JUDGMENT Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—This appeal has been preferred by State against the judgement and order dated 19.4.1999 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Bijnor in L.A.R. Case No. 194 of 1992 Ghanshyam Singh and others v. State of U.P., allowing the reference and awarding compensation at enhanced rate of Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre with 12% additional amount apart from solatium and interest. 2. The brief facts relating to the appeal are that 23.337 acre land was acquired by issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as Act) dated 25.1.1989, published on 22.4.1989, followed by notification under Section 6(1) of the Act dated 28.3.1989, published on 15.7.1989. By above notifications, total 63.748 acre land of 5 villages (i) Shekhupura (ii) Gujarpur Jespal (iii) Danwarpur (iv) Rasoopur and (v) Sihora Girdharpur were acquired and after considering the different exemplars produced before him for respective villages, the SLAO determined the market value and accordingly awarded compensation vide his award dated 14.7.1991. Feeling aggrieved with the award of SLAO, the claimants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act which was numbered as L.A.R. No. 194/92 and was decided by IInd Additional District Judge Bijnore vide its judgment and order dated 19.4.1999, giving rise to this appeal. 3. The lower Court record was received and paper books were filed by both the parties. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents were heard at length on the entire appeal. 4. 3. The lower Court record was received and paper books were filed by both the parties. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents were heard at length on the entire appeal. 4. The learned Standing Counsel argued that the exemplar relied by Additional District Judge, relates to a very small piece of land, measuring only 0.313 acres while the land acquired of village was measuring 23.337 acres so the exemplar was not appropriate for determining the market value of land acquired and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, was right in making a deduction of 25% from the market value on account of the larger area of land acquired; that the learned Additional District Judge acted wrongly and illegally with material irregularity in disallowing above deductions and enhancing rate of compensation exorbitantly and much more than that claimed by claimants in the table given by them in their memo of reference; that the learned Additional District Judge erred in assessing the rate of market value on the basis of alleged urban or industrial development potentiality while the claimants themselves had claimed it to be having potentiality as agricultural land in memo of reference; that the learned Additional District Judge has committed manifest error of fact and law in allowing the compensation arbitrarily and exorbitantly assessing market value at a flat rate of Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre, without taking into consideration the un-controverted different and poor qualities of the land acquired (as mentioned in extracts of khasra & khatauni as well as in award of SLAO) and in awarding 12% additional amount apart from solatium @ 30% and interest, thereon. 5. He argued that making of 25% deduction by SLAO on the ground of land acquired having larger area of 23.337 acres in comparison to the smaller area of exemplar only 0.313 acre was absolutely correct even in view of the fact that area of claimant’s land acquired 3.518 acre, was also more than 10 times compared to the area of exemplar. He argued that in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India and another, (2009) 15 SCC 769 , the Apex Court has held that deduction between 20 to 75% of the price is permissible in view of development factor while in Viluven Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujrat, 2005(4) SCC 789 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in view of factors like largeness of area, situation in the interior narrow strip of land, lower level, remoteness from developed locality etc., 20 to 50% deduction may be permissible on account of development charges. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents argued since the land in question was acquired for the purpose of canal, so no developmental expenditures were likely to be incurred by the State for its development and no deductions were required to be made either for development expenses or on the basis of small size of exemplar and larger size of land under acquisition; that the exemplar sale-deed relates to 0.313 acre land and for the purposes of determining the market value of land acquired, the area of only claimant’s 3.518 acre land ought to have been taken into consideration and not the entire area of land acquired 23.337 acre; that since the area of exemplar sale-deed was not so small in relation to the land of claimant acquired by the State, there was no justification for making any deduction on the ground of larger area of land having been acquired, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer was incorrect in deducting 25% on above account which were rightly disallowed by the Additional District Judge; that the learned Additional District Judge acted wrongly and illegally in not awarding interest over the amount of solatium and though the claimant-respondents have not filed any cross objections or cross appeal, yet in view of the statutory provisions of Section 34 of Act and settled principles of law, they are entitled to get interest over entire amount of compensation mentioned above. In support of his above arguments, he has placed reliance on Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 2424 ; Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 656 and Surender v. Union of India, JT 2001 (8) SC 130. In support of his above arguments, he has placed reliance on Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 2424 ; Shree Vijay Cotton & Oil Mills Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 656 and Surender v. Union of India, JT 2001 (8) SC 130. He argued that in view of above arguments, the appeal is liable to be dismissed with costs and the impugned order is liable to be modified by awarding interest over the amount of solatium, in favour of claimant-respondents. 