JUDGMENT : - Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals and cross-objections, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These appeals and cross-objections are directed against the award dated 29.9.2007 made by the District Judge, Bilaspur. 3. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of these appeals and cross-objections are that the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 1.10.1992. Public notice of substance was given at conspicuous places in the locality by Land Acquisition Collector and the objections were invited. The notification was published in the Himachal Pradesh Rajpatra on 17.10.1992 and in Dainik Tribune on 16.10.1992. Himachal Pradesh Government issued declaration under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and directed the Land Acquisition Collector (Industries), Bilaspur to take further proceedings to acquire the land under section 7 of the Land Acquisition Act vide order dated 30.4.1993. Public notice of the substance of the declaration was also given at the conspicuous and convenience places in the locality. The notification was also published in Jansatta on 10.5.1993 and in Hindi Milap on 11.5.1993. It was also got published in Rajpatra on 10.5.1993. The land was got measured in the presence of inhabitants. Site plan was also prepared. Notices under sections 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued to the interest holders on 5.9.1994 and 10.10.1994 requiring them to file their claims, if any, of compensation for their respective interest of the Land Acquisition Collector. Some of the interest holders filed certain documents in support of their respective claims. They claimed Rs.six lakhs per bigha of land and additional amount in lieu of buildings, fruits and plants and other facilities. The Land Acquisition Collector also visited the spot to look into the prevailing annual average market price of the land. He found that certain people have purchased land @ Rs.7,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per biswa of land. The ACC factory was already in existence for the last 15 years. In the adjoining areas of Barmana, Berri, Lagat and Nalag, big commercial centres have developed and the land was fetching very high prices. The land also contained valuable lime stone etc. Local people had to shift their residence to far off and inconvenience places. The ACC factory was already in existence for the last 15 years. In the adjoining areas of Barmana, Berri, Lagat and Nalag, big commercial centres have developed and the land was fetching very high prices. The land also contained valuable lime stone etc. Local people had to shift their residence to far off and inconvenience places. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the total compensation for the land trees, houses/structures as per award dated 29.4.1995. The assessment of value of houses/structures was got done through the HPPWD. The valuation of trees was got done through the Forest Department and fruit bearing trees by the Horticulture Department. The acquisition of land pertained to villages, namely, Baloh 135-11 bighas, Dhaon Kothi 67-19 bighas and Panjgain 37-06, total 240.16 bighas. Land of the claimants was acquired for ACC factory. Claimants preferred reference petitions before the Land Acquisition Collector. He referred the matter to the learned District Judge. These were registered as Land Reference Petitions. All the Land Reference Petitions were clubbed with Land Reference Petition No.51 of 2003. Learned District Judge enhanced the market value of the acquired land at the flat rate of Rs.10,000/- per biswa and the market value of acquired houses by giving increase of 10% on the amount as awarded in the award. They were also held entitled to statutory benefits as per law. Hence, the present appeals. Claimants-cross-objectors have also filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the market value of the land and the houses situated on it. 4. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that learned District Judge, Bilaspur has not taken into consideration the principles laid down for acquiring the land. According to him, District Judge has wrongly relied upon Ex.PA award made in Land Reference Petition No. 40/1997 rendered by District Judge on 27.6.2002. He has also contended that the assessment made by the P.W.D. authorities should have been accepted instead of increasing the rate by 10% on the amount for the acquisition of the houses. He has also contended that the deposit of lime stone was not ground for determining the price of the land. According to him, sale deeds have not been duly proved. He has further contended that these were not bona fide. He has lastly contended that statements of PW-1 and PW-2 could not be relied upon for raising 10% of the amount. 5. Mr. According to him, sale deeds have not been duly proved. He has further contended that these were not bona fide. He has lastly contended that statements of PW-1 and PW-2 could not be relied upon for raising 10% of the amount. 5. