Honble SHETHANA J.–These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment as the same are arising out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20.5.1994 delivered in regular first appeals filed by the appellants. (2). In the year 1977, agricultural land of about 2000 bighas of Hanumangarh area was acquired by the Union of India for the defence purpose. Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act) were issued and the possession of the land was taken from the owners of the land on 27.5.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer, Hanumangarh passed the awards on March 27/29, 1979. In almost all the cases references were made within the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Act at the instance of the claimants in the year 1979. However, there was delay in case of Sulochna and Jagroop Singh. Before the Civil Court the claimants produced oral as well as documentary evidence in their favour, but neither the Union of India nor the State of Rajasthan has lead any evidence. Learned Civil Judge, Sriganganagar after hearing the learned counsel for the parties enhanced the amount of compensation from Rs.8000/- to Rs.9000/- per bigha and also awarded interest @ 15% p.a. with solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23 (2) of the Act. Learned Civil Judge also awarded the amount at the rate of 12% p.a. under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. (3). Aggrieved by that the appellants filed in all 14 regular first appeals i.e.F.A. No. 26/91 and allied appeals before the High Court. As stated earlier, the above appeals came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his common judgment and order dated May 20, 1994. The same has been challenged in these appeals. (4). Learned counsel Shri Chaudhary appearing for the appellants in all these appeals raised the following contentions before us:- (i) That the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court committed an error in holding that provisions of Section 23 (1-A) of the Act is applicable in the present case. (ii) That the learned Civil Judge as well as learned Single Judge of this Court committed an error in enhancing the amount @ 30% p.a. u/Sec. 23 (2) of the Act. (ii) That the learned Civil Judge as well as learned Single Judge of this Court committed an error in enhancing the amount @ 30% p.a. u/Sec. 23 (2) of the Act. (iii) The learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Single Judge of this Court committed an error in awarding solatium @ 30% p.a. and the interest at the rate of 15% p.a. (iv) The Civil Judge and the learned Single Judge committed an error in enhan- cing the compensation from Rs. 8000/- to Rs.9000/- per bigha in absence of any evidence led by the claimants. (v) The learned Civil Judge committed an error in entertaining the cases of Sulochana and Jagroop Singh after the expiry of period of limitation, and; (vi) Having accepted the compensation, the claimants were not entitled to get the reference made under Section 18 of the Act before the Civil Court. (5). However, learned counsel Shri K.N. Joshi, R.K. Singhal appearing for the respondents claimants have supported the judgments and orders passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Single Judge of this Court. (6). We will take last submission first, namely, that having accepted the compensation the claimants were not entitled to get the references made under Section 18 of the Act before the Civil Court. It must be stated that this contention was neither raised before the learned Civil Judge nor before the learned Single Judge in regular first appeal, therefore, for the first time in special appeals the app- ellants cannot be permitted to raise this contention. Even on merits this contention has no force because claimants are the persons who are vitally effected in the acquisition proceedings as they have lost their valuable land in the acquisition proceedings which may be for the public purpose. In these hard days the persons would be rather compelled to accept the compensation for their land and there is nothing wrong on the part of the claimants to get the references made before the Civil Court after the award is passed and compensation is accepted. It is a common phenomenon that normally compensation is awarded on a lower side. Merely because the claimants have accepted the compensation that will not preclude them from getting the references made under Section 18 of the Act before the com- petent authority. It is a common phenomenon that normally compensation is awarded on a lower side. Merely because the claimants have accepted the compensation that will not preclude them from getting the references made under Section 18 of the Act before the com- petent authority. Section 18 of the Act nowhere put embargo or prohibit claimants from getting the references made after accepting the compensation amount. Thus, we do not find any force in this contention raised by learned counsel Shri Choudhary for the appellant and it is rejected. (7). Now we will deal with the last but one submission raised by the standing counsel Shri Chaudhary for the appellant, namely that the learned Civil Judge committed an error in entertaining the cases of Sulochna and Jagroop Singh after the expiry of period of limitation. For entertaining their references learned Civil Judge has given good reasons and the learned Civil Judge has rightly rejected this very contention which was raised before him. Infact, we are of the opinion that it does lie good in the mouth of the appellants like Union of India to raise the contention regarding limitation. In case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Kati Ji and others (1) the Apex Court has clearly held that the Court should adopt liberal approach and for adopting such approach reasons have been stated. Co-incidently it was a case filed by the Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag under the Land Acquisition Act itself, wherein, appeal filed by the State of Jammu and Kashmir arising out of the decision of enhancing compensation in respect of acquisition proceedings raising important question as regards principle of valuation was dismissed as time barred by rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In our opinion when substantial justice and technical considerations were pitted against each other then substantial justice must be preferred. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in a even handed manner. In two cases there was delay in making reference, one was of an old lady and another was of an illiterate farmer. We are of the opinion that in such cases the technical objection like limitation ou- ght not to have been even raised by the Union of India particularly when other reference were in time. In two cases there was delay in making reference, one was of an old lady and another was of an illiterate farmer. We are of the opinion that in such cases the technical objection like limitation ou- ght not to have been even raised by the Union of India particularly when other reference were in time. As held by the Apex Court in case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag (Supra) that, ``the Courts have to informed with the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression ``sufficient cause. So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits. Thus, this contention regarding limitation that two references were time barred and ought not to have been entertained is rejected. (8). Another contention raised by learned counsel Shri Chaudhary that the le- arned Civil Judge and the learned Single Judge both committed an error in enhancing the compensation from Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 9000/- per bigha must be rejected. Though, it is argued that it was not open to the learned Civil Judge to enhance the compensation from Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 9000/- per bigha in absence of any evidence, we find that the claimants have not only led oral but also documentary evidence in favour of their contention for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Collector of Rs.8000/- per bigha. Infact, their claim was based on the decision rendered by this Court. This very contention was raised before the learned Single Judge and in our opinion the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the same. This being a special appeal, we cannot interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge of confirming the enhancement in the amount of compensation made by the learned Civil Judge. Hence, this contention raised by learned counsel Shri Chaudhary is also rejected. (9). It was next contended by learned counsel Shri Chaudhary for the appell- ants that the provisions of the Act as amended by the Central Act No.68 of 1984 were no applicable in these cases as the awards were given by the Land Acquisition Officer, Hanumangarh before, April 13, 1982 and as such solatium @ 30% and interest @ 15% could not be granted. This very contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Judge and in our opinion it was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. It was not in dispute before the learned Single Judge that on the basis on which the awards were given by the learned Civil Judge, Sriganganagar, the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 as amended by the Central Act No. 68 of 1984 were applicable. The awards were given by the learned Civil Judge during the period 13.11.1990 to 20.7.1991. According to Section 23(2) and 28 of the Act, the solatium and interest have to be awarded at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. Section 30(2) of the Land Acquisition Act (Amendment) Act, 1984 also provides so. In case of Union of India vs. Filip Tiago De Gama (2) it has been clearly held by the Apex Court that the awards given by the Civil Court on or before coming into force of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 w.e.f.24.9.1984 the provisions of Section 23(2) regarding higher rate of solatium would be applicable. In that case, the award was given by the District Judge on May 28, 1985, after the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 came into force w.e.f.24.9.1984. Learned Single Judge in its judgment at page 5 has quoted para 18 of the aforesaid Supreme Court Judgment in case of Filip Tiago De Gama and held that the learned Civil Judge did not commit any error in awarding solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 15% p.a. under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error. Infact he was bound by the Apex Court judgment. Even, we are bound by the Apex Court Judgment and we also could not have taken any different view of the matter. However, learned counsel Shri Chaudhary relying upon the Supreme Court Judgment in case of K.S. Pariapooranan and others Vs. State of Kerala and others (3) submitted that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the appeals was wrong as the learned Single Judge had no benefit of observations made by the Supreme Court in Pariapoornans case which was decided lateron on September 12, 1994. State of Kerala and others (3) submitted that the view expressed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the appeals was wrong as the learned Single Judge had no benefit of observations made by the Supreme Court in Pariapoornans case which was decided lateron on September 12, 1994. But, our attention was drawn by the learned counsel Shri Joshi for the respondents claimants to the Judgment of Apex Court in case Union of India and another vs. Zora Singh and others (4). It was submitted by learned counsel Shri Joshi that three Judges of the Constitutional Bench by majority cannot overrule the unanimous verdict given by the Bench of three Judges of the Supreme Court. It was further submitted by learned counsel Shri Joshi that in Jora Singhs case (Supra) the Bench of three Judges of Apex Court relied upon the previous judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhag Singh and others vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh (5), which was delivered by a Bench of three Judges. He also submtted that the reference was made in Pariapoornans case by majority judgment and the question was answered and the matters were ordered to be placed before the appropriate Benches for consideration and disposal of the appeals in the light of the order and on the other contentions, if any, raised in the appeals. But, what view was taken by the Bench is not made known to the Court. He submitted that the learned Single Judge relying upon the earlier Judgment of Supreme Court in Zora