7. Upon arguments advanced by the counsel for parties, following points arise for determination in this appeal. (i) Whether the Additional District Judge was incorrect in disallowing the deductions made by SLAO at the time of assessment of market value on the basis of exemplar? If so, at what percent if any, deductions ought to have been made. (ii) Whether the Additional District Judge was incorrect in awarding compensation at the same flat rate for different categories of lands? (iii) Whether the Additional District Judge was incorrect in refusing interest over the amount of solatium? If so whether the respondents may be awarded interest over the amount of solatium, even in absence of cross appeal or objections by them? 8. Upon hearing parties’ counsel and perusal of records and Before coming to points raised, following undisputed facts may be mentioned, which may be relevant for disposal of the matter. 9. The paper book filed by the claimant/respondents contains the extract of Khasra, Khatauni as well as Naksha No. 11 (paper No. 13) of claimants land which shows the area as well as 3 different quality/categories of land of claimant-respondent acquired by the State. 10. The present appeal relates to 3.358 acres land of respondent out of total 23.337 acre land acquired of village Danwarpur in which the SLAO after considering several exemplars found exemplar sale-deed dated 10.4.1989 (in respect of 0.313 acre land of the category of Bhoor Doyam Minus, within the area of land acquired, sold for Rs. 7,500/-) to be suitable according to which the market value or rate was Rs. 23,961.66/- per acre. The SLAO considering the larger area of land acquired and exemplar being of smaller area made a deduction of 25% and assessed market value at Rs. 7,500/-) to be suitable according to which the market value or rate was Rs. 23,961.66/- per acre. The SLAO considering the larger area of land acquired and exemplar being of smaller area made a deduction of 25% and assessed market value at Rs. 17,971.25/- per acre for the land of most inferior quality of land, and enhanced it gradually to higher market value upto Rs. 1,61,741.25 per acre according to the parta rates of comparatively superior qualities of lands, from Bhoor Doyam Minus to Sawai Doyam. 11. At page 7 of the order passed by SLAO, appended in the paper book filed by the appellants as well as respondents (which is at page 16 in paper book of appellant and at page 39 in paper book of respondents), the categories of quality of land acquired with gradually enhanced market value as well as market value after 25% deductions has been described as under : 12. The record of Court below shows that the SLAO has found that the 3.518 acres land of claimants comprises of land Khasra (i) No. 133 area 0.134 acre of the quality/category of Bhoor Doyam Minus (worst quality), (ii) No. 98 area 3.358 acre of the quality/category of Bhoor Doyam (inferior quality) & (iii) No. 97 area 0.025 acre of the quality of Sawai Doyam, (good quality) and as per the assessment described above, in the order of SLAO, the market value for the purpose of calculating compensation after deductions was arrived at (i) @ Rs. 17,971.25 per acre for plot Khasra No. 133 of the category of Bhoor Doyam Minus, (ii) @ Rs. 53,913.75 per acre for plot Khasra No. 98 of the category of Bhoor Doyam and (iii) @ Rs. 1,61,741.25 per acre hectare for plot Khasra No. 97 of the category of Sawai Doyam, respectively. The lower Court record shows that with above rates, the market value of claimant’s total land was found to be Rs. 1,87,547.96 and compensation was granted with awarding 12% towards additional amount and 30% towards solatium over it, in accordance with provisions of Section 23(1) and (2), apart from interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @15% per annum thereafter, in accordance with provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Point No. 1 : 13. 1,87,547.96 and compensation was granted with awarding 12% towards additional amount and 30% towards solatium over it, in accordance with provisions of Section 23(1) and (2), apart from interest @ 9% per annum for the first year and @15% per annum thereafter, in accordance with provisions of Section 34 of the Act. Point No. 1 : 13. Though there is no statutory provision under Section 23 of the Act or otherwise, regarding deductions to be made from the market value as per exemplar, but in order to arrive at correct market value for awarding just and appropriate compensation, deductions are usually made on account of smaller area of exemplar and larger area of land acquired or on account of developmental or other factors, which have been adjudged correct and upheld by the Apex Court. The basic principle behind deductions is that deductions must not be made unreasonably and excessively, but may reasonably be made to arrive at correct market value of the land in question. Such deductions may not be made at fixed rate and may vary from case to case in view of different positive and negative factors. Similarly, in order to arrive at correct market value of the land under acquisition, if exemplar relates to much earlier in times, in appropriate cases even escalation of price is permissible, despite there being no statutory provision therefor and an escalation @10% to 12% per year was held justified by the Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash deceased by LRs v. Union of India, JT 2004(6) SC 288. 