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that learned District Judge has not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence correctly. He has also contended that the value of the land was more than assessed by the District Judge. He has further contended that District Judge should have granted increase by 30% on the amount awarded in the award dated 29.4.1995 for the acquisition of the houses. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Ram Dittu has deposed that his land alongwith land of other claimants was acquired for the ACC factory. Land was acquired from villages Nalag, Khatehar, Barmana, Dhaun Kothi, Baloh, Panjgain etc. All the lands were same. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded meagre amount. Boundaries of these villages adjoin each other. Land is situated at a distance of one furlong from the National Highway. Water is available. There are school, hospital, veterinary hospital and post office near the land. They have to construct new houses. Value of the land was Rs.20 lakhs per bigha. Land of villages Chamyog, Jamkal and Kasaul which adjoins their village was acquired for the construction of Kol Dam. The claimants have got Rs.30,000/- per biswa. Quality of their land was better vis-à-vis land of villages Chamyog, Jamkal and Kasaul. Land of Hariman of village Dhaun Kothi was also acquired under the same notification and the award was also made whereby a sum of Rs.10,000/- per biswa was awarded. He has also given the instances of the land sold by the vendors to the vendees on higher rates. According to him, amount warded for the houses was meagre. They have claimed Rs.ten lakhs towards compensation. 8. PW-2 Gurmeet Singh Kaundal has assessed the value of the houses of the claimants. He has proved Ex.PW-2/A to Ex.PW-2/Z. He has prepared the value reports as per HPPWD schedule of rates of 1987. He has visited the spot and thereafter prepared the value reports. In his cross-examination, he has admitted he has not obtained degree in Civil Engineering. He was only diploma holder. He has proved Ex.PW-2/A to Ex.PW-2/Z. He has prepared the value reports as per HPPWD schedule of rates of 1987. He has visited the spot and thereafter prepared the value reports. In his cross-examination, he has admitted he has not obtained degree in Civil Engineering. He was only diploma holder. He has admitted that he has visited the spot for the first time in the month of December, 1996 and before that he has not visited the spot. He has visited the spot for one month. He has measured the houses shown by the parties. Patwari Halqua and Ward Members were also present. He has admitted that he has not taken the demarcation from the Patwari. He has also admitted that no representative of the factory was available with him at that time. He has also admitted that Ex.PW-2/A to Ex.PW-2/Z have been produced by him for the first time in the court on 21.9.2006 alongwith Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-27 on 30.10.2006. He has also admitted that norms have been prescribed for calculating the age of building. 9. The claimants have relied upon sale deed dated 25.10.1991 Ex.PB whereby Sukh Ram has sold three biswas of land situated in village Khater in favour of Kumari Raj Rani for Rs.54,000. Ex.PC is attested copy of sale deed dated 2.9.1992 vide which Narinder Kumar, General Attorney of Smt. Sarojani Devi, has sold two biswas of land situated in village Khater to Sh. Gian Chand, Purshotam Lal and Puran Chand for Rs.72,500/-. Ex.PD is attested copy of sale deed dated 18.4.1992 vide which Kuldip has sold one biswa of land situated in village Panjgain to Amru Ram for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Ex.PE is the attested copy of sale deed dated 14.6.1990 vide which Gambhira has sold one biswa of land situated in village Baloh to Sukhdev for Rs.11,000/-. Ex.PF is the attested copy of sale deed dated 14.6.1990 vide which Sukh Ram son of Sh. Bhagat Ram has sold three biswa of land situated in village Khater to Raj Rani for Rs.54,000/-. Ex.PG is the attested copy of sale deed dated 14.6.1990 vide which Gambhira has sold one biswa of land in favour of Ranjit Singh situated in village Baloh for Rs.11,000/-. 10. The appellants have relied upon Ex.R-1 dated 7.8.1989 and Ex.R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-9 attested copies of sale deeds dated 23.7.1990, 6.11.1990, 6.11.1990, 9.11.1990, 30.11.1990 and 14.12.1990. Ex.PG is the attested copy of sale deed dated 14.6.1990 vide which Gambhira has sold one biswa of land in favour of Ranjit Singh situated in village Baloh for Rs.11,000/-. 10. The appellants have relied upon Ex.R-1 dated 7.8.1989 and Ex.R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-8, R-9 attested copies of sale deeds dated 23.7.1990, 6.11.1990, 6.11.1990, 9.11.1990, 30.11.1990 and 14.12.1990. As far as sale deed Ex. R-1 is concerned Chhangu Ram has sold one biswa of land situated in village Baloh for Rs.5,500/- in favour of Rattan Lal. Ex.P-7 is the attested copy of sale deed dated 17.1.1990. According to Ex.R-10, Krishan has sold one biswa of land to Sh. Varinder Kumar for Rs.2500/- on 13.3.1990. Krishanu has sold one biswa of land situated in village Baloh to Kamal Kishore for Rs.3,000/-. Attested copy of which is Ex.R-11 dated 27.3.1991. There is great variance in the price of land sold as per sale deeds relied upon by the claimants and appellants. In these circumstances, learned District Judge has rightly relied upon Ex. PA, the award made by the District Judge in Land Reference No. 40/1997 dated 27.6.2002. This land was also acquired in village Dhaun Kothi, District Kothi. The land of the claimants in the present appeal has also been acquired in villages Dhaun Kothi, Panjgain and Baloh. The boundaries of these villages are common as per statement of PW-1 Ram Dittu. The District Judge has awarded Rs.10,000/- per biswa to the claimants in Land Reference No. 40/1997 irrespective of the classification of the land. The District Judge has taken into consideration the fact that the land contained lime stone and it was near the National Highway. In the instant case also, the land is situated one furlong away from the National Highway. There are civic amenities, such as, school, hospital, veterinary hospital, post office etc. in the village. The Land Acquisition Collector has also noticed in his award dated 29.4.1995 that the ACC factory was in existence for the last 15 years and in the adjoining areas big commercial centres have developed and the land was fetching very high prices. The land has good potential for its commercial exploitation and it also contained valuable lime stone. 11. There is no illegality in the market value assessed by the learned District Judge in these matters. The land has good potential for its commercial exploitation and it also contained valuable lime stone. 11. There is no illegality in the market value assessed by the learned District Judge in these matters. The District Judge has taken into consideration well known principles of assessment of valuation of land. 12. Now, the Court will advert whether the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the houses of claimants is just and fair. The Land Acquisition Officer has got the value assessed from the Public Works Department. The claimants have relied upon statement of PW-2 Gurmeet Singh. PW-2 Gurmeet Singh has proved documents Ex.PW-2/A to Ex.PW-2/Z. It has come in the statement of PW-2 Gurmeet Singh that he has visited the spot and has measured the houses. He has relied upon the schedule of rates of 1987 of HPPWD. He was not a degree holder, but he has obtained diploma. He has visited the spot for one month continuously. When he visited the spot, he was accompanied by Patwari Halqua and Ward Members. The claimants have to shift to far off and inconvenience places. 13. According to PW-1 Ram Dittu, they have been awarded meagre sum for the houses. The Land Acquisition Collector has also noticed in his award dated 29.4.1995 that the local people had to shift their residences to far off and inconvenience places. The District Judge has awarded 10% increase towards the houses on the amount as awarded in the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. This amount is on the lower side. The claimants are at least entitled to 20% increase over and above in the amount awarded by the District Judge for the acquisition of the houses. 14. The District Judge was required to take into consideration the increase in price index of the labour and material, i.e. steel, cement, bricks etc. and the cost of plot. The claimants were also entitled to replacement cost as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While assessing the market value of the building, carriage of construction material, value of new plot, electricity installation and water supply are also required to be taken into consideration. The premium was required to be paid on the schedule rates of 1987 of HPPWD taken into consideration by PW-2 Gurmeet Singh. The schedule rates of 1987 HPPWD only cannot be indices for determining the cost. 15. The premium was required to be paid on the schedule rates of 1987 of HPPWD taken into consideration by PW-2 Gurmeet Singh. The schedule rates of 1987 HPPWD only cannot be indices for determining the cost. 15. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 have held that the land and building thereon constitute one unit. Land is one kind of property; land and building together constitute an altogether different kind of property. They must be valued as one unit. But where the property comprises extensive land and the structures thereon do not indicate a realization of the full developmental potential of the land, it might not be impermissible to value the property estimating separately the market value of the land with reference to the date of the preliminary notification and to add to it the value of the structures as at that time. In this method, the building value is estimated on the basis of the prime cost or replacement cost less depreciation. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. We may first proceed to estimate the prime cost of the building. The measurements set out in Ext. 1 are not disputed. If Ext. 1 is taken as the starting point for the estimate of cost of replacement as on 4-7-1959; the depreciation of 20% allowed in Ext.1 has to be added back and, further, some deduction towards the possible escalation of costs of construction between the date of preliminary notification and of the period of validity of the rates adopted in Ext. 1 has to be made. On this basis, the cost of replacement could be estimated at about Rs. 4 lakhs. This works out to Rs. 16 per sq.ft. on the average. Even in respect of 1959, this figure may not be much, having regard to the quality of the construction. From this sum of Rs. 4 lakhs, depreciation for the past life of 60 years of building would have to be deducted. Depreciation depends upon and is deduced from factors such as the cost of the construction; the expected life-span; its salvage value realisable at the end of the period of utility etc. Rate of depreciation is generally, the prime-cost less salvage-value divided by the life-span. These, of course, are matters of evidence. Depreciation depends upon and is deduced from factors such as the cost of the construction; the expected life-span; its salvage value realisable at the end of the period of utility etc. Rate of depreciation is generally, the prime-cost less salvage-value divided by the life-span. These, of course, are matters of evidence. In the present case, if we make a rough and ready estimate of the salvage-value at say, 10% of the cost and estimate the period of utility or life-span of the building at, say, 90 years, the depreciation which is the annual loss of value due to physical wear and tear works out to about Rs. 4000 per year or roughly 1%. Without going to the finer details of the calculation of the depreciation on the progressive written down values, we think an estimate of 50% of the cost of the building may, again on a rough and ready basis, be deducted towards depreciation. The market value of the building as on the date of the preliminary notification could accordingly be fixed at Rs. 2,00,000. Accordingly, the compensation for the buildings and structures is enhanced from Rs. 57,660/- to Rs. 2,00,000, point (b) is held and answered accordingly.” 16. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rattan Kumar Tandon and others vs. State of U.P. (1997) 2 SCC 161 have held that the claimant is not entitled to assessment of value of land and the building separately and compensation on both. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. The next question is: as to what would be the value of the building to which the appellants are entitled to? It is well settled law that when land and building are acquired by a notification, the claimant is not entitled to separate valuation of the building and the land. They are entitled to the compensation of either of the two methods but not both. If the building is assessed, it is settled law that the measure of assessment be based on either the rent received from the property with suitable multiplier or the value of the building is the proper method of valuation. In this case, since the land is separately valued, the building cannot again be separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris. In this case, since the land is separately valued, the building cannot again be separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris. However, since State has not come in appeal, we need not go into the legality of the award of the Additional District Judge and of the High Court in that behalf. It would, therefore, be unnecessary to go into that question and we confirm of the compensation in respect of building at Rs. 8,33,000/- and odd.” 17. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Kuddus Mandal and others vs. State of Assam and another, (1999) 6 SCC 589 have held that where the house is standing on the acquired land, such land cannot be acquired without the house and the compensation is required to be paid for the house. Their Lordships have held as under: “8. It appears to us that the High Court fell into a basic error in not awarding compensation for the houses on the ground that since land had been acquired, it is only compensation for removal of houses standing thereon, which could have been granted because houses had not been acquired. That is not a correct approach. The compensation was required to be paid for the houses which were standing on that land. The land could not have been acquired without the houses standing thereon. The Reference Court had rightly awarded compensation for the houses. The order of the High Court on this account suffers from apparent error. Insofar as the reduction in the rate for land from Rs. 36,600/- as awarded by the Reference Court to Rs. 20,000/- per Bigha by the High Court is concerned, we are not persuaded to disagree because we have not found any error to have been committed by the High Court in that behalf. The High Court has not adverted to the compensation on account of Zirut separately, though compensation on that account had been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector and upheld by the Reference Court. 9. In the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the material on record, more particularly the evidence of the expert who had valued the houses belonging to the appellants, we are of the opinion that while the appellants are entitled to compensation for land @ 20,000/- per Bigha, the appellants are also entitled to compensation towards cost of houses. The cost of houses was calculated by the Reference Court, on the basis of expert evidence, at Rupees 1,88,000/-. Taking into account proper calculations, in our opinion, the appellants are entitled to receive Rs. 1,70,000/- towards cost of houses and not Rs. 1,88,000/-. Since, we are allowing the cost of houses, the question of grant of damages and compensation of Rs. 15,087/- for removal of houses does not arise. The order to that extent is set aside. Besides, the appellants are also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- for Zirut. So far as interest is concerned, the interest at the rate of 9% per annum shall be so calculated as to take into account the amount already deposited by the State in the Executing Court under orders of the High Court, which amount was allowed to be withdrawn and has actually been withdrawn by the appellants. The interest shall, therefore, be calculated only on the differential amount for the remaining period from the date of possession of the land by the Collector i.e. 7-3-1988. The appellants shall be entitled to Solatium at the rate of 30%.” 18. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tejumal Bhojwani (Dead) through LRs and others vs. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525 that since there was no capitalization of the value of the land and the structures on it, separate compensation is payable for land, tube well and structure. Their Lordships have held as under: “7. Next submission of learned senior counsel is that the claimants were entitled to separate compensation for the Tube Well as well as for the structure standing on the land and the High Court committed error while denying compensation for the above items, although the Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation for those items. We find substance in the argument. However, learned counsel appearing for the Parishad argued that the claimants were not entitled to compensation for value of land and building separately and for that purpose cited a decision of this Court in Ratan Kumar Tandon and Ors. v. State of U.P. reported in 1997(2) SCC 161 . We find that the said decision is distinguishable. In that case we find that there was capitalisation of the value of land and structure and, therefore, the claimants were not given separate compensation for land and building. v. State of U.P. reported in 1997(2) SCC 161 . We find that the said decision is distinguishable. In that case we find that there was capitalisation of the value of land and structure and, therefore, the claimants were not given separate compensation for land and building. Here we find that there was no capitalisation of value of land and structure by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award. On the other hand, Land Acquisition Officer has given compensation separately for the land, building and Tube Well. In that view of the matter claimants are entitled to separate compensation for land, Tube Well and structure.” 19. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority and another, (2004) 10 SCC 745 have held that the land and building should be valued as one unit, but there is no hard and fast rule in this regard. Their Lordships have further held that they can be separately assessed if large portion of land is lying vacant and is capable of better use. Their Lordships have held as under: “11. A question which arises here is as to what method for determining the value of the property should be adopted when the land is comprised of buildings, trees or some other additions of like nature. In Principles and Practice of Valuation by J. A. Parks (published by Eastern Law House, 1998 Edn.) the following paragraph on page 332 illustrates the different aspects of the problem : "Land with buildings is viewed in a different perspective than bare land as such. Land and buildings once married become one unit, and neither land nor building can thereafter be valued separately. A building once erected on or married to the site, as it is technically often termed, takes unto itself a value which may be either greater or less than the cost of erection depending upon the market situation. If the building properly and economically develops the land, the total value of the complete entity may be worth more than the sum of the individual values. In such cases, the excess of the composite value over the sum of the individual values is ascribable as the builder's profit. But there may also be instances to the contrary. It is generally impossible to arrive at the true value of the whole by addition of the parts." 12. In such cases, the excess of the composite value over the sum of the individual values is ascribable as the builder's profit. But there may also be instances to the contrary. It is generally impossible to arrive at the true value of the whole by addition of the parts." 12. In Abdullah Jan Mohammad Ganjee v. The State of Bihar, 1967 (1) SCWR 214, it was observed that a building standing on the land and the land on which it stands may not for the purposes of the Land Acquisition Act, ordinarily be regarded as separate units capable of being separately valued and the Reference Court in the normal course should have valued the land and building as composite property by the evidence furnished by the value of similar and comparable properties in the neighbourhood or by capitalisation of rent or other income received out of the property. 13. This principle was reiterated in State of Kerala v. P. P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201 , wherein it was held as under: "In determining compensation payable in respect of land with buildings, compensation cannot be determined by assessing the value of the land and the "break-up value" of the buildings separately. The land and the building constitute one unit and the value of the entire unit must be determined with all its advantages and its potentialities. 14. In O. Janardhan Reddy v. Spl. Dy. Collector 1994 (6) SCC 456 , it was held that where there are irrigation wells in the land, estimated construction cost of the wells cannot be separately assessed apart from assessment of market value of the land and the value of the land has to be assessed having regard to the availability of irrigation facility on the land as a prime factor. This view has been reiterated in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad, 1996 (6) SCC 197 and State of Bihar v. Ratanlal Sahu, 1996 (10) SCC 635 . This view has been reiterated in State of Bihar v. Madheshwar Prasad, 1996 (6) SCC 197 and State of Bihar v. Ratanlal Sahu, 1996 (10) SCC 635 . But there is no hard and fast rule that land and building must be valued as one unit They can be separately assessed if the large portion of the land is lying vacant and is capable of better use as stated by Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943 and it will be useful to extract the relevant part of para 8 of the reports: "Usually land and building thereon constitute one unit. Land is one kind of property, land and building together constitute an altogether different kind of property. They must be valued as one unit. But where, however, the property comprises extensive land and the structures thereon do not indicate a realisation of the full developmental potential of the land, it might not be impermissible to value the property estimating separately the market value of the land with reference to the date of the preliminary notification and to add to it the value of the structures as at that time. In this method, building value is estimated on the basis of the prime-cost or replacement cost less depreciation. The rate of depreciation is generally, arrived at by dividing the cost of construction (less the salvage value at the end of the period of utility) by the number of years of utility of the building. The factors that prolong the life and utility of the building, such as good maintenance, necessarily influence and bring down the rate of depreciation." 20. What emerges from the judgments cited hereinabove, i.e. AIR 1988 SC 943 , 1999 (6) SCC 589 and (2004) 10 SCC 745 that the land and building should be valued as one unit, but there is no hard and fast rule in this regard. In the instant case, besides the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Standing Order 28 has also been relied upon by the appellants the manner in which the compensation is to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 21. In the instant case, besides the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Standing Order 28 has also been relied upon by the appellants the manner in which the compensation is to be paid under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 21. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal versus Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 have laid down the guidelines the manner in which the houses is to be evaluated. Their Lordships have held that the building is to be evaluated on the basis of prime cost or replacement cost less depreciation. The rate of depreciation is, generally, arrived at by dividing the cost of construction less the salvage value at the end of the period of utility by the number of years of utility of the building. The factors that prolong the life and utility of the building, such as good maintenance, necessarily influence and bring down the rate of depreciation. 22. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, all the appeals are dismissed and corresponding Cross-objections are partly allowed by raising the amount for the acquisition of houses of claimants by 20% over and above the amount awarded by the learned District Judge. This amount shall carry all the statutory benefits, including interest component. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.