JUDGMENT Miss Kamlesh Sharma, J.—The following appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these pertain to acquisition of land acquired for the public purpose of construction of Solan By-Pass Road (National Highway No. 22) :— SI. R. F A Title Reference No. No. Petition No. 1. 14 of 1984 L. A. C. Solan v. Boop Ham 2I-S/4 of 1979 2. 9 of 1984 Bhoop Ram v. State of H. P. —do— 3. 19 of 1984 L. A. C, Solan v. Munshi Ram 22-S/4of 1979 4. 17 of 1984 L. A. C, Solan v. Mohan Lal and others (L. Rs. of Naraini and others) 24-S/4 of 1979 5. 16 of 1984 L. A, C. Solan v. Bahadur Chand Madhok 23-S/4 of 1979 6. 22 of 1984 L. A. C.9 Solan v. G.P. Bharatwal 43-S/4 of 1977 7. 18 of 1984 L A. C., Solan v. R. K. Puri and others (L. Rs, of Santosh Puri) 48-S/4 of 1977 8. 115 of 1983 L. A. C.9 Solan v. Om Parkash and others 46-S/4of 1977 9. 60 of 1984 Shakuntala Singal and others v. State of H. P. and another 50-S/4 of 1977 2. Appeals at Serial Nos. 1 to 7 arise out a common award dated 31-8-1983 whereby seven reference petitions bearing Nos. 21-S/4 of 1979, 22-S/4 of 1979. 24-S/4 of 1979, 23-S/4 of 1979, 25-S/4 of 1979, 43-S/4 of 1977 and 48-S/4 of 1977 were decided. All the appeals except R. F. A. No. 9 of 1984 have been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh to challenge the enhancement of market price of the acquired land awarded by the District Judge. On the other hand, ia R. F. A, No. 9 of 1984t claimant Bhoop Ram has challenged the market price of the acquired land awarded by the District Judge on the ground that it is not fair and just and has prayed for its enhancement. No appeal has been Sled either by the State or the claimants in respect of the land of Reference Petition No. 25-S/4 of 197<> titled Jeet Ham v. H. P. State. R. F. A No 115 of 1984 at the instance of the State has been filed against the award dated 31-5-1983 passed by District Judge, Solan and Strmaur Districts at Nahan challenging the enhancement of the market price of the acquired land awarded therein. R. F. A No 115 of 1984 at the instance of the State has been filed against the award dated 31-5-1983 passed by District Judge, Solan and Strmaur Districts at Nahan challenging the enhancement of the market price of the acquired land awarded therein. In R. F. A. No. 60 of 1984, the claimant has challenged the award dated 11-7-1984 passed by District Judge, Solan and Sirmaur Districts Campt at Solan praying for further enhancement of the market price of the acquired land. 3. For acquiring the land, which is subject matter of these appeals, two notifications we re issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act). By the first notification dated 12-9-1974, the land of original claimants Santosh Puri, G. P Bharatwal, Matu Ram and Om Parkash was acquired, whereas, by second notification dated 11-8-1977 land of original claimants Munshi Ram, Naraini, Bhadur Chand, Jeet Ram and Bhoop Ram was acquired, After holding enquiry under section 9 of the Act and considering the objections of the interested persons, the Land Acquisition Collector determined the market price of the acquired land as under :— Award No. and date Village Classification Rate per Bigha/ per square metre 256/77 Saproon Bangar II Rs 26f355 per Bigha 10-7-77 Bangar Kadeem, Ghasni land, Charand and Rs. 6,400 per Bigha Gairmumkin 255/77 9-8-77 Kather Bangar I (Bagicha) Rs. 40 per sq. mtr. Jai Safaid Rs. 10 —do— Bagicha Ghasni Rs. 10 —do— Ghasni land Rs. 8 —do— Gair Mumkin land Rs. 8 —do— 15/78 Basal Bangar I Rs. 25,000 per Bigha Bangar Kadim Rs. 7,000 per Btgha Ghasni and Gair Rs. 6,000 per Bigha Murnkin 4. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants filed reference petitions under section 18 of the Act, out of which the reference petitions of original claimants Munshi Ram, Naraini, Bhadur Chand, Jeet Ram, G. P. Bharatwal and Santosh Puri were consolidated with reference petition of claimant Bhoop Ram and the evidence was recorded in the said petition and all these were disposed of by a common award dated 31-&-1983 determining the market value of the acquired land as under :— SI. No. No. of Petition and name of claimant Classification and area of land Rate awarded by court Total compensation payable Amount already e paid as per Collectors award Balance enhanced amount payable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. No. No. of Petition and name of claimant Classification and area of land Rate awarded by court Total compensation payable Amount already e paid as per Collectors award Balance enhanced amount payable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. 21S/4of 79 Bangar I 25,000 Bhoop Ham 0-15 Bigha Banjar Kadim 2-10 Bigha 15,000 56,275 36,250 20,025 2. 22-S/4 of 79 Monshi Ram Bangar I 0-10 Bigha Gair Mumkin badi 0-7 Bigha 25,000 15.000 16,750 14,600 2,150 3. 23-S/4 of 79 Bhadur Chand Bangar Kadim 3-3 Bighas 15,000 47,250 22,050 25,200 4. 24-S/4 of 79 Naraini, Sant Ram, Netar Singh Ghasni 2-3 Bighas 15.000 32,250 12,800 19,450 5. 25-S/4 of 79 jeet Ram Bangar I-15 Bigha 25,000 43,750 43,750 Nil 6. 43-S/4 of 77 Ghasni G P. Bharatwai 0-13 Bigha 15,000 9,750 4,160 5,590 7. 48~S/4of77 Entitled to 30,000 7,500 7,500 Santosh Puri 5 Biswas and remaining land not acquired 5. Reference petitions of original claimants Matu Ram and Om Parkash and others were tried separately. In the award dated 11-74984 passed in the reference petition of original claimant Matu Ram the market value of his land was determined at the uniform rate of Rs. 40 per saqare metre for Bagicha Bangar Awa! or Bicha Glhasni In reference petition of Om Parkasb and otbers by award dated 31-5-1983 the market price of the acquired land has been determined at Rs 30,308 per Bigha for Bangar-va-Bagicha and Rs 18,185 per Bigha for Baagar Kadim-va-Toda 6. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and to decide whether the market value of the acquired land determined by the District Judge is legal and valid and if not, what will be the fair and just market value of the acquired land, we have to analyse the evidence produced by the parties in the reference petitions In the reference petitions, which were consolidated with reference petition of original claimant Bhoop Ham and, the claimants Bhoop Ram, Bhadur Chand, Munshi Ram Santosh Pori have appeared as their own witnesses as PWs 1 to 3 and 5 respectively They have also produced Sant Ram son of Jheru Ram PW 4 and Bhagwan Singh, Advocate, Subhadhra Bhardwaj, K L. Gupta, Advocate, Sant Rani son of Sobha Ram and Bheem Dutt as PWs 6 to 10 respectively. PWs 1 to 10 have stated in one breath that the acquired land is near to bus stand, railway station, cantonment area and Industrial Training Institute, Solan They have also stated that at the time of acquisition it was on the boundary of municipal limits of Solan City. After Solan Tehsil became District and Solan City its headquarter, there is considerable rise in the market price of the land as a large number of residential and commercial buildings are being constructed These witnesses have placed on record and proved the following sale consideration, which were admittedly of the plots of land within the municipal limits i— SI. PW No,, name No purchaser/seller Document Particulars Price per Bigha I. PW 6 Bhagwan Singh, Advocate, purchaser Sale Deed Ex. PW 61A dated 21-2-74 117 sq, mts. Ghasni village Seer Rs. 7,000 at the rate of Rs. 45,000 per Bigha 2. PW 7 Subhadra Bhardwaj, purchaser Nil February 1974 304 sq. mts.. Road Civil Hospital, Solan. Village Seer Rs. 12,000 at the rate of Rs. 29,685 per Bigha 3. PW 8 K. L. Gupt Advocate, purchaser a, Sale Deed dated 24-2-1974 Ex, PW 8/A 127 sq.mts,, Ghasni near Civil Hospital Solan approach Road Village Seer Rs. 7,000 at the rate of Rs. 41,450 per Bigha 7. PW 9 Sant Ram son of Sobha Ram was the seller of the land mentioned in registered sale deeds Ex. PW 6/A and PW 8/A. According to him, the prevailing market rate in Municipal limits of Solan Town was between Rs. 40,000 to Rs 45sOOO per Bigha at the time of acquisition of land. But the evidence of PW 6 to PW 9 and the sale transactions proved by them are not comparable with the acquired land being at a distance of M/2 kilo metres and within the Municipal limits, whereas the acquired land was outside the Municipal limits at the relevant time. Out of the claimants, original claimant Santosh Puri PW 5 had herself admitted that the market value of land in village Kather was Rs 30,000 to 35,000 per Bigha at the time of acquisition The claimants have also placed on record award dated 23-2-1979 passed in Reference Petition No. 31-S/4 of 1977 titled Kamla Devi v State, and award dated 30-6-1982 passed in Reference Petition No. J2-S/4 of 1981 titled Simla Devi and others v. State. In award dated 23-2-1979 the land was acquired vide notification dated 27-9-1974 under section 4 of the Act for the widening of Thodo Ground for the construction of the Community Hall by the Municipal Committee, the market value of which was determined at Rs 88 per square metre or Rs. 66,200 per Bigha, In the other award dated 30-6-1982, the land was acquired vide notification 14-3-1974 under section 4 of the Act in village Sheer (within Solan Municipal limits) and the market value determined at the rate of Rs. 70 per square metre or Rs. 52,840 per Sigha, but these cannot be the basis for determining the market value of acquired land in these appeals, as these pertain to the acquisition of land in Solan City within the Municipal limits. 