14. In this case, the deductions were made by SLAO @25% in view of larger area of land acquired, which have been totally disallowed by the Additional District Judge. Justifying the deductions @ 25% the learned standing counsel has relied on the case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (dead) by LRS v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , in which the Apex Court determining different rates (Rs.160/- per square meter for larger plots and Rs. 175/- per square meter for small plot) held that : “There may be different deductions one for the largeness of land and another for development costs and considering several positive or negative factors, deductions may be made between 20% to 50% and usually from 25% to 33%.” 15. 175/- per square meter for small plot) held that : “There may be different deductions one for the largeness of land and another for development costs and considering several positive or negative factors, deductions may be made between 20% to 50% and usually from 25% to 33%.” 15. He has also relied on the case of AP Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy and others, where relying on the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India and another, (2009) 15 SCC 769 , the Apex Court has held that : “Deductions for developmental factor are variable between 20 to 75% depending, firstly with reference to the area required to be utilized for development works and secondly for the cost of development works.” 16. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents has relied on the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat, in which the Apex Court has held that : “Largeness of land cannot be determined by clubbing together the area of each land holder and disallowed further reduction made by High Court in compensation.” 17. It is noteworthy that vide notifications under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 25.1.1989 and 22.4.1989, 63.748 acres land of five villages, including 23.337 acres land of village Danwarpur and only 3.335 acres of claimants was acquired for canal, and on the basis of exemplar sale-deed dated 10.4.1989 of plot No. 97 area 0.313 acre Bhoor Doyam Minus for Rs. 7,500/-, within the area of land acquired, of village Danwarpur at the rate of Rs. 23,961.66 per acre, SLAO after making deductions @25% on account of larger area of land acquired awarded compensation. 18. From above facts it is clear that exemplar sale-deed relates to the land within the area of land acquired, and period just after the issuance of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, and the land was acquired for the purpose of canal. The SLAO has made deductions @25% only on the ground of larger area of land acquired and no deduction has been made for developmental reasons. We find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents that for the deduction on account of largeness of land acquired not the entire area of land acquired but only the area of land acquired of claimants, must be taken into consideration. We find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the respondents that for the deduction on account of largeness of land acquired not the entire area of land acquired but only the area of land acquired of claimants, must be taken into consideration. Hence though the area of entire land acquired of village Danwarpur is 23.337 acres, around 70 times larger to the area of exemplar sale-deed for 0.313 acre, but since the area of claimant’s land acquired was only 3.518 acres only, the same may not be treated large enough to justify deductions on ground of largeness of the land acquired. The claimants have not claimed any potential value of the land in question and though the SLAO has mentioned it to be within industrial area having potential, considering the fact that the exemplar sale-deed has been executed subsequent to the notification under Section 4(i) of the Act, there appears no sufficient ground even for any escalation from the rate of exemplar, for arriving at correct market value of land acquired, particularly when there is no appeal by claimants for such prayer. In view of the facts and deductions made above, we find no illegality or in-correctness in the impugned order of Additional District Judge disallowing the deductions unreasonably made by SLAO. The appellant has failed to show that deductions at any other rate were necessary or there is any sufficient ground for setting it aside the findings of impugned judgment in respect of disallowing the deductions or for restoring the deductions made by SLAO or at any rate for calculation of market value of land acquired. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2 : 19. As far as the grant of compensation at the same flat rate for different qualities of land is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that as per details given in ground 4 of ‘Grounds of Reference’ of claimants (at page 9 of paper book filed by respondents), following different rates of market value of different qualities/categories of land, as per table were claimed by the claimants/respondents, without making of any deductions therefrom : Øe l0 fdLe tehu Ikzfrdj I LkokbZ nks;e 2]15]654-93 II HkwM++ vOoy Iyl (+) 1]73]422-51 III HkwM++ vOoy 1]28]498-40 IV HkwM++ nks;e 73]884-98 V HkwM++ nks;e ek;ul (-) 23]961-66 20. Admittedly, the land acquired of claimants is of 3 categories I, IV & V as per above table of which market value (without any deduction) has been found by SLAO to be Rs. 2,15,654.93, Rs. 73, 884.98 and Rs. 23,961.66 and after deductions Rs. 1,61,741.25, Rs. 53,913.75 and Rs. 17,971.25 respectively. 