the awarded amount inclusive of solatium as held payable to them as per this judgment and at the rate of 15% interest from 21-3-1979 till the amounts are deposited in the trial court. ( 9 ) THE direction given by the trial court that the awarded amounts shall be paid to the claimants after deducting court fees in each of the references shall stand deleted subject to the condition that each of the claimants before being permitted to withdraw the awarded amount as payable to them will file a written undertaking before the trial court to pay up requisite court fees amount if ultimately the decision of this court in 14 GLR is reversed by the Supreme Court as the appeal is pending against that judgment in the Supreme Court. Mr. Amin for the appellants states that such undertakings are already filed. If they are already filed there will be no necessity of filing duplicate undertakings but if any claimant has yet to file the same he will have to file such undertaking before the awarded amount can be paid to him. ( 10 ) APPEALS will stand allowed accordingly with no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed to the extent indicated. .