JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - This appeal has been directed against an Order passed by the learned District Judge, Sambalpur as the arbitrator under the Orissa Development of Industries, Irrigation, Agriculture Capital Construction and Resettlement of Displaced Person (Land Acquisition) Act, 1946 (for short, 'the Act') in respect of 162.55 acres of Gounti rayati and rayati lands appertaining to Khunti No. 2 and 31/13 respectively and the tress standing thereon of village Jogint in the district of Sambalpur which was acquired by the State of Orissa under a notification dated 26-5-1951. There is no dispute that the ancestors of the present Respondents were recorded as tenants in respect of the said khuntis. Being dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the Appellant, the matter was referred to the arbitrator. Before the arbitrator, the present Respondents 1 and 3 to 11 and the predecessors in interest of Respondent No. 2 raised various objection as regards the classification of lands, the valuation of the trees etc. and they claimed higher compensation. The present Appellant in its written statement asserted that while determining the compensation all relevant factors have been taken into account and the compensation offered was fair and reasonable. 2. The arbitrator disposed of the case on 18-3-1974,but the same was set aside in P. A, No. 102/74 and the case was remitted back for fresh disposal In the order of remand this Court observed that as there is a confusion in the evidence of Basudev (present Respondent No. I), opportunity should be given to both parties to adduce further evidence as regards the net yields from the lands in question. It was further directed that the compensation for the Bhogra lands shall not be determined and the compensation for the lands of the two other khuntis (khunti Nos. 2 and 31/13) shall be worked out on the evidence already on record and to be further received from the parties. After the order of remand, the present Respondents examined Basudev further, but the present Appellant adduced no further evidence. 2 and 31/13) shall be worked out on the evidence already on record and to be further received from the parties. After the order of remand, the present Respondents examined Basudev further, but the present Appellant adduced no further evidence. The learned District Judge-cum-arbitrator in his award discussed the evidence on record and held that no contemporaneous sale deeds are available and the present Appellant has adduced no evidence to show that the yield of the acquired Gounti rayati and rayati lands would be less than the net yield as given in the report relating to the record of rights of Hamid Settlement. He, therefore, concluded that in the absence of any clear evidence showing the yield of the Gounti Rayati and Rayati lands the safer basis would be the net yield as given in the record of rights of the Hamid Settlement. He also relied on the decision reported in State of Orissa Vs. Bharat Chandra Nayak for the aforesaid conclusion. As a matter of fact, both sides filed calculation sheets on the basis of net yield given in the record of rights of Hamid Settlement and the arbitrator determined the compensation on that basis. He found that certain trees standing on certain plots were not taken into account and therefore, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to re-assess the compensation in respect of the same. Statutory solatium and interest were also allowed by the District Judge-cum-arbitrator. In the present appeal the State of Orissa has challenged the basis of calculation of the compensation and has further urged that the arbitrator has gone beyond the directions given in the order of remand by this Court in determining the compensation. A cross-appeal has been filed on behalf of some of the Respondents alleging that the arbitrator has gone wrong in not giving proportionate cost to the Respondents. 3. At the initial stage the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant canvassed that the order of remand passed in F.A. No. 102/74 was not an open remand and, therefore, the learned District Judge-cum-Arbitrator went wrong in reassessing the compensation entirely on a new basis without relying on the evidence on record. Having gone through the entire text of the judgment passed in F. A. No. 102/74, we find it difficult to accept the aforesaid contention. Having gone through the entire text of the judgment passed in F. A. No. 102/74, we find it difficult to accept the aforesaid contention. This Court in the judgment passed in the said appeal clearly observed as follows: There is already some evidence, but as there is confusion in the evidence of Basudev and as agreed to by counsel for both sides. I think opportunity should be given to bring in further evidence from both sides in regard to the net yield. Accordingly the appeal is allowed the award is vacated and it is directed that compensation for the Bhogra lands shall not he determined and compensation for the lands under the other two khuntis shall be worked out on the principle indicated on the evidence on record and to be received from the parties. The clear direction has, therefore, been given to give opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence and to dispose of the matter afresh on the basis of the evidence already on-record and to be adduced by the parties after remand. We do not, therefore, accept the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant that it was not an open order of remand or that the arbitrator had any limitation to assess compensation in accordance with law. 4. The next contention advanced on behalf of the Appellant was that the principle in regard to fixation of compensation laid down by this Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bharat Chandra Nayak. cannot be taken as universally accepted principle and the learned District Judge-cum-Arbitrator was, therefore, wrong in determining the compensation on such principle. The aforesaid, argument of the learned Counsel is not acceptable. In the previous appeal, namely, F. A. No. 102/74. this Court made a note of the fact that there was no dispute between the parties that the principle in regard to fixation of compensation laid down in the aforesaid case was applicable. As a matter of fact, both the parties filed calculation sheets before the Arbitrator on the basis of not yield given in the record of rights of Hamid Settlement. The learned District Judge-cum-Arbitrator has also noticed in the impugned award that the principle as laid down in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bharat Chandra Nayak, was accepted by both the parties. The learned District Judge-cum-Arbitrator has also noticed in the impugned award that the principle as laid down in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Bharat Chandra Nayak, was accepted by both the parties. In these circumstances the argument now advanced by the learned Counsel for the Appellant cannot be entertained. Thus, we find no merit in any of the contentions raised, by the Appellant, and the appeal is, therefore, bound to be dismissed. 5. The only point raised in the cross-appeal is that the Respondents were entitled to proportionate costs which the arbitrator has failed to award. Grant of cost is a matter of discretion of the Court and nothing has been placed before us to hold that the exercise of discretion by the arbitrator was in any manner opposed to law. Therefore, the cross appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed. 6. Though we dismiss the appeal the Respondents would be entitled to some other reliefs in accordance with the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It has been held by this Court in F. A. No. 32/76 decided on - 19-8-1986 that by virtue of Section 7(1)(e) of the Act the arbitrator in making the award shall have due regard to the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, therefore, the amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act would also apply to the acquisitions under the Accounted reference. Sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 retrospectively apply to all awards between both April. 1982 and the date of commencement of the amendment and would also apply to pending matters. By virtue of the said provision the higher rate of solatium and interest in the said amended Act would also apply to the award' which is the subject-matter of this appeal. Thus in accordance with the amended provision, the Respondents would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and at the rate of 15% after expiry of one year of taking possession. The award would, therefore, stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 7. Thus in accordance with the amended provision, the Respondents would be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and at the rate of 15% after expiry of one year of taking possession. The award would, therefore, stand modified to the aforesaid extent. 7. In the ultimate result, the appeal and the cross appeal are both dismissed, but the award of the District Judge-cum-Arbitrator be modified by enhancing the solatium and interest as observed above. There shall be no order as to costs. A. Pasayat. J. 8. I agree. Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed