JUDGMENT : H.L. Agrawal, C.J. - This appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer arising out of a Land Acquisition case filed on 22nd June, 1981 was withdrawn on 30th July, 1984. But before that, the awardee had filed a cross-objection which was admitted on 13th October, 1982. When the cross-objection was taken up for hearing, learned Additional Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that on account of the withdrawal of the appeal, the cross-objection became incompetent and was not maintainable. 2. Mrs. Padhi appearing for the Respondent submitted that the cross-objection once entertained could not be rendered otiose on account of the withdrawal on the appeal. This question need not detain me at all as by the amending Act of 1976, this controversy has been set at rest by amending Rule 22 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, specifically providing in Sub-rule (4) that where the Respondent has filed a memorandum of objection and the original appeal has been withdrawn or dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined. Therefore, it cannot be doubted that the cross objection as such is maintainable in law and that it has got to be decided. 3. A strip of land measuring about 80 decimals with standing trees was acquired by the State Government in the town of Bhubaneswar for the purpose of construction of Rajarani Park. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50 per decimal. Separate compensation for the trees was also awarded. A reference was made to the Court, and compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000 per acre for land and at the rate of Rs. 50 per fruit-bearing tree, additional compensation at the rate of 15 per cent and interest at the rate of 6 per cent only was allowed. 4. Whereas the State filed the appeal against the enhancement of the compensation, the awardee filed a cross-objection on 1st Feb., 1982 for raising the valuation of the trees, and as would appear from ground No. 6 of the cross-objection, the total claim made on this account was for Rs. 3,500 with statutory compensation and interest thereon. In the meantime, the Land Acquisition Act was amended by Act 68 of 1984 making, inter alia, the following amendments which are relevant for the present case. 3,500 with statutory compensation and interest thereon. In the meantime, the Land Acquisition Act was amended by Act 68 of 1984 making, inter alia, the following amendments which are relevant for the present case. In Section 23(2), the additional compensation in addition to the market value was raised from 15% to 30%. A new Sub-section was inserted as Sub-section (1-A) in Section 23 providing for solatium at the rate of 12 per cent on the market value of the compensation from the date of publication of the notification u/s 4(1) upto the date of the award or the date of taking over possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In Section 28, the rate of interest payable on the enhanced compensation awarded by the Court was raised from 6 per cent to 15 per cent. Accordingly, an application has been made on 4th Jan., 1988 (Misc. Case No. 2/88) for taking additional grounds in the cross-objection which is being allowed separately. 5. Section 30 of the Amending Act provides that the amending provision contained in Sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act would also apply to every proceeding for the acquisition of any land pending on the 30th day of April, 1982" in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date. Section 30, inter alia, provides that Section 23 of the principal Act as amended by Clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of the "amending Act" respectively shall apply also to and in relation to any award made by the Collector. The amendment petition has been filed by the awardee on the basis of the aforesaid provision and it was submitted that on the 30th April, 1982, the land acquisition proceeding must be deemed to be pending on account of the pendency of the cross-objection and, therefore, the awardee was entitled to all the benefits flowing from the amendments. The submission has got substance and, being supported also by authorities cited by Mrs. Padhi, has to be accepted. 6. The submission has got substance and, being supported also by authorities cited by Mrs. Padhi, has to be accepted. 6. A learned Judge of this Court in First Appea.1 No. 215 of 1976 (Collector, Cuttack v. Smt. Jayasri Devi disposed of on 3rd Dec, 1987 had the occasion to consider this situation and allowed the benefits for the simple reason that the appeal being a continuation of the suit pendency of a proceeding in a Court arising out of a reference u/s 18 of the Act gives a scope to the Court to award compensation as provided u/s 23 of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh and Others Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh through the land acquisition collector, Chandigarh, over-ruling an earlier decision held that the provisions of the amending Act are made applicable to all proceedings relating to compensation pending on 30th April, 1982 or filed