These petitions in revision are directed against the same judg­ment and award dated 30.11.87 passed by the learned District Judge, Kakrajhar as Land Acquisition Judge and the order dated 9. 2. 88 passed by the same learned District Judge on an application under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred as 'the Code'. 2. The petitions raise the same questions of fact and law and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The land of petitioner in each revision had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, hereinafter referred as the 'Act', for the purpose of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. in the year 1973 and possession was taken some time in 1974. The collector allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500'- per bigha. The petitioners had accepted' it with protest and asked for reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was made. The Reference Court had made a common award on 16.4.82 in all the cases. There was review which was allowed and the com­pensation amount awarded was enhanced. There was an appeal by the Collector to this court and the award dated 16.4.82 as modified by the order in review dated 21.8.82 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration. The Reference Court by common judgment and award dated 30. 11. 87 enhanced the compensation amount to Rs. 3,500/- per bigha and also allowed solarium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act, as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984, which had come into force with effect from 24th September, 1984. The petitioners moved an app­lication under Section 152 of the Code for correction of award for interest on the enhanced compensation amount which was heard but rejected by common order dated 9.2.88. 4. Aggrieved, the petitioners have1 come to this Court and Sri J. N. Sarma, learned counsel appearing on their behalf, has cont­ended that the learned Reference Court was not correct in non-exe­rcise of its jurisdiction as provided in Section 28 of the Act in not allowing interest on the enhanced compensation amount because the said provisions of Section 28 are mandatory and the learned refer­ence court having not considered the matter in the award dated 30. 11. 87 had committed grave error in exercise of its jurisdiction. 5. 11. 87 had committed grave error in exercise of its jurisdiction. 5. Sri A. R. Paul Mazumdar, learned counsel for the State of Assam, on the other hand, has contended that the learned reference court had not committed any error in exercise of its jurisdiction and this court shall not be justified in exercising its revisional jurisdic­tion to interfere with the award dated 30.11.87, that since the Co­llector had made the award before the bill to amend the Act by Act No. 68 of 1984 had been introduced under the provisions of sub­section (2) of Section 30 of the Act 68 of 1984, the amended pro­visions could not be invoked and further that the petitioners' claim for interest was also not allowed by the reference court because solarium under sub-section (2) of section 23 of the Act had been allowed. It was also submitted that the provisions of Section 28 gave discretion to the reference court and the discretion having been exerci­sed by not allowing interest, no error in exercise of jurisdiction was committed and accordingly this court should not interfere with the impugned award. 6. In so far as the first submission of Shri A. R. Paul Mazum­dar, learned counsel for the O. P. in regard to the maintainability of these revision petition is concerned, it has been contended that the learned Reference Judge in his subsequent order dated 3.2.88 has stated that "he had deliberately refrained and refused to pass any order as to interest in terms of the enabling provisions of Sec­tion 28 of the Act" and submitted that in view of the award it­self dismissing that the petitioners had been allowed special compen­sation, i.e. solatium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act and also that the setting up of the 'refinery' industry must have pro­vided some benefits to the petitioners, it should not be said that the learned Reference Judge had committed any error in exercise of jurisdiction. 7. In the Judgment and award dated: 30.11.87, nothing has been said about interest, i. e as to why it was not allowed. In the abs­ence of anything in the award itself, I think it shall not be justi­fiable to read the mind of the learned Reference Judge at the time the award was made, from his subsequent observation. From the cir­cumstances that the compensation amount of Rs. In the abs­ence of anything in the award itself, I think it shall not be justi­fiable to read the mind of the learned Reference Judge at the time the award was made, from his subsequent observation. From the cir­cumstances that the compensation amount of Rs. 1500/- awarded by the Collector had been enhanced to Rs. 3500/- per bigha, that sol­atium under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of the Act had been all­owed or that from the setting up of the refinery the petitioners might have obtained some benefits, it shall not be reasonable to accept that the learned Reference Judge had for the said reasons not con­sidered it necessary to award interest. The subsequent observation of the learned reference Judge in the order dated 8.2.88, in my opinion, is hardly material while con­sidering the matter that the judgment and award dated 30.11.87 did not make any reference to interest at all. 8. The provisions of Section 28 are important and are as below : "28. Collector may be directed to pay interest on excess com­pensation.-If the sum which, in the opinion of the court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation as in exc­ess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the award of the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess at the rate of nine per centum per annum from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. It is not necessary to examine the respective contentions that the provision is mandatory or not, for even if it be accepted that the provision is discretionary, it should be clear that the discretion given by law to the reference court has to be exercised judicially and obviously, for reasons to be recorded so that the exercise of discretion may be scrutinized or examined by court in revision or appeal, as the case may be for its correction, if necessary. It is manifest that discretion given by law to a court cannot be exercised arbitrarily and accordingly in the absence of anything in the judg­ment and award dated 30.11.87 in regard to interest which has to be considered under the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, it cannot be said that the learned Reference Judge had not committed any error in exercise of jurisdiction for which reason it may be said that these revisions do not lie. 9. On careful consideration of the provisions of Section 28 while there may be no doubt that in exercise of its discretionary power, the court in suitable cases may decline to allow interest such as in cases where the compensation amount enhanced is nominal or negligible or that the period for which the interest could be allowed was too short, but obviously where the amount of compensation has -been substantially enhanced, which means that the party whose land has been compulsorily acquired has been deprived of the amount of correct compensation, it would be a fit case for exercise of discr­etionary power to allow interest. Similarly where the period over which the