Judgment : Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they pertain to the lands acquired under the same notification and involve similar question of law. 3. Vide Notification bearing No. RD/LQN/176/71 dated 17/11/1971 issued under section 4(1) of the Land acquisition Act, 1984, (L. A. Act, for short) and published in the Government Gazette on pages no. 245–246 of Series II No. 36 dated 2/12/1971, vast land from various villages was acquired for Salaulim Irrigation Project (Submergence area). This acquisition, inter alia, included lands of the appellants of both the appeals and also of one Shri Narendra Atmaram Nadkarni, from Curpem and Portem villages. By awards dated 29/1/1977 and 24/3/1977, passed under Section 11 of the L. A. Act, respectively in cases no. SLAO/13/77, pertaining to Curpem Village and SLAO/27, pertaining to Portem Village, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.) offered following rate per square metre for following type of land: TYPE OF LAND RATE PER SQ. METRE. (a) Rice (double crop) Rs.1.00 per sq. metre (b) Rice [single (vaigan) crop] Rs. 0.70 per sq. metre (c) Rice [single (Sarad) crop] Rs. 0.60 per sq. metre (d) Coconut garden, Class - I Rs. 0.70 per sq. metre (e) Coconut garden, Class - II Rs.0.60 per sq. metre (f) Cashew garden, Class – I Rs. 0.35 per sq. metre (g) Cashew garden, Class – II Rs. 0.25 per sq. metre (h) Sugarcane Rs. 0.90 per sq. metre (i) Mixed garden and arecanut Rs. 0.50 per sq. metre (j) Bharad Rs. 0.20 per sq. metre (k) Waste and rocky Rs. 0.15 per sq. metre 4. The details of the acquired land of the appellants of First Appeal No. 76/2003 and compensation awarded in terms of said award dated 24/3/1977, passed by the S.L.A.O. in case no. SLAO/27, are as follows: Area of the acquired Compensation Plot No. Nature of land land per sq. metre 10 Sugarcane 94075 sq. mtrs. At the rate of Rs. 0.90 10 Bharad 331425 sq. mtrs. At the rate of Rs. 0.20 10 Mixed trees 297325 sq. mtrs At the rate of Rs. 0.50 At the rate of 10 Ri (singlecrop) 29625 sq. mtrs ceRs.0.60 At the rate of 10 Rocky land 31900 sq. mtrs. Rs. 0.15 5. metre 10 Sugarcane 94075 sq. mtrs. At the rate of Rs. 0.90 10 Bharad 331425 sq. mtrs. At the rate of Rs. 0.20 10 Mixed trees 297325 sq. mtrs At the rate of Rs. 0.50 At the rate of 10 Ri (singlecrop) 29625 sq. mtrs ceRs.0.60 At the rate of 10 Rocky land 31900 sq. mtrs. Rs. 0.15 5. The details of the acquired land of the appellant of First Appeal No. 270/2004 and compensation awarded, in terms of award dated 29/1/1977, passed by S.L.A.O., in case no. SLAO/13/77, are as follows: Area of the Compensation Plot No. Nature of land acquired land per sq. metre At the rate of Coconut 350 sq. mtrs27150 1 Rs. 0.60At the landWaste land sq. mtrs rate of Rs. 0.15 At the rate of 9 Waste land 2800 sq. mtrs. Rs. 0.15 At the rate of 12 Coconut land 2650 sq. mtrs. Rs. 0.60 6. Insofar as, Mr. Narendra Nadkarni is concerned, the acquired land contained paddy land, bharad land, coconut land, adult coconut trees, non-yielding saplings and jack-fruit trees. The details of the land and compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O., vide award dated 29/1/1977, passed by the SLAO, in case no. SLAO/13/77, are as follows: Plot No. Nature of land Area of the acquired land Compensation per sq. metre 11 Coconut land 2775 At the rate of Rs. 0.60 11 Bharadland 2575 At the rate of Rs. 0.20 94 Rice land 7000 At the rate of Rs. 1.00 121 Rice land 700 At the rate of Rs. 1.00 144 Rice land 950 At the rate of Rs. 1.00 The S.L.A.O. further awarded Rs. 1480/- for 17 coconut trees; Rs. 70/- for 8 coconut plants; Rs. 35/- for 1 cashew tree; Rs. 100/-for two jackfruit trees and Rs. 150/- for forest produce, which were in plot no. 11. 7. The appellants of both the above appeals had not filed any application under section 18 of the L. A. Act before the S.L.A.O. However, Mr. Narendra Nadkarni had filed a reference under section 18 of the L. A. Act, which gave rise to L. A. C. No. 387/1981 and by award dated 12/10/1990, the learned District Court enhanced the compensation as under: Rs. 4/- per sq. (A) Paddy (Rice) land metre. Rs. 1/- per sq. (B) Bharadland metre. Rs. 1/- per sq. (C) Coconut land metre. (D) Adult coconut trees Rs. 4/- per sq. (A) Paddy (Rice) land metre. Rs. 1/- per sq. (B) Bharadland metre. Rs. 1/- per sq. (C) Coconut land metre. (D) Adult coconut trees Rs. 250/- per tree None Yielding (E) Rs. 100/- per tree Saplings (F) Jack Fruit trees Rs. 800/- per tree 8. Various interested parties who had not filed any application under Section 18 of the L. A. Act applied to the S.L.A.O., under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, for re-determination of compensation. 9. The appellants of the First Appeal No. 76/2003 had also applied for re-determination of compensation, under Section 28-A of the L. A Act, but by award dated 7/10/1997, passed by the S.L.A.O., in case no. SLAO/SIP-27-III, the rate for Rice land was enhanced to Rs. 4/- per sq. metre and of Bharad land to Rs. 1/- per sq. metre, but his claim in respect of Sugarcane land, Mixed garden land and Rocky land was rejected. The said appellants of First Appeal No. 76/2003 then made an application under section 28-A(3) of the L. A. Act to the S.L.A.O., for reference who, in turn, made the reference to the District Judge which gave rise to L. A. C. No. 113/1999. The appellants examined Mr. Mahesh Naik, the appellant no. 4 as AW 1. He produced the award dated 24/3/1977, passed by the S.L.A.O. under Section 11 of the L. A. Act, in case no. SLAO/27, in respect of their acquired land, as Exhibit 20 and an award dated 20/4/1993, passed by the S.L.A.O., under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, in case no. SLAO/SIP/21-III, as Exhibit 21. The appellants then examined one Mango Gaunkar as AW 2 and one Deu Gaonkar as AW3. 