8. In rebuttal, on behalf of the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh the following transactions were brought on record and proved :— SI. No. RW No., name, purchaser/seller Document Particulars of land Price per Bigha 1 RW 1 Ved Kumari purchaser Sale deed Ex. R-l 225 sq. mts. Bangai village Katehar Rs. 3,000 at the rate of Rs. 10,200 per Bigha 2. RW 2 Baldev Verma purchaser Sale deed Ex. R-2 14 Bigha 19 Biswas Ghasni 5 Rs. 46,000 at the rate of Rs. 3,500 per Bigha 3. RW 3 Kirpa Ram Seller Sale deed Ex. R-4 754 sq. mts,, Ghasni and Dhank Rs 15,000 at the rate of about Rs. 13,600 per Bigha 4. RW 4 Tulsi Ram Seller Sale deed Ex. R-6 6 Biswas to Dina Nath Rs, 3,000 Sale deed Ex, R-3 11 Biswas to Keshav Ram Rs. 7,000 Sale deed Ex. R-5 4 Biswas to Satya Devi Rs. 3,000 Total 1 Bigha 2 Biswas Ghasni Rs. 13,000 5. RW 5 Keshav Ram purchaser Sale deed Ex. R-3 11 Biswas, Ghasn Rs. 7,000 9. The market value of these lands as per transactions (Ex. R-l to R-6) is of no assistance, as the Land Acquisition Collector had already determined the market value of the acquired land at much higher rates as stated hereinabove Moreover, it is not proved that these lands are comparable with the acquired land. 10. 7,000 9. The market value of these lands as per transactions (Ex. R-l to R-6) is of no assistance, as the Land Acquisition Collector had already determined the market value of the acquired land at much higher rates as stated hereinabove Moreover, it is not proved that these lands are comparable with the acquired land. 10. From the totality of evidence on record, as discussed hereinabove, it is proved that the acquired land is situated in villages Saproon, Kather and Basal at a short distance from Bus Stand, Railway Station and Deputy Commissioners Office. From the map, commonly known as Seh-Hadda-dehat of Mohal Thodo Solan Deh and Mohal Jawahar Park, Solan, the location of the acquired land is as under :— Claimants name From Bus Stand From Railway Station From DC Office Santosh Puri 913 metres 521 metres 642 metres Naraini ! 178 metres 786 metres 907 metres Munshi Ram 1488 metres 1096 metres 1217 metres Bahadur Chand 1512 meties 1120 metres 1141 metres Bhoop Ram 1641 metres 1249 metres 1370 metres Jeet Ram 1930 metres 1538 metres 1659 metres 11 Looking to the location of the acquired land, we have no hesitation to hold that it had the prospects and potentiality of being used for the construction of residential buildings and commercial complex Though, there is no transaction on record which is exactly comparable with the acquired land, yet from sale transactions Ex. PW 6/A and PW 8/A and awards dated 23-2 1979 and 30-6-1982, which pertain to the pieces of land situated in Solan City within the Municipal limits, and the oral evidence, specifically, statement of one of the claimants, namely, Santosh Puri, we may hold that the just and fair market value of the acquired land at the relevant time was about Rs. 40 per square metre or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector as well as the District Judge for land classified as Bangui? Awal The Land Acquisition Collector and the District Judge have determined the market value at a lesser rate for the acquired land, which was classified as Bangar Doem, Bangar Kadim, Ghasni, Cbarand and Gair Mumkin but in our view the classification of acquired land for the agricultural purpose is not relevant looking to the common purpose of acquisition for the construction of road and uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square metre or Rs. 40 per square metre or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha should be awarded irrespective of the classification of the acquired land. Therefore, by accepting the appeal of Bhoop Ram in R. F. A. No. 9 of 1984, we modify the award to the extent that the market value of the acquired land is determined at uniform rate of Rs, 40 per square metre or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha. Though other claimants have not filed any appeal against the award, yet in exercise of our powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code, we order that they will also be awarded compensation for their acquired land at this rate. In the result, the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh are dismissed and impugned award is modified accordingly. 