JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 22 as well as Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Also heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General for the State Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. In this appeal the judgment and decree dated 4-12-2009 passed in reference case under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by District and Sessions Judge, Lunglei District, Lunglei is put under challenge. The primary grievance of the Appellants is that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the reference Court behind their back. Lands of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 22 were occupied by the District Collector, Lunglei for establishment of Battalion Headquarters of the Border Security Force (for short, BSF) and accordingly compensation was granted for acquisition of their land without grant of solatium as provided under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Respondents herein (Respondent Nos. 4 to 22) being aggrieved filed an application before the Collector, Lunglei to make a reference to the District Judge for appropriate order. The Collector accordingly made a reference to the District Judge. The reference was inquired into and the learned District Judge, Lunglei passed the impugned judgment and order declared solatium to the tune of Rs. 3,32,41,824.00 (Rupees three crores, thirty two lakhs, forty one thousands, eight hundred twenty four), 30% of the compensation calculated at Rs. 11, 08, 06, 080.00 (Rupees eleven crores, eight lakhs, six thousands eighty) and accordingly directed the Respondents, Union of India to pay the same with interest @ 12% per annum. 3. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel for the Appellants in support of the appeal strenuously argues that the impugned judgment and order cannot stand in law since the same has been passed in absentia of the Appellants. The learned District Judge on reference failed to give an opportunity to the Appellants to contest the reference, which speaks for violation of natural justice. The impugned judgment and order was passed ex-parte, which is liable to be set aside and quashed. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel for the Appellants also contends that the matter may be remanded back after setting aside the impugned judgment and order to facilitate the Appellants to contest the reference. 4. During the course of argument, Mr. The impugned judgment and order was passed ex-parte, which is liable to be set aside and quashed. Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel for the Appellants also contends that the matter may be remanded back after setting aside the impugned judgment and order to facilitate the Appellants to contest the reference. 4. During the course of argument, Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel for the Appellants informs this Court that the entire award computed by the District Collector for acquisition of the lands belonging to the Respondents has been disbursed. The reference was applied by the Respondents herein on account of not adhering the provision of Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. It is an admitted fact that the Respondent Nos. 4 to 22 have not challenged the compensation so calculated on the market value of the lands by the District Collector for acquisition of their lands for establishment of Headquarters of BSF. However, reference was filed by the Respondents being aggrieved for not adhering to the provisions of Section 23(2) being a statutory provision and mandatory in nature. Such solatium is required to be granted in addition to the market value of the land to the extent of 30% in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. 6. In view of the above provision, it is submitted by Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Counsel representing the Respondent Nos. 6 to 22 that it would not be profitable for the Appellants herein to seek a remand of the matter to the reference Court to make a fresh decision in presence of the Appellants. Mr. P.D. Nair, leaned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 22 taking recourse to various decisions submits before this Court that the Union of India and others, the Appellants herein are not person interested within the meaning of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, and therefore, it was not obligatory on the part of the District Judge to serve notice on the Appellants. Mr. Nair submits that three categories of persons are entitled to notice (a) the applicant; (b) all persons interested in the objection except such (if any) of them as have consented without protest to receive payment of the compensation awarded; and (c) if the objection is in regard to the area of the land or to the amount of the compensation, the Collector. The Union of Indian and Others, the Appellants, therefore, do not fall in any of the categories of person indicated hereinbefore. Therefore, no illegality has been committed by the reference Court in not issuing notice to the Appellants. 7. Contrary to the submissions advanced by Mr. P.D. Nair, Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned Counsel for the Appellants relying on the ratio laid down in the case between New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) District Ghaziabad vs. Ram Bal and another, reported in AIR 1991 Allahabad 68 contends that a corporation or a local authority for whom land is acquired is a person interested or a person aggrieved under Section 20(b) of the Act. The land of the Respondent Nos. 4 to 22 having been acquired by the Collector, Lunglei for the Union of India and two others, the Appellants herein, they undoubtedly fall within the expression person interested or person aggrieved. Therefore, the argument advanced by Mr. P.D. Nair cannot sustain that the Appellants are not persons interested or persons aggrieved. 