21. In the last two pages of the impugned judgement/award, the Additional District Judge has narrated several citations/rulings, allegedly cited on behalf of claimants as well as on behalf of State through D.G.C., mentioning in one line that all the rulings cited by the claimants are applicable and all those cited by State are not applicable, without discussing even a single word as on which point the above case laws were allegedly cited before him by either side. It has enhanced compensation and granted at one flat rate, placing reliance on AIR 1965 Himanchal Pradesh, allegedly cited on behalf of claimants, without giving even the page number or title of the case concerned allegedly relied. It is pertinent to mention that in AIR 1965 there are only two rulings of Hon’ble Himanchal Pradesh High Court in land acquisition cases out of which one The Collector Bilaspur v. Daulat Ram, AIR 1965 HP 18 , is on totally different point and in the other The Collector Bilaspur v. Lakshman, AIR 1965 HP 18 , different rate of compensation has been awarded by Hon’ble High Court Himanchal Pradesh, for different categories of land acquired. In showing reliance on above case law, but in utter contradiction thereof the Additional District Judge has awarded same and highest flat rate for all categories of land, vide impugned order, which is absolutely wrong, illegal and not tenable. 22. The SLAO after making 25% deductions had granted compensation assessing market value of lands between the rates from Rs. 17,971.25/- to Rs. 1,61,741.25/- per acre as mentioned earlier. The SLAO finding market value of land of exemplar sale-deed of the quality of Bhoor Doyam Minus to be Rs. 23,961/- per acre and has made deductions @ 25% therefrom on ground of largeness of area. He has further enhanced the market value of land in view of 5 different & better qualities of land from Bhoor Doyam Minus to Sawai Doyam, as per calculations made in his award at the rate of Rs. 23,961/-, Rs. 71,885/-, Rs. 1,18,493/-, Rs. 1,73,421/- and Rs. He has further enhanced the market value of land in view of 5 different & better qualities of land from Bhoor Doyam Minus to Sawai Doyam, as per calculations made in his award at the rate of Rs. 23,961/-, Rs. 71,885/-, Rs. 1,18,493/-, Rs. 1,73,421/- and Rs. 2,15,654.84/- and after deductions valued at Rs. 17,971.25, Rs. 53,913.75, Rs. 96,370.83, Rs. 1,30,066.91 and Rs. 1,61,741.25 respectively. Neither the appellant nor the claimant/respondents have disputed the manner and correctness of enhancement of market value according to the ‘PARTA Rates’ of different and better qualities of lands, by SLAO, either before reference Court or before this Court. 23. In view of the fact that the land acquired was of 5 different qualities, there can be no justification in granting compensation assessed on the basis of exemplar at one and same rate of market value irrespective of good or bad quality of land. Undisputedly there may be no justification to grant compensation for acquisition in respect of acquisition of land of the good quality of Sawai Doyam at the rate arrived at on the basis of exemplar of bad quality land of Bhoor Doyam Minus and similarly it may not be just and appropriate to grant compensation for acquisition of poor quality of land at the same flat rate of good quality land arrived at by the SLAO. 24. It is also pertinent to mention that the exemplar sale-deed taken for assessment of market value of land acquired was in respect of land of the quality/category of Bhoor Doyam Minus @Rs.23,961/- and the land acquired of claimants/respondents comprises of 3 plots (I) No. 133 area 0.134 acre of the category of Bhoor Doyam Minus (worst quality), (ii) No. 98 area 3.359 acres of the category of Bhoor Doyam (poor quality) and (iii) No. 97 area of 0.025 acre only of the category of Savai Doyam (best quality). So there could have been no justification to grant compensation for the land of as worst quality as of the exemplar sale-deed @ Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre or at any rate, higher to that in exemplar sale-deed. 25. The Additional District Judge has not assigned any reason for awarding compensation of entire land of 3 qualities at flat and highest rate of Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre (the market value of best quality of land) and not at the flat and lowest rate of Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre or at any rate, higher to that in exemplar sale-deed. 25. The Additional District Judge has not assigned any reason for awarding compensation of entire land of 3 qualities at flat and highest rate of Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre (the market value of best quality of land) and not at the flat and lowest rate of Rs. 23,961/- per acre (the market value of worst quality of land). In any case, it may not be just & appropriate to grant compensation at the same flat rate, (highest or lowest) irrespective of the superior or inferior quality of the land, and granting so will be against the principle of equity, justice and good conscience and will result in grant of dis-proportionate amount of compensation to different tenure holders of the same village by which tenure holders having large quantity though of bad quality of land will get much more compensation in comparison to the tenure holders having small quality of good land, will get. 26. In view of discussions made above, we find that the learned Additional District Judge acted wrongly with material irregularity in showing reliance on a case law (ibid) but in awarding compensation in utter contradiction thereof and thus has committed manifest error of law in awarding compensation at the highest & flat rate for the entire land even of different and inferior categories/qualities, and the findings of learned Additional District Judge being wrong, illegal and perverse are liable to be set aside and procedure adopted by SLAO (except deductions) is liable to be upheld. Point No. 2 is decided accordingly. Point No. 3 : 27. The claimants/respondents have not filed any appeal or cross objections for enhancement of rate of compensation awarded by Additional District Judge or for any other relief. The learned counsel for claimant-respondent has argued that the Additional District Judge has acted wrongly in refusing interest over the amount of solatium which was mandatory as per provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act and even without filing appeal or cross objections they are entitled to an order for payment of interest over the amount of solatium also by modification in impugned order. 