JUDGMENT A. Banerji, J. - These four appeals raise identical questions of law and facts and can therefore be disposed of by a common judgment. All these four appeals arise from Land Acquisition References decided on 31st Aug., 1977 by the same Judge Sri Sharda Prasad Srivastava, Additional District Judge, Bijnor in different land acquisition cases i.e. 19/70 (First Appeal No. 430/77), 17/70 (First Appeal No. 431/77), 15/70 (First Appeal No. 432/77) and 18/70 (First Appeal No. 433/77). All these references arose out of an Award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor, dated 14th Nov., 1969. The acquisition was in respect of a large area comprising of the land of the respondents in all these appeals of village Sada Shivpur Tahsil Nagina, Pargana Afzalgarh, district Bijnor. 2. The land acquired was notified under S. 4(1), Land Acquisition Act, in the gazette dated 8th July, 1967 and subsequent notification under S. 6 was published in the gazette dated 26th Aug., 1967. In the award the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per acre in respect of land known as Khadar T T_ T. The claimants- respondents were awarded compensation at the above rate for their holdings which had been acquired. Each of them felt aggrieved and applied for reference before the District Judge. The References were heard by the Additional District Judge, who by his order dated 31st Aug., 1977 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4000/- per acre in each of these four cases. The Land Acquisition Officer also awarded solatium at the rate of 15 per cent per annum in each of these four appeals. The State has challenged not only the rate at which compensation has been awarded in the Reference by the Additional District Judge but has also challenged the award of solatium by the learned Additional District Judge. It will be relevant to mention here that in the appeals filed by the State of U.P. the relief claimed is couched in the following words :- ".........to allow the first appeal with costs throughout, to set aside the judgment and award dated 31-8-77 passed by the learned Addl. It will be relevant to mention here that in the appeals filed by the State of U.P. the relief claimed is couched in the following words :- ".........to allow the first appeal with costs throughout, to set aside the judgment and award dated 31-8-77 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Bijnor by which an additional amount over and above that awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor has been decreed and to grant such other land further......." It will be apparent that the State has sought the relief in these four appeals to the extent the compensation was enhanced in each case by the learned Additional District Judge in the four References mentioned above. 3. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel in support of the appellant's case and have also heard Mr. Rishi Ram, learned counsel for the respondents. There are two questions raised in these appeals. Firstly, the Court below was not justified in law or on facts to raise the compensation from Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 4000/- per acre. Secondly, the Court below was not justified in law in granting solatium at the rate of 15 per cent of the compensation awarded. I will take up these points one by one. 4. There is no dispute that the land was acquired for construction of Feeder Channel of a Canal, and this involves the land of the respondents. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per acre. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had placed reliance upon a sale deed executed by one Mathura Singh in favour of Kailash Singh on 30th Mar., 1967. In this sale deed land measuring 7 Biswa situate in village Harveli Ahetmali was transferred in lieu of Rs. 500/-. This sale deed was treated to be one in close proximity with the period when the notification under S. 4, Land Acquisition Act, was (sic) executant of the sale deed Mathura Singh was, however, examined as a witness by the claimants. He had sold the land to the son of his wife's brother, a close relation. Consequently, it is apparent that the price paid for this transaction could not be said to be the market value,'for a small piece of land was sold for establishing flour mill for a close relation. Mathura Singh also stated that the disputed land could be sold easily at the rate of Rs. Consequently, it is apparent that the price paid for this transaction could not be said to be the market value,'for a small piece of land was sold for establishing flour mill for a close relation. Mathura Singh also stated that the disputed land could be sold easily at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per acre. 5. Another sale deed, which had been produced before the Land Acquisition Officer and relied upon by the State pertained to a transaction dated 22nd April, 1967 through which land measuring 14 biswas situate in village Sadashivpur was sold for Rs. 900/-. This sale deed also could not be relied on, for the Land Acquisition Officer himself had come to the conclusion that this sale deed had been executed by the vendor in favour of a near relation and the consideration showed was fictitious. This exemplar had been rejected by the Land Acquisition Officer himself. 6. On behalf of the claimants-respondents five sale deeds were brought on the record. The first sale deed is one executed by Smt. Mithlesh Kumari in favour of Bhagram claimant-respondent in First Appeal No. 430/77. It was executed on the 15th of June, 1967 in respect of 12 Biswas of land for Rs. 1500/-. The claimant-respondent Bhagram was examined and he had stated that he had purchased this land for construction of a Temple and Dharamshala on the plot. He I ad purchased this land at the rate which was about Rs. 4000/- per acre, and the deed had been executed in close proximity of the date when the notification under S. 4 of the Act was published. 7. Of the other four sale deeds two were of 14th February, 1968 situated in village Taj Ganj at a distance of six furlongs from the plots in dispute. The first sale deed was in respect of 1 Bigha 13 Biswa of land sold for Rs. 4500/-. The second one was in respect of 1 bigha 13 biswa 7 biswans of land for Rs. 5000. The third sale deed dated 29th Feb., 1968 was in respect of land measuring 3 biswa 7 biswansi situate in village Afzalgarh Hari, at a distance of 31/2 furlongs from the plots in dispute sold for Rs. 600/-. 4500/-. The second one was in respect of 1 bigha 13 biswa 7 biswans of land for Rs. 5000. The third sale deed dated 29th Feb., 1968 was in respect of land measuring 3 biswa 7 biswansi situate in village Afzalgarh Hari, at a distance of 31/2 furlongs from the plots in dispute sold for Rs. 600/-. The fourth sale deed was of 15th April, 1968 and was in respect of land measuring 8 biswa situate in village Jananpur at a distance of 5 furlongs from the plots in dispute for Rs. 2000/-. These sale deeds were, however, of a period subsequent to the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act dated 8th July, 1967. These were of a period between 7 and 9 months of the publication of the aforesaid notification. These sale deeds supported the rate prevalent in the area around the period when the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was issued. These pertained to the land which lay near about the land which had been the subject of acquisition in these appeals. 