10. By judgment and award dated 2/8/2002, passed in the said L.A.C. no. 113/1999, the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao rejected the said reference. The learned Reference Court held that re-determination had to be made strictly in terms of the award dated 12/10/90, of the District Judge which was, however, not produced by the applicants and that even otherwise the said award of the District Court, as reflected in award dated 7/10/1997, does not show that any enhancement was granted by the District Court either to the rocky land or sugarcane land or the land with mixed trees. It was therefore held that the applicants would not be entitled for any re-determination, since their land was sugarcane land, rocky land and land with mixed trees. Aggrieved thereof, the applicants of the said L. A. C. No. 113/1999 have filed the First Appeal No. 76/2003. 11. The appellants of the First Appeal No. 270/2004 had also made an application under section 28-A of the L. A. Act before the S. L.A.O. and by award dated 16/2/1996, passed in case no. SLAO/SIP/13-III, the S.L.A.O. awarded Rs. 1/- per sq. metre for coconut garden land but refused to enhance compensation with respect to the waste land. The appellants of the said First Appeal No. 270/2004, therefore, filed application under section 28-A(3) before the S.L.A.O. for reference and that gave rise to L. A. C. No. 72/1998. The appellants examined Shri Dinesh Manerkar (the power of attorney holder of the appellant) as AW 1. He produced the award dated 29/1/1977, passed by the S.L.A.O., in case no. SLAO/13/77, under Section 11 of the L. A. Act, in respect of their acquired land, as Exhibit 22, an award dated 17/8/1992, under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, passed by the S.L.A.O, in case no. SLAO/SIP/13-II/13/91-92, as Exhibit 23; an award dated 6/2/1996, passed by the S.L.A.O., under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, in case no. SLAO/SIP/13-II/13/91-92, as Exhibit 24; and an award dated 28/2/1992, passed by S.L.A.O., in case no. SLAO/SIP/21-II/91/T/91-92, under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, as Exhibit 25. 12. By judgment and award dated 4/8/2004, passed in the said L. A. C. No. 72/1998, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, South Goa, Margao, rejected the said reference. The Reference Court held that the redetermination of compensation had to be made on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. The Reference Court found that the applicant had not produced the said award dated 12/10/1990 passed by the District Court. It was further found that even other wise it was clear from the other awards that the District Court in award dated 12/10/1990, had not given enhancement for waste land. It was therefore held that the applicant was not entitled for enhancement for his land which was waste land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the applicants of the said L.A. C. No. 72/1998 have filed the Fist Appeal no. 270/2004. It was therefore held that the applicant was not entitled for enhancement for his land which was waste land. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the applicants of the said L.A. C. No. 72/1998 have filed the Fist Appeal no. 270/2004. 13. The appellants of First Appeal No. 76/2004 have filed Miscellaneous Civil application No. 322/2006 for leave to produce the following documents: (i) Award under section 28-A of the L. A. Act, dated 28/2/1992 of Salaulim village whereby the interested parties have been awarded Rs. 1/- per square metre for mixed garden and mine quarry; (ii) Award dated 12/10/1990 of the District Judge in L. A. C. No. 387/1981; and (iii) Award under section 28-A dated 7/10/1997 whereby the Land Acquisition Officer has rejected the compensation to the appellants in respect of sugarcane land, mixed land and rocky land. 14. Mr. Kakokdar, the learned counsel for the appellants in First Appeal No. 76/2013, insofar as M. C. A. No. 322/2006 is concerned, submitted that the said documents are necessary for determination of the real controversy between the parties and that all the documents have important bearing on the issue of determination of the market value and that they being public documents should be allowed to be produced at this appellate stage. He has relied upon “Union of India V/s. Ibrahim Uddin and another” [ (2012) 8 SCC 148 ]. 