enhanced compensation has not been paid is substantially long, compensation not having been paid should be considered rea­sonable ground to allow interest. The learned Reference Judge was clearly in error in not having taken into consideration any of the grounds on the basis of which it could be said that denial of claim for interest was justified or even proper. In the instant cases, the amount of compensation had been enhanced from Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 3500/- which was quite substantial amount of which the petitioners had been deprived and that too for a long period, i. e. from 1974 when possession of their lands had been taken. In the facts of the present case, the petitioners had very reasonable and good case for interest as contemplated in Section 28 of the Act on the enhanced compensation amount from the date possession of their lands had been taken until such time as the enhanced amount is paid. I, the­refore, hold, that the learned Judge below committed grave error in non-exercise of his jurisdiction in the matter and the revisions lie. 10. I, the­refore, hold, that the learned Judge below committed grave error in non-exercise of his jurisdiction in the matter and the revisions lie. 10. Sri A. R. Paul Mazumdar, learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act were not available in the present case because the Collect­or had made the payment of compensation as determined by him long before, i. e. the 30th April, 1982 the date on which the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill had been introduced. In this connection, Sri Mazumdar has placed reliance upon sub-section (2) of Section 3Q of Act 68 of 1984, Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576 as varied or modified in Union of India v. Reghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754 , to coated that the amended pro­vision of Section 28 was not available in the instant cases. 11. Section 30 sub-section (2) of Act 68 of 1984 reads : " (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 23 and Section 28 of the principal Act, as amended by clause (b) of Section 15 and Section 18 of this Act respectively, shall apply and shall be deemed to have applied, also to and in relation to, any award made by the Collector or Court or to any order passed by the High Court or Supreme Court in appeal against any such award under the provisions of the principal Act after the 30th day of April, 1982 the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of People and before the commencement of this Act. "It is not reasonably possible to accept the submission for the reas­ons firstly that the reference under Section 18 of the Act was pen­ding when by Act No. 68 of 1984 the provisions of Section 28 had been amended and on the day the learned reference Judge made the award, i.e. 30.11.87 the provisions of Section 28 of the Act stood amended. I see no reason why the provisions of the amended Section 28 could not be applied to such a reference, secondly if the cont­ention for the opposite party is accepted then on the date the award-was made, i. e. on 30. I see no reason why the provisions of the amended Section 28 could not be applied to such a reference, secondly if the cont­ention for the opposite party is accepted then on the date the award-was made, i. e. on 30. 11.87 the earlier law under Section 28 could not have been applied for the earlier law had ceased to be law and was not available, thirdly the reference court did apply the amended provision of sub-section (2) of Section 23 in allowing sol­atium and the opposite party had not questioned the award and lastly, the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of Act No.68 of 1984 were only for transitional period, i.e. 30th April, 1982, the date on which the Land Acquisition Bill of 1982 had been introdu­ced and 24th September, 1984 the date just before the date of commencement of the Act. The principles laid down in Bhag Singh (supra) and Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (supra), in my opinion, are not attracted on the facts of the present case where the refer­ence court was yet to make the award when the said amendment Act had come into force. 12. Shri A. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that the collector's award had been made earlier and accordingly the provision for transitional period under sub-sectionl2) of Section 30 of the Act No. 68 of 1984 was attracted. The subm­ission is not tenable for the same reason that if this submission be accepted it would mean that on the date the award was made the reference court could not have applied the earlier law which was no longer available on that date and there could not have been any vacuum in law in that regard. I, therefore, hold that the provisions of Section 28 as amended was available on the facts of the present cases. 13. Sri A. R. Paul Mazumdar, learned counsel for the opposite party, has submitted that any claim by the petitioners has to be met from public exchequer and that substantial enhanced compensation and solatium having been allowed by the reference court, possibly for that reason the learned reference court not having allowed the claim for interest, the petitioners should not be allowed any interest. As regards enhanced compensation, claim for compensation has- to-be on the basis of the market value of the property. As regards enhanced compensation, claim for compensation has- to-be on the basis of the market value of the property. The learned reference judge having determined the said value as 3500/- per bigha it should not be said that for that reason of enhancement in com­pensation, the claim for interest should be denied. The solatium was payable as provided by law made by the State itself and due to its payment the claim for interest could not be refused. The claim for interest under Section 28 of the Act proceeds on the basis that due compensation not having been paid the claimant should be all­owed interest on the compensation amount not paid. The basis of payment of interest being different from the be for which enha­nced compensation is provided for and is allowed and so also for payment of solatium, the payment of the said sum of money cannot disentitle the petitioners from the claim for interest. 14. On consideration of the matter since the market value of the properties had been' determined at a substantially higher rate and possession had been taken as early as in 1974, I think the pe­titioners were entitled to interest as provided in Section 28 of the Act as amended. 15. Sri A. R. Paul Mazumdar, learned counsel for the O. P. has submitted that interest at the earlier rate of six percent should be allowed. It is difficult to accept this submission for the reason that on 30.11.87 when the learned Reference Judge made the imp­ugned judgment and award, the said rate of interest in Section 28 was on longer in force and the rate of interest had been substit­uted by nine percent. Accordingly, the petitioners shall be entitled to interest at the rate of nine percent per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. 16. The petitions are allowed. The impugned' award dated 30. 11.87 shall be modified for payment of interest to each of the pe­titioner at the rate of nine percent per annum from the date on which possession of their respective land was taken by the Collector to the date of payment. The Collector shall work out the amount of interest payable to each of the petitioner and make payment as expeditiously as may be possible. 17. Parties shall bear their own costs.