8. The first sale deed dated 15th June, 1967 was in respect of 12 biswas of land situated in village Sadashivpur itself where the land of the claimant-respondent lay. This was executed approximately 3 weeks earlier than the notification. This was in respect of land purchased by the claimant-respondent Bhagram from Smt. Mithlesh Kumari for. Rs. 1500/-. For 12 Biswa of land this works out at Rs. 4000/- per acre. It was a sale in respect of land in the same village and was executed only three weeks earlier than the notification under S. 4(1) of the Act. It was neither a very small piece of land nor irrelevant for purposes of arriving at a fair rate of compensation. Nothing could be pointed out how this exemplar was unacceptable. The learned Additional District Judge also considered the oral evidence to find out the prevailing rate in land transactions in or around the village about the same time. He has referred to the statements of witnesses Charan Singh, Gurmail Singh, executants of sale deeds filed as exemplars and also Surendra Pratap Singh, whose father owned substantial area of land in the village. He has referred to the statements of witnesses Charan Singh, Gurmail Singh, executants of sale deeds filed as exemplars and also Surendra Pratap Singh, whose father owned substantial area of land in the village. The learned Additional District Judge referred to their statements and in my opinion rightly relied on them to conclude that the fair value of land at the time of the Notification under S. 4(1) of the Act was Rs. 4000/- per acre. He also referred to the annual net income per acre to be Rs. 200/- and was justified in awarding twenty times the said rate as compensation for land acquired. He relied on a well established principle of valuing agricultural land. Thus applying all relevant principles and rules of valuing land it cannot be said that the learned Additional district Judge was in error in enhancing the rate of compensation from Rs. 2000/- per acre to Rs. 4000/- per acre. 9. Having perused the record and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties I have no hesitation in saying that the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per acre was fully justified in all these cases. In this view of the matter, the prayer in the appeal for setting aside the judgment and decree of the Court below with regard to the .rate of compensation must fail. 10. On the question of awarding solatium nothing could be established that the claimants respondents were not entitled to be awarded solatium at the rate of 15 per cent under the provisions of S. 23(2) of the Act. Reference may be made to,the decision of this Court in Nagar Mahapalika, Agra v. Kalawati Devi, AIR 1976 All 40 wherein it has been laid down that the claim for 15 per' cent solatium on the amount of compensation for compulsory acquisition is a statutory right to additional compensation which an objector can claim for compulsory acquisition. The learned single Judge also opined that even if the point is not specifically taken in the Reference he cannot be deprived of statutory right to receive compensation. Moreover, the provisions of O. 41, R. 33, Civil P.C., are wide enough for grant of a relief to an objector even though he may not have filed an objection or may not have filed an appeal against the decree. 11. Moreover, the provisions of O. 41, R. 33, Civil P.C., are wide enough for grant of a relief to an objector even though he may not have filed an objection or may not have filed an appeal against the decree. 11. It is true that in First Appeal No. 430 of 1977, the claimant-respondent did not specifically make a prayer for grant of solatium but in view of the observations made in the aforesaid case, the claimant-respondent would be entitled to solatium which has been awarded by the Court below. Solatium has been claimed in First Appeal No. 431 of 1977 and 432 of 1977. In First Appeal No. 433 of 1977 solatium has not been claimed and the Court below was justified in awarding the same. 12. In view of the above, the grant of solatium in each of these four cases was perfectly justified under the law. Before parting with these cases it will be necessary to mention here that the land Acquisition Act has undergone substantial amendment in the year 1984. The provisions of S. 23(2) of the Act have been amended to enhance the solatium to 30 per cent. A question now arises whether the claimants respondents would be entitled to solatium at the enhanced rate of 30 per cent. The question came up for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576 . In this case their Lordships held that "the amended provisions of S. 23(2) and S. 28 would apply in determination of the amount of compensation where proceedings are either pending at the date of commencement of the amending Act or are filed subsequent to the date, whether before the Collector or before the Court or before the High Court or the Supreme Court". Their Lordships further held : "The appeal against the award would be a continuation of the proceeding initiated before the Court by way of reference under S. 18 and when the High Court hears the appeal, it would in effect and substance be hearing the reference and while determining the amount of compensation, it would have to give effect to Sections 23 and 28 as it finds them at the date of decision of the appeal." Section 28 of the Act provides for the Collector being directed to pay interest on excess compensation at the rate of 9 percentum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess compensation into the Court. Their Lordships in Bhag Singh's case (supra) have clearly stated, "Moreover, the present appeal was pending at the date of commencement of the Amending Act and, the therefore, in any view of the matter, this Court is bound to give effect to the provisions of the amended S. 23, sub-s. (2) and S. 28 in determining the amount of compensation." In view of the above, the 'claimants-respondents would be entitled to excess interest as provided under S. 28 of the Act. 13. I, therefore, dismiss the appeals filed by the State of U.P. and hold that the claimants-respondents would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent under S. 23(2) of the Act and also interest on excess compensation at the rate of 9 per centum as provided under S. 28 of the Act. It is, however, made clear that the claimants-respondents will have to pay court-fees on the excess amount of solatium before the Additional District Judge within three months from today and final order in favour of the claimants-respondents would be passed only after payment of deficient court-fees within the time stipulated by this judgment. However, in the circumstances of the case and also as in the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I direct the parties to bear their own costs.