28. 28. In the impugned judgement apart from the compensation at market value, the Additional District Judge has awarded an additional amount of 12% of market value under the provisions of Section 23(1-A) and 30% of market value (solatium) under the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act with interest @ 9% per annum up to one year and additional interest @ 15% per annum thereafter under provisions of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, but has refused payment of interest over the amount of solatium. 29. The Additional District Judge has not assigned any reason for refusal of interest over the amount of solatium to the claimants/respondents, which is part of compensation and qualifies for payment of interest under above mentioned statutory provisions. 30. In the case of Sri Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills v. State of Gujrat, AIR 1991 SC 656 , where the cross objections filed by claimant were rejected being barred by time, and the claimant was stopped from claiming interest in state appeal, the Apex Court held that : “Interest is payable on entire amount of compensation determined under Section 23 of the Act and the claimant may neither be required to file separate appeal or cross objections nor can be deprived of the benefits of statutory provisions for want of cross appeal or cross objections, and may claim interest even in state appeal.” (iv) Similarly, in the case of Sundar v. Union of India, JT 2001 (8) SC 130, the Full Bench of Apex Court has held that : “In view of the provisions of Section 28 and 34 the interest is payable on entire amount of compensation calculated under the provisions of Section 23 (1) and (2), including the amount of solatium.” 31. According to the settled principles of law, the SLAO or the reference Court are required only to calculate correct market value of the land acquired for which taking into consideration the suitable exemplars as well as several positive or negative factors viz., smaller area of exemplar, developmental requirements, or earlier period of exemplar, it is required to make deductions or allow escalation at reasonable rates; as the case may be and all the rest calculations such as 12% of market value as additional amount, 30% solatium and interest @ 9% per annum for first year and 15% per annum for subsequent years, are to be made in accordance with statutory provisions of Sections 23, 28 and 34 of the Act with no scope for deviation therefrom. 32. Since the amount of solatium is a part or component of compensation calculated in view of provisions of Section 23 (2) of the Act, so legally interest is payable over entire amount of compensation so calculated including the amount of solatium, in view of provisions of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, and the Additional District Judge has acted wrongly and illegally with material irregularity in refusing interest over the amount of solatium by observing specifically mentioning in the judgment that “no interest will be payable on amount of solatium.” The above finding of Additional District Judge are perverse and against statutory provisions of law, and are liable to be set aside. 33. Thus we find that the claimants/respondents are entitled to and may not be deprived from interest over the amount of solatium. In view of settled principles of law, they are entitled to get the same despite having not filed cross appeal or cross objections and impugned order required modifications. The point No. 3 is decided accordingly. 34. In view of discussions made on above points, we have come to the conclusion that the learned Additional District Judge did not commit any illegality in disallowing the deductions and the claimants/respondents are entitled to get compensation on the market value of land assessed by the SLAO, without any deductions therefrom, but it acted wrongly and illegally in awarding compensation at a flat and highest rate of market value of all kinds of lands irrespective of their quality and category and refusing interest over the amount of solatium. 35. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. 35. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order granting compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre as well as refusing interest over the amount of “solatium” is aside and is modified in the manner and to the extent that the claimants/respondents shall be entitled to get compensation at the market value of their lands of the category/quality of Bhoor Doyam Minus, Bhoor Doyam and Sawai Doyam @ Rs. 23,961/-, Rs. 71,885/- and Rs. 2,15,655/- per acre respectively with additional amount @ 12% under the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act and @ 30% under the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act (solatium) and will also be entitled to get interest over entire amount so calculated under the provisions of Sections 28 and 34 of the Act. The amount, if any, paid by SLAO or Collector earlier will be adjusted for the purpose of calculation of interest etc. 36. Let the lower Court record be transmitted back to Court below with a copy of judgment. 37. The parties shall bear their own costs of appeal.