JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J.:-This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th December, 1980 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhandara in a Land Acquisition Case No. 2 of 1977 dismissing the reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and confirming the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, B IP No. VIII, Bhandara in a Land Acquisition Case No. 130/A.65/76-77 of village Sihora on 26-3-1977. It is not disputed that the land admeasuring 1.50 acres of the appellant has been acquired from Khasara No. 304 of village Sihora. Khasara No. 304 was 27.75 acres in area. Out of this 27.75 acres of land, 1.50 acres of land is acquired and the field is divided in two parts. One part is of 2 acres and another is of 24 acres. The land is acquired for Bagh and Iteadoh Project No. 8. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 was published on 19th Feb., 1976 in Government Gazette. During the land acquisition proceedings, the applicant filed the reply and claimed Rs. 10,000/- per acre. Thus, he made the total claim of Rs. 15,000/-. It is true that in his reply the applicant has not claimed any damage for severance, so also there is no whisper about the interest. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in para 5 discussed the situation and description of the land acquired of the appellant which is as follows : "The village Sihora is situated on Bhandara Balaghat Road. It is a market place and is a big village. The lands under acquisition are all paddy irrigated single crop lands". In para 6 it is stated that : "The land owners have claimed the compensation at market rates". In para 11, the valuation of the agricultural lands have been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer as follows : "The date of notification of section 4 is 19-2-1976 and hence sales prior to this date are to be considered. In 1973, the maximum price of Paddy Irrigated Land was at Rs. 8,000/- per acre. In 1974 it is 9,000/- per acre. All the sales are representative of the reasonable prices". Inspite of the above data, one fails to understand how the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land acquired @ 4,800/- per acre or Rs. 12,000/- per hectre as reasonable price. 8,000/- per acre. In 1974 it is 9,000/- per acre. All the sales are representative of the reasonable prices". Inspite of the above data, one fails to understand how the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of the land acquired @ 4,800/- per acre or Rs. 12,000/- per hectre as reasonable price. However, no data or reasons have been given how he has considered Rs. 4,800/- per acre in the year 1976, when the sales of 1973 and 1974 are above Rs. 8,000/- and Rs. 9,000/- per acres. 2. It is pertinent to note that the appellant relied on the earlier sale-deeds of the year 1973 and 1974, which have been considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, he adduced no additional evidence except examined himself. The appellant specifically deposed that his land is actually unirrigated but the irrigation is provided for one crop and for second crop the water is provided by Chandpur Tank. He further deposed that in the year 1973 the market price was Rs. 8,000/- per acre and in 1974 it was Rs. 9,000/- per acre and according to him in the year 1976 the market rate of the land per acre was Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The findings of the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixing the compensation @ 4,800/- per acre is contrary to the earlier sales of the year 1973 and 1974 and the lands situated in the vicinity of village Sihora. Thus, the findings being not just and proper, the appellant made reference. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhandara who decided the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act simply rejected the contention of the appellant on the ground that he has adduced no evidence and, therefore, he is not entitled for any compensation than granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference Court also failed to consider the sale-deeds of the year 1973-74 which have been considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in para 11 of the award dated 26-3-1977. As the appellant relied on the sale-deeds which have been relied by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, there was no reason for the Reference Court to discard his evidence and the sale-deeds of 1973 and 1974. Therefore, the error is apparent on record. Considering the sale-deeds of 1973 and 1974 and the evidence of the appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer would have granted Rs. Therefore, the error is apparent on record. Considering the sale-deeds of 1973 and 1974 and the evidence of the appellant, the Land Acquisition Officer would have granted Rs. 10,000/- per acre. The land acquired being 1.50 acres, the appellant is entitled to get the compensation of Rs. 15,000/-. 4. Shri Paliwal, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the provisions of sections 23, 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, are mandatory. In fact there is no necessity to make the averments claiming solatium and interest when the provisions of sections 23, 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, are mandatory. Even if the claimant has not claimed either solatium or interest on the amount of compensation, it is the duty of the Land Acquisition Officer as also of the Reference Court to grant solatium and interest. 5. Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act speaks as under : "When the amount of such compensation is not paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the time of so taking possession until it shall have been so paid or deposited : Provided that if such compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof which has not been paid or deposited before the date of such expirty". The provision of this section make it clear that if no compensation is paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest. The word "shall" shows that it is mandatory to award interest. The provision of this section make it clear that if no compensation is paid or deposited on or before taking possession of the land, the Collector shall pay the amount awarded with interest. The word "shall" shows that it is mandatory to award interest. Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, reads as follows : "If the sum which, in the opinion of the Court, the Collector ought to have awarded as compensation is 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) from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court : Provided that the award of the Court may also direct that where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry". This section makes it clear that if the reference Court is of the opinion that the Collector ought to have awarded the compensation in excess of the sum which the Collector did award as compensation, the Court may direct that the Collector shall pay interest on such excess amount at the rate of nine per cent (Previously it was 6 per cent), from the date on which he took possession of the land till the date of payment of such excess amount. Further, this section provides that the award of the Court may also direct where such excess or any part thereof is paid into Court after the date of expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the possession is taken, interest at the rate of fifteen per centum per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid into Court before the date of such expiry. 6. 6. Shri Paliwal, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is entitled to the solatium at the rate of 30 per centum under section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is true that in the instant case neither the Special Land Acquisition Officer nor the reference Court i.e. the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhandara have granted any solatium to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not claimed the same. Sub-section (2) of the section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act reads as under : "In addition to the market value of the land as above provided the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition". It is, thus, clear from these sections, that the duty cast on the Presiding Officer to grant 15 per centum or 30 per centum solatium which is admissible besides the compensation and, therefore, it is rightly said that it is not necessary for the claimant to make specific claim for the same when the duty cast on the Presiding Officer to comply with the provisions. A reliance has been placed on the case of the (State of Maharashtra and another v. Nanabhai Rathod and others)1, reported in A.I.R. 1989 Bombay - 9 (Nagpur - D.B.). This High Court observed : "Considering section 23(1-A) as it stands, it cannot have any application to the situation where possession has been taken by the acquiring authority even before the issue of notification under section 4 and having regard to the express language of section 23(1-A), in the event of losing the possession before the notification the claimants would be entitled to ask for the benefit up to the period of the award by the Collector. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled in addition to the enhanced rate of interest and solatium also to the addition of 12 per cent of the market value from the date of the notification until the date of the award by the Collector". This Judgment is dated 8th February, 1988. 7. A reliance has been placed on the case of (State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh and another)2, reported in A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 758. The order passed by the Honble Supreme Court is as under : "Heard counsel for the parties. This Judgment is dated 8th February, 1988. 7. A reliance has been placed on the case of (State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh and another)2, reported in A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 758. The order passed by the Honble Supreme Court is as under : "Heard counsel for the parties. We find no merit in this appeal so far as quantum of compensation is concerned, because special leave petition has been dismissed against the impugned judgment. However, the respondents are entitled to the benefit of the provisions of the Act 68 of 1984 by which 30% solatium is to be given from the date of publication to the date of notification under section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act, and interest at the rate of 9% instead of 6% as originally contained in the unamended Act, from the date of taking possession of the land acquired. Since the decision in this case has been given after one year, it is manifest that under the said Act, respondents would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% towards which they have already got 6%." 8. In the case of (Union of India and another v. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. and others)3, 1989 Maharashtra Law Journal, 672 (Supreme Court) it appears that their Lordships have taken a different view regarding the applicability of the section 23(2) and section 30(2). Their Lordships observed as follows : "Solatium enhanced by Amendment Act in view of section 30(2) is available in respect of awards made by Collector or Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 and to appeals pending in High Court or Supreme Court arising out of awards by Collector or Court between said two dates. Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 extends the benefit of the enhanced solatium to cases where the award by the Collector or by the Court was made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984 or to an appellate order of the High Court or the Supreme Court which arises out of an award of the Collector or the Court made between the said two dates. The word or is used with reference to the stage at which the proceeding rests at the time when the benefit under section 30(2) is sought to be extended. The word or is used with reference to the stage at which the proceeding rests at the time when the benefit under section 30(2) is sought to be extended. If the proceeding has terminated with the award of the Collector or of the Court made between the aforesaid two dates, the benefit of section 30(2) will be applied to such award made between the aforesaid two dates. If the proceeding has passed to the stage of appeal before the High Court or the Supreme Court, it is at that stage when the benefit of section 30(2) will be applied. But in every case, the award of the Collector or of the Court must have been made between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984". It is made clear by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that in case the award is passed by the Land Acquisition Officer or the claim has been decided by the reference Court between 30th April, 1982 and 24th September, 1984, the provisions of amended section 23 would be applicable. The pronouncement of the verdict by their Lordships of the Supreme Court is dated 16-5-1989. Therefore, the decisions referred by the learned Counsel, of this Court is not applicable. Similarly the case of Supreme Court referred supra is also not of any assistance in this case as the decision reported in A.I.R. 1989 Mah. L.J. 672 is of a larger Bench consist of five Judges. 9. In the light of the discussion, the appellant is entitled to the compensation @ 10,000/- per acre, thus total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for 1.50 acres. The appellant is also entitled to get the solatium @ 15%, so also the interest @ 9 per cent per annum. The appellant has received Rs. 8,376.60/- on 6-5-1977. Therefore, the difference be paid to the appellant. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.