15. Mr. Kakodkar, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Lawande, the learned counsel for the respondents no.1(g), 1(h), 1(i), 1(j), 1(k), 1(l), 1(m), 1(p), 1(t)(i), 1(t)(ii),1(u),1(v) & 1(w), in First Appeal No. 76/2003, submitted that the requirement of Section 28-A is that the land should be covered by the same notification and should be similar to the land for which enhancement has been granted by the reference court. They contended that there is no necessity in law that two lands should be identical or should bear the same name. They relied upon “State of Goa & anr. v. Murlidhar Nadkarni,” [ AIR 2006 Bom. 12 ]. They submitted that insofar as the land named as sugarcane land is concerned, there is evidence on record to show that previously it was paddy field and in some portion thereof sugarcane was grown. They, therefore, contended that the nature of the land was rice land and, therefore, they are entitled to Rs. 12 ]. They submitted that insofar as the land named as sugarcane land is concerned, there is evidence on record to show that previously it was paddy field and in some portion thereof sugarcane was grown. They, therefore, contended that the nature of the land was rice land and, therefore, they are entitled to Rs. 4/- per square metre which has been awarded by the District Court in L. A. C. No. 387/1981, for rice land. They further submitted that in terms of Exhibit 21, an award dated 20/4/1993, passed under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act and on the basis of the said judgment dated 12/10/1990, passed by the District Court in L. A. C. No. 387/1981, the rate of Rs. 1/- per square metre was granted by the S.L.A.O. himself for mixed garden land and waste land, whereas, in the present case, no enhancement has been granted with respect to the mixed garden land and rocky land. According to them, since rocky land and waste land were granted the rate of Rs. 0.15, in the original award under Section 11 of the L. A. Act and since subsequently, in the award dated 20/4/1993, the rate of waste land has been enhanced to Rs. 1/- per sq. metre, the appellants are entitled to at least the said rate of Rs. 1/- per sq. metre. They further pointed out that for mines quarry also, in terms of Exhibit 21, Rs. 1/- per sq. metre was granted. According to them, rocky land is bound to be better in quality than the mine quarry. They, therefore, submitted that the appellants and the said respondents are entitled to receive at least Rs. 1/- per sq. metre for rocky land and mixed garden land. They also submitted that the appellants and said respondents are entitled to enhancement in the value of trees as per the judgment of the District Court in L. A. C. 387/1981. The learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents no.1(g), 1(h), 1(i), 1(j), 1(k), 1(l), 1(m), 1(p), 1(t)(i), 1(t)(ii),1(u),1(v) & 1(w), therefore, submitted that the appeal should be allowed. They have relied upon “V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited and another” reported in [ (2010) 10 SCC 650 , wherein the purpose of Section 28-A of the L. A. Act has been explained. They have relied upon “V. Ramakrishna Rao Vs. Singareni Collieries Company Limited and another” reported in [ (2010) 10 SCC 650 , wherein the purpose of Section 28-A of the L. A. Act has been explained. Their further grievance is that no interest on solatium has been granted though they are legally entitled to the same. In this regard, they have relied upon “Sunder Vs. Union of India” [ (2001) 7 SCC 211 ]. They, therefore, urged that interest on solatium be also ordered to be granted. 16. Mr. Rodrigues, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2, in First Appeal no. 76/2003, submitted that re-determination of compensation under section 28-A of the L. A. Act can be made only on the basis of judgment of reference court under section 18. He further submitted that the object of Section 28-A of the L. A. Act is to aid a particular class of society namely the poor, illiterate, ignorant, and inarticulate people and since the appellants are not persons falling in the said category, they cannot be given benefit of section 28-A of the L.A. Act. In this regard, he relied upon “Girimallappa Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer “ [ (2012) 11 SCC 548 .]. According to him, even otherwise, there is no sufficient evidence on record to establish the similarity of two kinds of land. 17. Mr. Ramani, the learned Counsel for the appellant in First Appeal No. 270/2004, submitted that the question of appellant not being falling in the category of persons who can apply for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, was never raised before the S.L.A.O. as also before the Reference Court and there is no evidence on record, on this count. He therefore submitted that the Judgment in the case of “Girimallappa” (supra) is not applicable. He canvassed that the redetermination had to be done by considering the close similarity and proximity of lands. He also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of “Murlidhar Nadkarni” and contended that it is not necessary for claiming re-determination under Section 28-A that the land in case of a person claiming re-determination of compensation is exactly identical to the land for which award has been passed by the Court. He submitted that the award dated 28/2/1992 was relevant since the S.L.A.O. has awarded Rs. He submitted that the award dated 28/2/1992 was relevant since the S.L.A.O. has awarded Rs. 1/- per square metre for the waste land, on the basis of the judgment of the District Court dated 12/10/90, though waste land was not subject matter of that case. He urged that the Reference Court ought to have held that the S.L.A.O. could not have made a discrimination between the appellant and the other interested parties covered by the same notification. He submitted that there is clear inequality in the payment of compensation for similar type of land to different interested persons and such inequality cannot be allowed to remain. 