12. We may give reasons for invoking extra-ordinary powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to award uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square metre or Rs 30,000 per Bigha to all the respondents-claimants in these appeals. Though we have dismissed the appeals of the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh, yet we have allowed the appeal of one of the respondents-claimants, namely, Bhoop Ram in R. F A No 9 of 1984 to the limited extent that he will be entitled to compensation for his acquired land at uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square metre or Rs, 30,000 per Bigha, as a result of which the impugned award is modified only in respect of the acquired land of respondent-claimant Bhoop Ram but in respect of other respondents claimants by the same award different rates of market price are awarded according to classification of their acquired land, which creates an anomalous position. Therefore, in order to give just and fair compensation to all the respondents claimants whose lands have been acquired for the same purpose and by the same notification under section 4 of the Act, it is in the interest of justice and fair play to award compensation at the same rate which has been awarded to one of them, namely, Bhoop Ram, without their filing appeal or cross-objections. 13. Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its number of judgments and we may refer to a few of them. 13. Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its number of judgments and we may refer to a few of them. in Panna Lal y. State of Bombay and others, AIR 1963 SC 1516, the learned Judges have held in para.12 :— "(12) Even a bare reading of Order 41, Rule 33 is sufficient to convince any one that the wide wording, was intended to empower the appellate Court to make whatever order it thinks fit, not only as between the appellant and the respondent but also as between a respondent and a respondent. It empowers the appellate Court not only to give or refuse relief to the appellant by allowing or dismissing the appeal but also to give such other relief to any of the respondents m “the case may require" In the present case, if there was no impediment in law the High Court could therefore, though allowing the appeal of the State by dismissing the plaintiffs suits against it, give the plaintiff a decree against any or all the other defendants who were parties to the appeal as respondents. While the very words of the section make this position abundantly clear the illustration puts the position beyond argument” 14. These principles are reiterated in Koksingh v. Smt. Deokabai, AIR 1976 SC 634, wherein the respondent did not appeal from the decree of the trial Court negative her claim in a suit for charge on the property, still the High Court had granted a decree for the enforcement of the charge. Upholding the decree of the High Court, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held that under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code the High Court was competent to pass such a decree in favour of the respondent notwithstanding the fact that the respondent did not file any appeal from the decree., 15, In a later judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahant Dhangir and another v. Shri Madan and others, AIR 1988 SC 54, the learned Judges have further elaborated that :— "...........If the cross-objection filed under Rule 22 of Order 41, C. V: C. was not maintainable against the co-respondent, the Court could consider it under Rule 3 of Order 41, C. P. C, Rule 22 and Rule 33 are not mutually exclusive. They are closely related with each other. They are closely related with each other. If objection cannot be urged under Rule 22 against co-respondent, Rule 33 could take over and come to the rescue of the objector. The appellate Court could exercise the power under Rule 33 even if the appeal is only against a part of the decree of the lower court The appellate Court could exercise that power in favour of all or any of the respondents although such respondent may not have filed any appeal or objection The sweep of the power under Rule 33 is wide enough to determine any question not only between the appellant and respondent, but also between respondent and co-respondent The appellate Court could pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed in the circumstances of the