Singhs case and Filip Tiago De Gama dismissed the appeals and merely because special appeals lie in Rajasthan, therefore, these appeals were admitted and kept lying for all these years. He submitted that if it was filed before the Supreme Court then in view of the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court the matter would have come to an end. He further submitted that the present respondents-claimants cannot be denied benefit which has been given to them by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Single Judge of this Court pursuance to the earlier pronouncement of the Supreme Court. (10). He further submitted that the present respondents-claimants cannot be denied benefit which has been given to them by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Single Judge of this Court pursuance to the earlier pronouncement of the Supreme Court. (10). In case of Union of India and others vs. Godfrey Philips India Limited (6) the Apex Court observed in para 12 of the judgment that, ``We find it difficult to understand how a Bench of two Judges in Jeet Rams case could possibly overturn or disagree with what was said by another Bench of two Judges in Motilal Sugar Mills case. If the Bench of two Judges in Jeet Rams case found themselves unable to agree with law laid down in Motilal Sugar Mills case, they could have referred Jeet Rams case to a larger Bench, but we do not think it was right on their part to express their disagreement with the enunciation of the law by a co-ordinate Bench of the same Court in Motilal Sugar Mills. On the basis of this, it was submitted before us that it was not open for the three Judges of the Constitutional Bench in Pariapoornans case to overrule Zora Singhs case which was also of three Judges and based upon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court which was also of three Judges Bench, particularly when two Judges expressed their contrary view. (11). Learned counsel Shri Joshi, therefore, submitted that this Court is bound by the unanimous judgments of the Supreme Court rather than the majority Judgment. This type of situation is arising for the first time before the Court, therefore, we requested both the learned counsel Shri Joshi for the claimants as well as Shri Chaudhary for the appellants to show any Judgment of the Supreme Court on this point that what course should be adopted by the Court. But, both the learned counsel were unable to cite any judgment of the Supreme Court. Mr. But, both the learned counsel were unable to cite any judgment of the Supreme Court. Mr. Joshi then submitted that even assuming for the sake of arguments that this Court is bound by the majority Judgment of the Constitutional Bench then also in Pariapoornans case to Supreme Court has not given a retrospective effect to the Judgment, therefore, he submitted that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pariapoornans case would be applicable only in future and not in cases which are already decided by the Civil Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on the basis of earlier pronouncement of the Supreme Court in its several Judgments. (12). We have to born in mind that this Court is hearing special appeals and not the regular first appeals. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court is manifestly wrong or the view taken by him is so perverse which calls for the interference by us in these special appeals. We must also state that the awards were passed way back on 27/29.3.79. The poor claimants were compelled to accept the compensation as awarded by the Collector on 29.5.1979. Though the references were made in 1979 itself unfortunately, the cases came to be decided by the Civil Judge only on 20.7.1991 i.e. almost after 12 years. This is an hierarchy of system of which certainly claimants cannot be made to suffer. Though the learned Civil Judge accepted the reference and enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 8000/- to Rs.9000/- per bigha and also awarded interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and solatium at the rate of 30% under Section 23(2) and 12% interest under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act. So far, the claimants have not received the said amount because of the stay operating against them. (13). However, the submission made by the learned counsel Shri Chaudhary that the Civil Court ought not have awarded interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. under Section 23(1-A) of the Act has to be accepted. Infact, learned counsel Shri Joshi and Shri Singhal, who are appearing for the respondent claimants were unable to support the finding arrived at by the Civil Judge as well as the learned Single Judge on this point. Infact, learned counsel Shri Joshi and Shri Singhal, who are appearing for the respondent claimants were unable to support the finding arrived at by the Civil Judge as well as the learned Single Judge on this point. On facts, we are fully convinced that the learned Civil Judge and the learned Single Judge have committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 12 % p.a. under Section 23(1-A) of the Act to the respondent claimants. (14). In view of the above discussion, all these appeals are partly allowed only to the extent that the order passed by the learned civil Judge in all references awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a. under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act and confirmed in regular first appeal by the learned Single Judge is hereby set aside. Rest of the decree passed by the Civil Judge of enhancing compensation amount from Rs. 8000/- to Rs. 9000/- per bigha and awarding interest at the rate of 15% p.a. and solatium at the rate of 30% and confirmed by the learned Single Judge in regular first appeals is hereby confirmed. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs in all these appeals. The parties shall bear their own costs. (15). Stay, if any, granted in all these appeals stands vacated. The compensation amount with interest and solatium, if lying deposited in the court or in the Bank shall now be paid to the respondent claimants forthwith as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge except the amount of 12% interest awarded by the lear- ned Civil Judge under Section 23(1-A) of the Act.