18. Mrs. Linhares, learned Additional Government Advocate, on behalf of the respondent in First Appeal No. 270/2004, submitted that the application under section 28-A filed by the appellants was after the period of limitation of three months. In this regard she has relied upon “ Union of India and anr. Vs. Pradeep Kumari and others ” [ (1995) 2 SCC 736 ]. She pointed out that in the present case the appellants are relying upon the awards of the Special Land Acquisition Officer when the requirement of section 28-A of the L. A Act is to re-determine compensation on the basis of judgment of the reference court under section 18 of the L.A. Act. In this regard, she has relied upon “ Bhagti V. State of Haryana” , reported in AIR 1997 SC 1793 . She pointed out that in the Land Acquisition Case the appellants deliberately did not produce the award dated 12/10/1990 passed in L. A. C. No. 387/1981, since waste land was not included in the said case. She submitted that the claimant is bound to produce all the material. She relied “ Chimanlal Hargovindas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer” [AIR 1988 SCC 1652]. Learned Government Advocate therefore urged that the appeal is liable to be rejected. 19. I have gone through the original record and proceedings of the L. A. C. No. 114/1999 and also of L. A. C. No. 72/1998. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also the judgments relied upon by them. The question is whether the appellants are entitled to receive compensation is prayed for and for interest on solatium. 20. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also the judgments relied upon by them. The question is whether the appellants are entitled to receive compensation is prayed for and for interest on solatium. 20. Insofar as M. C. A. No. 322/2006 is concerned, the appellants of First Appeal No. 76/2003 want to rely upon the award dated 28/2/1992, passed by the S.L.A.O. in case no. SLAO/SIP/21-II/91/T/91-92, under section 28-A of the L. A. Act for showing that some interested persons were given enhanced compensation for land which is similar to the land of the appellants. This award has been already produced in L. A. C. No. 72/98 at Exhibit 25. They further want to produce the award dated 12/10/1990 passed by the learned District Judge in L. A. C. No. 387/1981, since their claim is based on this award and a reference to the same has been made in the above award dated 28/2/1992. Lastly, they want to produce the award dated 7/10/1997 under section 28-A of L. A. Act, passed by the S.L.A.O. in respect of the acquired land of the appellants and about which reference has been made in the impugned Judgment and award. This award is otherwise in the records of the reference made by the S.L.A.O.. All the above are public documents, the contents of which are well within the knowledge of the respondents and all pertain to the lands acquired for Salaulim Irrigation project under the same notification published under Section 4(1) of the L. A. Act, which is published on 2/12/1977. The genuineness of the said documents cannot be disputed. The awards are made by the respondent no. 1 himself. No further evidence is required to be led by the parties for considering these documents. The respondents have not filed any reply resisting this application. I do not see any ground for rejecting the application, as the said awards are necessary to be considered for determination of the true market value so that there is no inequality. 21. In view of the above, the M. C. A. No. 322/2006 is allowed. The appellants of First Appeal No. 76/2003 are permitted to produce and rely upon the documents enlisted in the application. The said documents shall be taken into consideration. 22. 21. In view of the above, the M. C. A. No. 322/2006 is allowed. The appellants of First Appeal No. 76/2003 are permitted to produce and rely upon the documents enlisted in the application. The said documents shall be taken into consideration. 22. Section 28-A of the L. A. Act reads as under: “Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. -(1) where in an award under this part, the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the collector under section 11, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the Court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court: Provided that in computing the period of three months within which an application to the Collector shall be made under this sub-section, the day on which the award was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the award shall be excluded. (2) The Collector shall, on receipt of an application under sub-section (1), conduct an inquiry after giving notice to all the persons interested and giving them a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and make an award determining the amount of compensation payable to the applicants. (3) Any person who has not accepted the award under sub-section (2) may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court and the provisions of sections 18 to 28 shall, so far as may be, apply to such reference as they apply to a reference under section 18.” 23. In the case of “Pradeep Kumari and others” (supra), it has been held that the limitation prescribed for making application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of L. A. Act begins to run from the date of making of award on the basis of which re-determination is sought. In the case of “Pradeep Kumari and others” (supra), it has been held that the limitation prescribed for making application for re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of L. A. Act begins to run from the date of making of award on the basis of which re-determination is sought. It has been further held that benefit of re-determination can be availed of on the basis of any one of the awards made by the Court after coming into force of Section 28-A and right of re-determination is not confined to the earliest award made by the Court. In L. A. C. 72/1998, with respect to which the objection of limitation is raised now by Mrs. Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate, a suggestion was made to AW1 that the applicant had not made any application prior to the current application filed by him at Exhibit 2. The application at Exhibit 2 was for reference under Section 28-A(3) of the L. A. Act and such application could have been filed only upon the passing of the award under Section 28-A by the S.L.A.O. It was not the case of the respondent that the application under Section 28-A was filed by the applicant before the S.L.A.O. beyond the period of limitation. No such suggestion has been put to AW1 and the respondent has not examined anybody. There is no force in the objection regarding limitation. 24. In the case of “V. Ramakrishna Rao” (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: Section 28-A of the Land acquisition Act, 1894, represents the legislature’s determination to ensure that the goal of equality enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 38, 39 and 46 thereof is translated into reality, at least in the matter of payment of compensation to those who are deprived of their land for the benefit of the State, its instrumentalists/agencies and even private persons. Section 28-A also represents statutory embodiment of the doctrine of equality in matters relating to the acquisition of land. The Land Acquisition Act has the potential of depriving a large segment of the society i.e. the “agriculturist” of their only source of livelihood. Section 28-A also represents statutory embodiment of the doctrine of equality in matters relating to the acquisition of land. The Land Acquisition Act has the potential of depriving a large segment of the society i.e. the “agriculturist” of their only source of livelihood. The scheme of Section 28-A provides some solace to this segment of the society by ensuring that such of the landowners whose land was acquired under the same notification but who could not, on account of poverty, ignorance and other disabilities join others in seeking reference under Section 18 get an opportunity to claim compensation on par with others. This section is aimed at removing inequality in the payment of compensation in lieu of acquisition of land under the same notification. Of course, this opportunity can be availed of by filing application within the prescribed period.” 25. In the case of “ Murlidhar Nadkarni” (supra), learned Single Judge of this Court has held as follows: “9. The primary object underlying the enactment of Section 28-A is to remove inequality in the payment of compensation for same or similar quality of land arising on account of the expropriated owner not being able to take advantage of the right of reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. Section 28-A provides an opportunity to the aggrieved party whose land is covered by the same notification to seek re-determination once any one of the expropriated owners has obtained order for payment of higher compensation from the reference Court under Section 18. The provision incorporated in Section 28-A is a beneficial legislation and that has to be kept in mind while dealing with the case of re-determination of the compensation thereunder. The provision incorporated in Section 28-A is a beneficial legislation and that has to be kept in mind while dealing with the case of re-determination of the compensation thereunder. On analysis of Section 28-A(1), it would be seen that a person could apply for re-determination of the amount of compensation payable to him provided he satisfies the following conditions : (one) that with regard to the acquisition of the land under the same notification, an award has been made by the Court under Part III after the coming into force of Section 28-A; (two) that the Court in such award has awarded the amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11; (three) that the person applying under Section 28-A is the person interested inasmuch as his land has been acquired under the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the award of the Court related; (four) that the person moving the application under Section 28-A did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18; (five) that the application is within time and (six) that no application under Section 28-A for redetermination by the applicant has been made earlier. 10. Section 28-A, thus, provides a right to the expropriated owner to claim re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court. The award that has been passed by the Court in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11 is the basis on which the interested person moves the application under Section 28-A and seeks re-determination. It is not necessary for claiming re-determination under Section 28-A that the land in case of a person claiming re-determination of compensation awarded under Section 11 is exactly identical to the land for which the award has been passed by the Court. A close similarity and proximity to the award passed by the Court is sufficient to entitle a person interested in the land covered by the same notification under Section 4(1) to which the said award relates to apply for re-determination. Section 28-A postulates