case. The appellate Court could also pass such other decree or order as the case may require. The words "as the case may require” used in Rule 33 of Order 41 have been put in wide terms to enable the appellate Court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice What then should be the constraint? We do not find many. We are not giving any liberal interpretation. The rule itself is liberal enough. The only constraints that we could see may be these: That the parties before the lower court should be there before the appellate Court« The question raised roust properly arise out of judgment of the lower court If these two requirements are there, the appellate Court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or decree of the lower court. It may be urged by any party to the appeal. It is true that the power of the appellate Court under Rule 33 is discretionary, But it is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to determine all questions urged in order to render complete justice between the parties. The court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on mere technicalities” 16. From the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court it is clear that Order 41, Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on Courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are however certain well defined principles to accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. From the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court it is clear that Order 41, Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on Courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are however certain well defined principles to accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally a party who is aggrieved by a decree should file appeal or cross objections against it within a period of limitation, but there are well recognised exceptions to this rule Some of them are : (i) Where as a result of interference in the appeal it becomes necessary to readjust the rights of other parties ; (ii) where the question is one to settle mutual rights and obligations between the same parties and (iii) when relief prayed for is single and indivisible but is claimed against the number of defendants. 17. So far R. F. A No. 60 of 1984 is concerned, the District Judge has already determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 40 per square metre or Rs 30,000 per Bigha for the acquired land measuring 2786 square metres for Bagicha Awal and Bagicha Ghasni belonging to original claimant Matu Ram on the basis of award Ex. RX passed in Land Reference Case of Bhoop Ram. The other evidence on record, specially, awards Ex. PA and PG pertaining to pieces of land in Solan City, within the Municipal limits, are not comparable to the acquired land io respect of locationf time and other relevant factors Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant is not able to satisfy us that the impugned award calls for interference on any ground, as such, we dismiss the appeal. 18. Coining to R. F. A. No. 115 of 1983 wherein market value of the acquired land has been determined at the rate of Rs, 33,308 per biigha for Bangar-va-Bagicha and Rs. 18,185 for Bangar Kadim-va Toda, we may hold that the uniform rate of Rs. 30,000 per Bigha would be awarded for the acquired land irrespective of its classification. 18. Coining to R. F. A. No. 115 of 1983 wherein market value of the acquired land has been determined at the rate of Rs, 33,308 per biigha for Bangar-va-Bagicha and Rs. 18,185 for Bangar Kadim-va Toda, we may hold that the uniform rate of Rs. 30,000 per Bigha would be awarded for the acquired land irrespective of its classification. We find that the District Judge has rightly assessed the oral and documentary evidence on record to hold that it is not of any assistance for determining the market value of the acquired laud being not proximate in respect of location, time and other relevant factors By sale transaction Ex PC, 6 Biswas of land was sold for Rs. 24,000 on 8-11-1978, much later to 12-9-1974 when notification under section 4 of the Act was issued, Awards Ex, PF, PG and PH also pertain to pieces of land situated in Solan City within Municipal limits, whereas, the acquired land at the time of acquisition was in the Panchayat, though at the boundary of the Municipal limits. Therefore, the appeal of the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh is without any merit and is dismissed and the impugned award is modified accordingly. No costs. Appeal dismissed.