subsequent to that date whether before the Collector or before the Court of the High Court or the Supreme Court, even if they have finally terminated before the enactment of the Amending Act. To make the matter beyond the pale of controversy, it was said that even if an award is made by the Collector or Court on or before 30th April, 1982 and an appeal against such award is pending before the High Court or the Supreme Court on 30th April, 1982 or is filed subsequent to the date, the provisions of the amended Section 23(2) and Section 28 would be applicable in relation to an order passed in such appeal by the High Court or the Supreme Court. In view of this authoritative decision, it is not necessary to refer to the decisions of the High Courts based on this authority cited before us. 7. Thus once having come to the conclusion that the compensation proceeding happens to be still pending the next question that arises for consideration is as to what relief is the cross-objector entitled? The scope of the cross-objection, however, as originally filed, was limited. 8. The claim, as already seen above, is now made for higher rates of solatium, interest and additional compensation. At this stage, some controversy was again on behalf of the State that unless the cross-objection quantified the amount of claim and paid court-fee on the cross-objection, the claims could not be examined. 8. The claim, as already seen above, is now made for higher rates of solatium, interest and additional compensation. At this stage, some controversy was again on behalf of the State that unless the cross-objection quantified the amount of claim and paid court-fee on the cross-objection, the claims could not be examined. This contention is noticed only to be rejected as it is well settled that no court-fee is payable on such claims for the simple reason that they do not form part of the compensation determined for the acquisition as such but are additional statutory benefits given to the awardee and an obligation has been cast upon the Court to grant these benefits so much so that this Court in the case of Mahamedlsak etc. v. L.A. Collector 1986 (II) OLR 639 and myself by order dt. 10 Nov. 1987 passed in Misc. Case No. 624 of 1987 in First Appeal No. 16 of 1980 have held that omission to grant such relief can be corrected even by an application u/s 152, Code of Civil Procedure. The Patna High Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Bindeshwar Singh and Others, following its earlier decisions in Smt. Siawati Kuer Vs. The State of Bihar, and Kesireddy Appala Swamy and Others Vs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Officer, Central Railway, Vijayawada, held that no court-fee was payable on the amount of statutory compensation. On the same principle, no court fee would be payable on the additional amount awarded u/s 23(1-A) of the Act and for this view also I may rely upon a Full Bench decision of the Karnataka High Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Soma Gopal Gowda AIR 1986 Kar 179 . 9. Now let me come to the merits of the claim as amended. We have seen that the Court had allowed interest to the awardee at the rate of 6 per cent and additional compensation 15 per cent. This rate of interest has to be raised from 6 per cent to 9 per cent by virtue of the amendment of Section 28 with respect to the increased amount of compensation determined by the Court, for one year and for the period subsequent thereto, at the rate of fifteen per cent. Similarly, the solatium awarded at the rate of 15 per cent u/s 23(2) of the Act has to be raised to 30 per cent. 10. Similarly, the solatium awarded at the rate of 15 per cent u/s 23(2) of the Act has to be raised to 30 per cent. 10. Now comes the question of awarding solatium under the newly inserted Sub-section (1-A) in Section 23 of the Act. The awardee would now be entitled to a further sum on the compensation determined with respect to the market value of the land at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the publication of the notification u/s 4(1) upto the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking over possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The date of the award in this case is 30th July, 1981 and of taking over possession of the land is 29th Nov., 1978, the date of notification u/s 4(1) being 20th Jan., 1976. The awardee, therefore, will be entitled to additional compensation from this date of the notification till 29th Nov., 1978. As already indicated, the claims under the above heads are awardable to an awardee by virtue of the above provisions which have been brought into the Statute book for their benefit and a little solace for depriving them of their property right. Before parting with this case, it may be stated that Mrs. Padhi could not successfully press the claim in the original cross-objection for higher compensation for the trees. 11. The cross-objection, therefore must succeed to the extent allowed by me. It is accordingly allowed in part. The award to the Court be amended accordingly. There would, however, be no order for costs separately. Final Result : Allowed