re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court made in favour of another. But that does not mean that factually and actually the land must be exactly similar. A close similarity and proximity is enough for an application for re-determination under Section 28-A. 11. Section 28-A postulates re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the Court made in favour of another. But that does not mean that factually and actually the land must be exactly similar. A close similarity and proximity is enough for an application for re-determination under Section 28-A. 11. In the case of BabuRam and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Anr., the Apex Court held that Section 28-A was a complete code in itself providing a substantive right to an interested owner to claim compensation on the basis of the award to his neighbor covered by the same notification under Section 4(1). Section 28-A lifts the rigour of the bar created by Section 18(1) and the second proviso to Section 31. The Supreme Court further observed that even payment of compensation under Section 23(1) is varied, based on same quality of the land capable to fetch same price or value of the land situated in close proximity and payment of market value is not uniform.” 26. No doubt, it is true that the object of Section 28-A of the L. A. Act is to aid poor, illiterate, ignorant and inarticulate people as observed by the Apex Court in the case of “ Girimallappa ”, (supra). The fact of maintainability of application under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, on the ground that the appellants do not fall in the category of the persons for whose benefit said the provision has been made, was neither raised before the S.L.A.O. nor before the Reference Court in both the cases and even in the present appeals, the Memoranda of appeal do not have this as one of the grounds of objection. In the present cases, there is also no evidence showing that the appellants do not fall in the class of society which can get benefit of Section 28-A of the L. A. Act. The said judgment in the case of “ Girimallappa ” (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. 27. In the present cases, there is also no evidence showing that the appellants do not fall in the class of society which can get benefit of Section 28-A of the L. A. Act. The said judgment in the case of “ Girimallappa ” (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases. 27. Various land owners, whose lands were acquired under the same notification and who had not applied for reference under section 18 of the L.A. Act approached the S.L.A.O., under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, for redetermination of compensation on the basis of the award dated 12/10/1990 passed by the District Court in the L. A. C. No. 387/1981 of Narendra Nadkarni. The S.L.A.O., by award dated 20/04/1990 (which is produced as Exhibit 21 in L.A.C. No. 113/1999) redetermined the compensation as follows: 1. Bharadland Rs. 1/- per sq.metre. 2. Cashew land Rs. 1/- per sq.metre. 3. Mixed garden Rs. 1/- per sq.metre. 4. Waste land Rs. 1/- per sq.metre. 5. Coconut land Rs. 1/- per sq.metre. 6. Mines quarry Rs. 1/- per sq.metre. 7. Paddy land Rs. 4/- per sq.metre. 8. Coconut tree Rs. 250/-per tree 9. Coconut plant Rs. 100/-per tree 10. Jack fruit tree Rs. 800/-per tree 28. No doubt in both the Land Acquisition Cases, the award dated 12/10/1990 passed by the District Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 387/1981 has not been produced. But there is no dispute that the claimants of both the cases had sought re-determination of compensation under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act based on the said award dated 12/10/1990 passed in L. A. C. No. 387/1981. The L.A.O., who dealt with the claims of the claimants in both the cases, under Section 28-A of the L.A. Act, had before him the said award dated 12/10/1990. Be that as it may, in the First Appeal No. 76/03, this Court has allowed the Misc. Civil application No. 322 of 2006, thereby granting leave to the appellants to produce and rely upon the said award dated 12/10/1990. There is no dispute that in the said L. A. C. No. 387/1981, the amount of Rs. 0.20 granted by S.L.A.O. for Bharad land, has been enhanced by the District judge to Rs. 1/- per square metre. Civil application No. 322 of 2006, thereby granting leave to the appellants to produce and rely upon the said award dated 12/10/1990. There is no dispute that in the said L. A. C. No. 387/1981, the amount of Rs. 0.20 granted by S.L.A.O. for Bharad land, has been enhanced by the District judge to Rs. 1/- per square metre. It is true that there is no mention of waste land, rocky land or mixed garden land in this award dated 12/10/1990. It should be kept in mind that lands are not defined in the L. A. Act, by their nature like rice land, cashew land, bharad land, waste land, rocky land , mixed garden land, mines quarry land, etc.. As has been held by this Court in the case of “ Murlidhar Nadkarni” (supra), it is not necessary for claiming re-determination under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act that the land in case of a person claiming re-determination is exactly identical to the land for which award has been passed by the Court. A close similarity and proximity to the land of that award is sufficient. In the case of “ Murlidhar Nadkarni” (supra), there was no Bharad land but there was cashew land admeasuring 1400 square metres for which compensation at the rate of Rs. 00.75 per square metre was granted by the S.L.A.O. in the award under Section 11 of the L. A. Act whereas the Reference Court in L. A. C. No. 264 of 1993 had enhanced the same to Rs. 1/- per square metre based on the said award dated 12/10/1990 passed by the District Court in L. A. C. No. 387/1981 wherein Rs. 1/- per square metre was granted for Bharad land. The finding of the Reference Court has been maintained. Therefore, cashew land and Bharad land can be held to be similar type of lands. 29. In the Case No. SLAO/SIP/13-II/13/91-92, by award dated 17/08/1992 which is produced as Exhibit 23 in L. A. C. No. 72 of 1998, the S.L.A.O., under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, based on the said award dated 12/10/1990 of the District Court in L. A. C. No. 387/1981, has re-determined the compensation for cashew land and sugar cane land at Rs. 1/- per square metre. 30. 1/- per square metre. 30. In the case No. SLAO/SIP/21-II/91/T/91-92, by award dated 28/02/1992 which is at Exhibit 25 in the said L. A. C. No. 72 of 1998, the S.L.A.O., under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, based on the same award dated 12/10/1990 of the District Court in L. A. C. No. 387/1981, has enhanced compensation of cashew land, mixed garden land and waste land at Rs. 1/- per square metre. 31. However by subsequent award dated 07/10/1997, passed under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, in Case No. SLAO/SIP-27-III, the S.L.A.O. has rejected the claim of the appellants of First Appeal No. 76 of 2003 for enhancement of compensation in respect of mixed garden land and sugarcane land. 32. Then in the Case No. SLAO/SIP/13/133/1977, by award dated 16/02/1996 passed under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, the S.L.A.O. has rejected the claim of the appellants of First Appeal No. 270 of 2004 in respect of waste land. 33. In my view, when the Government has earlier held that market rate of Bharad land, Cashew land, Mixed Garden land, Sugarcane land and Waste land is Rs. 1/- per square metre, based on the award dated 12/10/1990, passed by the learned District Judge in L. A. C. 387/1981, it cannot refuse the same rate of Rs. 1/-per square metre for same type of land belonging to the appellants of both the cases. When the same compensation is given to such lands on the basis of the award of the District Judge, it only means that the lands were found by the S.L.A.O. to be similar in nature. Therefore, there ought not to have been discrimination in case of appellants. Parity has to be there and inequality is bound to be removed. 34. Insofar as the appellants of First Appeal No. 76 of 2003 are concerned, they claim Rs. 4/- per square metre for sugarcane land on the ground that the same was previously used for cultivation of paddy. In this regard, the learned Reference Court, in L. A. C. 113/1999, has observed that assuming the applicants are entitled to lead evidence as regards classification of the acquired land, then also the evidence led on behalf of the applicants, in that regard, is far from convincing. The award dated 07/10/1997 reveals that the acquired land could not be inspected as it was submerged under water. The award dated 07/10/1997 reveals that the acquired land could not be inspected as it was submerged under water. It was found that according to AW1 Shri Naik, the area of 94075 square metres, which was classified by the S.L.A.O. as land used for sugarcane, was earlier a paddy field, since surrounding the said area of sugarcane plantation, they were cultivating paddy. The learned Reference Court further found that in cross-examination, AW 1 has stated that he did not have any document to show that the land, which he is using for sugarcane was previously used for rice cultivation. The learned Reference Court has observed that according to AW 2-Mangho Gaonkar, sugarcane was being cultivated in a small area and the applicants had also allowed the said Patil to cultivate sugarcane. It was further found that AW2 further stated that he did not remember in which year Patil was allowed to cultivate the same and he further showed his ignorance and stated that he could not say as to what was the area in square metres in which paddy was cultivated. It was found that in his cross-examination, AW 2 stated that little sugarcane was being cultivated to make jaggery. AW 2 further stated that Patil used to sell his sugarcane either to the Sugarcane Factory at Dharbandora or extract the jaggery out of it. AW2 could not say that the portion which was cultivated with sugarcane, was the same which was given to Patil to cultivate sugarcane. Insofar as AW 3 is concerned, he has stated that a major portion of the applicants' property was used for paddy cultivation and a smaller portion for sugarcane cultivation. In the examination-in-chief, AW 3 stated that he did not know the area in which Ramnath Naik was cultivating sugarcane and that he also did not know by approximation as to how much area of sugarcane was being cultivated. AW3 further stated that he did not know as to what was the area under paddy cultivation and what was the area under sugarcane cultivation. AW3 further stated that he did not know as to what was the area under paddy cultivation and what was the area under sugarcane cultivation. The learned Reference Court has held that from the type of evidence the applicants have led, it is not possible to come to the conclusion, assuming such a conclusion could be arrived at in these proceedings, that the L. A. O. at the time of the award dated 24/03/1977 had wrongly classified the land of the applicants or that the L. A. O. ought to have classified a larger area for paddy field then what he actually did. A reappraisal of the evidence on record reveals that what has been held by the learned Reference Court as above is proper and there is no chance for any other interpretation. There is absolutely no evidence on record to hold that the sugarcane land and paddy field land (Rice land) are identical or even similar to each other. Therefore, the question of granting Rs. 4/- per square metre to the sugarcane land does not arise. But, in view of the award dated 17/8/1992, passed by the S.L.A.O., in Case no. SLAO/SIP/13-II/13/91-92 under Section 28-A of the L. A. Act, wherein the rate of Sugarcane land has been enhanced to Rs. 1/- per square metre, based on the said rate given for Bharad land in Award dated 12/10/1990 in L. A. C. 387/1981, the appellants of First Appeal No 76/2003 are entitled to the rate of Rs. 1/-per square metre for Sugarcane land. 35. In the original award under section 11 of the L. A. Act, the waste land and rocky land were awarded Rs. 0.15 per square metre. Subsequently, during re-determination under Section 28-A of L. A. Act, the rate of waste land and mine quarry has been enhanced to Rs. 1/- per square metre. In so far as rocky land admeasuring 31,900 square metres belonging to the appellants of the First Appeal No. 76 of 2003, is concerned, it is contended by learned Counsel that such land cannot be held to be lesser in value than mine quarry land. I am inclined to hold that rocky land cannot be lesser in value than waste land and Mine quarry. Therefore the rate for rocky land cannot be less than Rs. 1/- per square metre. 36. I am inclined to hold that rocky land cannot be lesser in value than waste land and Mine quarry. Therefore the rate for rocky land cannot be less than Rs. 1/- per square metre. 36. In the First Appeal No. 76 of 2003, the appellants have also claimed re-determination of compensation in respect of various trees. However, it is seen from the record and proceedings that the appellants had not made any claim for re-determination, in respect of trees, before the S.L.A.O. or even before the learned Reference Court. No issue regarding re-determination of the compensation of trees was framed by the learned Reference Court. In such circumstances, the appellants of First Appeal No. 76 of 2003 cannot be held to be entitled to any further compensation in respect of trees. 37. In the case of “Sunder V/s. Union of India” , reported in [(2001) 7 SCC 2011], the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that solatium under Sub-Section (2) of Section 23 of the L. A. Act is part of awarded amount for purposes of grant of interest. It is therefore, well settled law that parties are entitled for interest on solatium also. 38. The observation of the learned Reference Court in the Land Acquisition Case No. 72 of 1998 that the claimant has come before the Court on the basis of re-determined award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of other applicants and other lands acquired under the same Notification and not on the basis of award passed by District Court in Nadkarni's Case, is not correct. The reference application made before the learned S.L.A.O. specifically mentions that the applicant is claiming redetermination of compensation on the basis of the award dated 12/10/1990 passed by the District Court in L.A.C. No. 387 of 1981. Since the S.L.A.O. did not grant the compensation as prayed for, the applicant made reference under Section 28-A (3) of the L. A. Act and the S.L.A.O. has made reference to the Reference Court. Therefore, the reference is also based on the same award of the District Court in L. A. C. No. 387 of 1981. The other awards under Section 28-A have been produced by the applicants for comparison to show that the S.L.A.O. has awarded same compensation for similar lands in respect of other interested persons. 39. Therefore, the reference is also based on the same award of the District Court in L. A. C. No. 387 of 1981. The other awards under Section 28-A have been produced by the applicants for comparison to show that the S.L.A.O. has awarded same compensation for similar lands in respect of other interested persons. 39. In view of the discussion supra, the impugned judgment and award in both the cases are liable to be quashed and set aside as the same are not in accordance with the settled principles of law. 40. In the result, both the appeals are allowed, in the following terms: (a) The impugned judgment and award in both the Land Acquisition Cases are quashed and set aside. (b) The appellants of First Appeal No. 76 of 2003 are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 1/- per square metre in respect of rocky land admeasuring 31,900 square metres of plot no.10; mixed garden land admeasuring 2,97,325 square metres of plot no.10 and to the area of sugarcane land to which they are entitled. (c) The appellants of First Appeal No. 270 of 2004 are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 1/- per square metre in respect of waste land admeasuring 27,150 square metres from plot no.1 and 2,800 square metres of land from plot no. 2. (d) The appellants of both the appeals shall be entitled to all the statutory benefits including interest on solatium. (e) Amount already paid shall be adjusted. (f) Both the appeals stands disposed of accordingly.