8. Admittedly, the award has not been challenged by the Appellants. On the other hand such award has been fully satisfied by the Appellants herein. Over and above the Respondent Nos. 4 to 22 also did not bring the reference challenging the market value of the lands so computed by the District Collector. Reference was only made on account of not awarding solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act. 9. Now, the most important issue to be decided in this appeal is whether without remanding the matter to the reference Court to facilitate the Appellants herein to contest the reference, the appeal can be disposed of without prejudice to the parties, Appellants in particular. It is already indicated that Sub-Section 2 of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is a statutory provision for grant of solatium at the rate of 30% on the market value of the land in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition and the provision under Section 23(2) is of mandatory in nature. Even if the matter is remanded back to the reference Court it would be a futile exercise on the part of the Appellants in view of Section 23(2) of the Act, 1894. 10. Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 22 vehemently submits that the amount of award on solatium cannot be undermined by any procedural blockades. 10. Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 22 vehemently submits that the amount of award on solatium cannot be undermined by any procedural blockades. The solatium automatically follows the market value of the land acquired and the same is spontaneous in nature. Mr. Nair in this regard lend support from paragraph-7 of the judgment in the case between Narain Das Jain (since deceased ) by L.Rs. vs. Agranagar Mahapalika, Agra, reported in (1991)4 SCC 212 . Paragraph-7 of the judgment reads as under: 7. The importance of the award of solatium cannot be undermined by any procedural blockades. It follows automatically the market value of the land acquired, as a shadow would to a man. It springs up spontaneously as a part of the statutory growth on the determination and emergence of market value of the land acquired. It follows as a matter of course without any impediment. That it falls to be awarded by the Court "in every case" leaves no discretion with the Court in not awarding it in some cases and awarding in others. Since the award of solatium is in consideration of the compulsory nature of acquisition, it is a hanging mandate for the Court to award and supply the omission at any stage where the Court gets occasion to amend or rectify. This is the spirit of the provision, wherever made. 11. Mr. P.D. Nair also submits that the Respondents herein being aggrieved with the award computed by the Collector, Lunglei made an application for reference and therefore, the protest to the award is implicit. Mr. Nair in support of his contention relied on the decision in the case between Steel Authority of India Limited v. Sutni Sangam and other, reported in (2009)16 SCC 1 in paragraph 69, the Apex Court held as under: 69. We may, however, hasten to add that we do not intend to lay down a law that the protest in regard to making of an award must be done in a manner specified expressly. When an application for reference is filed, protest to the award is implicit as has been held by this Court in Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab. 5. Having regard to the contiguity of these lands the High Court is correct in its valuation. Besides, the date of notification, issued under Section 4of the Act, is 4-10-1978 while Ext. When an application for reference is filed, protest to the award is implicit as has been held by this Court in Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab. 5. Having regard to the contiguity of these lands the High Court is correct in its valuation. Besides, the date of notification, issued under Section 4of the Act, is 4-10-1978 while Ext. R-6 is nearer to it, namely, 16-8-1978, in comparison to Ext. A-6 dated 14-1-1977. Inasmuch as the Appellants have filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act that will manifest their intention. Therefore, the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. The District Judge and the High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the Appellants. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to say that the Respondents did not protest the award. Award includes solatium and interest thereon. Solatium having not been granted by the District Collector, the Respondents filed an application for reference, which was heard and disposed of by the reference Court vide impugned judgment and order. 12. According to Mr. P.D. Nair, the learned District and Sessions Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei has not committed any error or illegality in deciding the reference in view of the statutory provision of Section 23(2) of the Act and the same being mandatory in nature. Solatium is bound to be computed at the rate of 30% on the market value of the land in consideration of compulsory nature of acquisition. Therefore, the relief of remand of the matter to the reference Court made by the Appellants herein would be a futile exercise on the part of the reference Court as well as for the Appellants. 13. Taking note of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the statutory provision for grant of solatium, this Court finds no adequate ground to interfere with the judgment and order impugned. 14. Interest is awardable under Section 28 of the Act on the solatium granted under Section23(2) of the Act and such interest can be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from the time of taking possession till the date of payment or deposit. 14. Interest is awardable under Section 28 of the Act on the solatium granted under Section23(2) of the Act and such interest can be calculated at the rate of 9% per annum from the time of taking possession till the date of payment or deposit. If compensation or any part thereof is not paid or deposited within the period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15 per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the period of one year on the amount of compensation or part thereof. It is submitted by Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 22 that learned District Judge committed error and illegality in the grant of interest at the rate of 12% from the date of expiry of 45 days. The interest is required to be awarded as per Section 28 of the Act. Taking note of the submissions advanced by Mr. P.D. Nair, learned Counsel for the Respondents and the provision under Section 28 of the Act, interest at the rate of 9% per annum is granted instead of 12% per annum. The judgment is modified to the extent as indicated above. 15. Appeal is partly allowed. No cost. 16. Send back the LCRs. Appeal allowed.