JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the claimants against an award in a reference u/s 18 of the Act. 2. A.O. 10 decimals of land recorded as Sarada Dofasali had been acquired for the Central Rice Research Institute in or about the year 1970-71. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation which was received by the claimants under protest and the valuation was challenged. Claimants demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1.000/- per gunth in other words Rs. 1.75,000/- per acre. Trial Court on consideration of the materials on record held that the claimants had not been able to satisfy that the valuation as determined by the Land Acquisition Collector was Incorrect. Against the said decision, the present appeal has been tiled which is valued at the rate of Rs. 2.400/- per gunth for claming compensation. At the time of hearing Mr. S., Jena, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that this Court has awarded Rs3500/- per gunth in respect of the similar lands acquired under the same notification for the same purpose and the appeal should be adjourned to enable the Appellants to amend the memorandum of appeal claiming compensation at the rate of. Rs. 3.500/- per gunth and to pay the deficit court-fee on the memorandum of appeal. Learned Advocate General does not dispute that in respect, of the similar lands in the village acquired for the same purpose compensation has been determined by this Court at Rs. 3,500/- per gunth in a decision dated 14-2-1985 In Collector Cuttack v. Bauribandhu Lenka and Ors. F.A. No. 239 of l981. 3. In view of the Division Bench decision, I am satisfied that the Appellants have got merit in the appeal which is to be allowed. The short question is whether the Appellants would be permitted to amend the memorandum of appeal at this state to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per gunth. 4. The Act has been amended by Act 68 of 1984 and Section 28-A has been inserted in the Act. The short question is whether the Appellants would be permitted to amend the memorandum of appeal at this state to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per gunth. 4. The Act has been amended by Act 68 of 1984 and Section 28-A has been inserted in the Act. It reads as follows: 28-A, (1) Where in an award under this Part, toe Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector u/s 11 the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification u/s 4, Sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector u/s 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the account of compensation payable to them may he re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this Sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2). The Collector shall on receipt of an application under Sub-section (1), conduct an enquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being beard and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under Sub-section (2) may by written application to the Collector require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of Sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be apply to such reference as they apply to a reference u/s 18. Sub-section (1) thereof indicates that even if the claimant would not have preferred the appeal he could have made a claim to the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determining the compensation on the basis of the appellate order passed by this Court in Collector, Cuttack v. Bauribandhu Lenka1 and batch (supra) decided on 14-2-1985. Sub-section (1) thereof indicates that even if the claimant would not have preferred the appeal he could have made a claim to the Land Acquisition Officer for re-determining the compensation on the basis of the appellate order passed by this Court in Collector, Cuttack v. Bauribandhu Lenka1 and batch (supra) decided on 14-2-1985. It is true that this provision is not directly applicable to the present case, since the time prescribed under that section expired much before the section case into the Statute Book. However, legislative intention is deal that the claimants should get benefit of the award. Amendment the memorandum of appeal claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.500/- per gunth as per the decision of this Court would be barred by limitation. However, the State having compulsorily acquired the land ought not to raise the question of limitation when the legislative intention is that the persons whose lands have been acquired should not be differently treated. In that view of the matter, the prayer of Mr. Jena to permit him to amend the memorandum of appeal and pay the deficit court-fee is reasonable. Expeditious disposal is a public policy. Procedures should not stand on the way of public policy unless the decision would become arbitrary. Nothing more would have been done in this case than filing an application giving a chance to the State to file objection and allowing the application for amendment giving opportunity to the Appellants to pay the deficit court-fee and to correct the memorandum of appeal. Without formal application also, I have heard both the parties on the question. I am inclined to allow the amendment keeping the scheme of amendment in view for the reasons earlier discussed. AU other requirements are only procedural except payment of the deficit court-fee. I am therefore, inclined to direct determination of the compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,500/- per gunth subject to payment of deficit court-fee by the Appellants within fifteen days from to day. The claimants have valued the memorandum of appeal at Rs. 5.250/- Now Mr. Jena prays to amend the valuation to Rs. 8,000/-. Thus, the deficit court-fee is payable on Rs. 2,750/-. The Appellants are required to pay the deficit court-fee of Rs. 292.50 paise which would be paid within fifteen days from today. 5. The claimants have valued the memorandum of appeal at Rs. 5.250/- Now Mr. Jena prays to amend the valuation to Rs. 8,000/-. Thus, the deficit court-fee is payable on Rs. 2,750/-. The Appellants are required to pay the deficit court-fee of Rs. 292.50 paise which would be paid within fifteen days from today. 5. Under the Act as amended by Act 68 of 1984, the claimants are entitled to better statutory benfits. The claimants are also entitled to the permissible statutory benefits on Rs 8.000/- deducting the amount which has already been received by them. The claimants are however, entitled to 80% interest on the differential amount u/s 28 of the Act and shall not be entitled to 15% interest per annum as has been provided in the proviso to Section 28 which the Court has discretion to grant 6. In conclusion the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.500/- per gunth which shall not exceed Rs. 8.000/- for which the appeal is permitted to be valued. The permissible statutory benefits excepting u/s 28 proviso shall be available to the claimants-Appellants. 7. In the result the appeal is allowed. Parties shall, however, bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed