JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of First Appeals and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol-learned reference court, both these appeals are heard, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 722 & 723 of 2012, by which, the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said References and has awarded additional compensation to the original claimants at the rate of Rs. 254/- per sq. mtr. with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), however, awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum as provided under section 23(1)(A) of the act from the date of Notification under section 4(1) of the Act till the date of the award passed by the learned Special Land-Acquisition Officer, the acquiring body-ONGC has preferred present both these First Appeals. 3. That the lands situated at village Pansar came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act for the public purpose-acquiring body-ONGC. That the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published and issued on 28/8/2000. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award under section 11 of the Act and awarded compensation determining market price at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. 3.1. As the original claimants were dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, at the instance of the original claimants, references under section 18 of the Act were made to the reference court which were numbered as LAR Nos. 722 and 723 of 2012. That the original claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. Subsequently, they enhanced their claim to Rs. 400/- from Rs. 100/- originally claimed by them. 3.2. That before the reference court, the original claimants heavily relied upon the previous judgment and award passed by the learned reference court dated 27/4/2012 in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 with respect to lands acquired of very village Pansar/adjacent village Dhamasana (Ex. 13). 3.3. 400/- from Rs. 100/- originally claimed by them. 3.2. That before the reference court, the original claimants heavily relied upon the previous judgment and award passed by the learned reference court dated 27/4/2012 in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 with respect to lands acquired of very village Pansar/adjacent village Dhamasana (Ex. 13). 3.3. Relying upon its previous judgment and award passed in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 (Ex. 13) with respect to the lands acquired of very village/adjoining village Pansar/Dhamasana, by the impugned judgment and award the learned reference court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 254/- per sq. mtr. with all other statutory benefits available under the Act, however, awarding increase at the rate of 12% per annum as provided under section 23(1)(A) of the Act from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act till the date of award passed by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer. 3.4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned reference court, acquiring body-ONGC has preferred both these First Appeals. 4. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the acquiring body-ONGC has vehemently submitted that in the present case while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned reference court has heavily relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 (Exh. 13). It is submitted that while passing the judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009, the learned reference court has relied upon the judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar, in which, ultimately reference court relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamasana. It is submitted that by common judgment and order passed in First Appeals Nos. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals with respect of lands acquired of village Dhamasana and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6/9/2000, the Division Bench has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 213 per sq. mtr. (preciously in First Appeal Nos. 29 to 33 of 2015. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals with respect of lands acquired of village Dhamasana and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6/9/2000, the Division Bench has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 213 per sq. mtr. (preciously in First Appeal Nos. 29 to 33 of 2015. It is submitted that therefore, in the present case also as the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 21/2/2000 and village Pansar is also adjacent to village Dhamasana and even otherwise considering the fact that while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned reference court has ultimately relied upon its earlier judgment and award in LAR with respect to lands acquired of village Dhamasana, in the present case also claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtr. 4.1. Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the appellant-acquiring body has also requested to clarify that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28 A of the Act from the date of taking possession and as per Section 16 of the Act. By making above submissions, it is requested to allow the present First Appeals to the aforesaid extent and modify the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court to the aforesaid extent. 5. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants. He is not in a position to dispute and is not disputing that while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned reference court has relied upon its earlier judgment and award with respect to lands acquired of village Pansar and while delivering the judgment and award of village Pansar, the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgment and award of village Dhamasana and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6/9/2000, the Division Bench in its judgment and order passed in First Appeal No. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals, has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtr. 5.1. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that the learned reference court has materially erred in denying benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, which is statutory benefits available under the Act. 5.2. When attention of Mr. 213/- per sq. mtr. 5.1. Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that the learned reference court has materially erred in denying benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, which is statutory benefits available under the Act. 5.2. When attention of Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants was drawn to the fact that the original claimants have not preferred any Cross Objections against refusal of grant of statutory benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act, he has heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills Versus State of Gujarat, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 262 ; in the case of Prahlad Versus State of Maharashtra, reported in (2010) 10 SCC 458 and in the case of Ranjana Prakash versus Divisional Manager, reported in (2011) 8 Scale 240 . 5.3. Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is vehemently submitted by Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, original claimants can claim interest on compensation at any stage of proceedings under the Act and it can be claimed in the State Appeal and no separate appeal or Cross Objections before the High Court are required to be filed. 5.4. Now, so far as the request of the original claimants to grant benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body has submitted that considering Order 43 rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless and until Cross Objections are filed, original claimants cannot claim benefits which are denied. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansari and others versus Ram Phal, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606 . 5.5. At this stage, Mr. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that even original claimants have also filed note which may be treated as application under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has requested to grant statutory benefits under section 23(1)(A) available under the Act to do the complete justice. 6. Shital Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that even original claimants have also filed note which may be treated as application under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure and has requested to grant statutory benefits under section 23(1)(A) available under the Act to do the complete justice. 6. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned reference court. 6.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the land situated at village Pansar, Taluka : Kalol, District Gandhinagar came to be acquired for the public purpose-ONGC. That notification under section 4 of the Act came to be published and issued on 28/8/2000. That the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. while declaring award under section 11 of the Act. That in the reference at the instance of the original claimants, relying upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 with respect to the lands acquired of village Pansar/Dhamasana and for which notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 23/5/2000, the learned reference court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 254/- per sq. mtr. However, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that in LAR Nos. 830 to 832 of 2009 on which reliance has been placed by the learned reference court while passing the impugned judgment and award, the learned reference court relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR with respect to the land acquired of very village Pansar, in which reference court had relied upon earlier judgment and award passed in LAR with respect to the land acquired of village Dhamasana. Thus, ultimately, the reliance was placed upon the judgment and award passed in LAR with respect to the land acquired of village Dhamasana. 6.2. It is not in dispute that by the common judgment and award the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and award dated 25/7/2015 passed in First Appeal No. 3157 of 2012 and other allied First Appeals (including First Appeal Nos. 29 to 33 of 2015), has determined and awarded compensation for the lands acquired of village Dhamasana at the rate of Rs. 29 to 33 of 2015), has determined and awarded compensation for the lands acquired of village Dhamasana at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtr. with respect to the land acquired of village Dhamasana for which notification under section 4 of the act was issued on 29/2/2000. It cannot be disputed that the judgment and award passed in other cases, more particularly land acquired of very village and/or nearby village or adjacent village can be considered and can be base for awarding compensation. 6.3. Under the circumstances and considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court passed in First Appeal No. 3157 of 2010 and other allied First Appeals (including First Appeal Nos. 29 to 33 of 2015), present appeals are required to be partly allowed and the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 213/- per sq. mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, the original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 203/- per sq. mtr. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned reference court is required to be modified and present First Appeals are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 6.4. Now, so far as the request of the original claimants to grant benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act in the present appeal preferred by the acquiring body without filing the Cross Objections is concerned, it is true that in the present case, the original claimants have not preferred any Cross Objections against denial of the benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, it is required to be noted that benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act are statutory benefits available under the Act and therefore, as such the original claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. Therefore, the question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether without filing any Cross Objections in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body, such benefits can be granted to the original claimants or not. 6.5. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills (supra). Therefore, the question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether without filing any Cross Objections in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body, such benefits can be granted to the original claimants or not. 6.5. Identical question came to be considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Cotton and Oil Mills (supra). In the said case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, High Court rejected the claim of the original claimant regarding interest on the ground that his Cross Objections are time barred and the claimants had no right to claim the same in the State Appeal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while setting aside the aforesaid order of the High court, in para 13 to 16 has observed and held as under:- "13. There is no dispute that under the Act the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Section 23(1) of the act enumerates the matters which are to be taken into consideration in determining the compensation. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act the parties go to trial before the Court primarily on the issue of determination of market value of the land. So far as award of interest is concerned it is never an issue between the parties. Once the conditions under section 28 or Section 34 of the act are satisfied the award of interest is consequential and automatic. 14. The High Court while appreciating the point in issue did not consider the mandatory provisions of section 34 of the Act. The said section specifically provides that when the amount of compensation is not paid on or before taking possession of the land the Collector shall pay interest at 6 Per Cent per annum from the date of taking over possession. The payment of interest is not dependent on any claim by the person whose land has been acquired. There can be no controversy or any lis between the parties regarding payment of interest. When once the provision of section 34 are attracted it is obligatory for the Collector to pay the interest. If he fails to do so the same can be claimed from the Court in proceedings under section 18 of the Act or even from the appellate Court/Courts thereafter. 15. When once the provision of section 34 are attracted it is obligatory for the Collector to pay the interest. If he fails to do so the same can be claimed from the Court in proceedings under section 18 of the Act or even from the appellate Court/Courts thereafter. 15. We have carefully examined the reasoning of the High Court in reaching the conclusion which we have reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment. We do not agree with the interpretation placed by the High Court on various provisions of the act. Reading section 23 with section 26 of the Act it is clear that the award, which is deemed to be a decree, is the sum total of conclusions reached by the Courts in determining compensation under section 211 of the Act on appreciation of the evidence between the parties. The costs tinder section 27 and the interest under sections 28 and 34 are added to the compensation amount to make it a consolidated award. The costs and interest under the Act if not awarded by the lower court can always be awarded by higher courts in any proceedings under the Act and to any party entitled to the same under the Act. There is inherent evidence in the wording of sections 28 and 34 to show that the framers of the Act intended to assure the payment of interest to the person whose land was acquired and it was not the intention to subject the said payment to procedural hazards. Section 34 lays down that "the Collector shall pay the "amount awarded with interest at 6 Per Cent per annum..." The legislative mandate is clear. It is a directive to the Collector to pay the interest in a given circumstance. Section 34 nowhere says that the interest amount is to be included in the award decree as prepared under section 23(1) read with section 26 of the Act. Similarly, section 28 provides "the award of the Court may direct that the collector shall pay interest". Here also the award under section 23(1) read with section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the section. The interest to be paid under section 34 and also under section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under section 23(1) of the Act. Here also the award under section 23(1) read with section 26 has been kept distinct from the payment of interest under the section. The interest to be paid under section 34 and also under section 28 is of different character than the compensation amount under section 23(1) of the Act. whereas the interest, if payable under the act, can be claimed at any stage of the proceedings under the act, the amount of compensation under section 23(1) which is an award-decree under section 26, subject to the rules of the procedure and limitation. The rule of procedure are hand maiden of justice. The procedural hassle cannot come. In the way of substantive rights of citizens under the Act. 16. We do not, therefore, agree with the reasoning and the findings reached by the High Court. We are of the opinion that it was not necessary for the appellant-claimant to have filed separate appeals, cross-objections before the High Court for the purpose of claiming interest under section 28 and section 34 of the Act. He could claim the interest in filed cross-the State-Appeal. The fact that objections which were dismissed as time barred is wholly irrelevant." Thus, in the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the original claimants can claim statutory benefits on compensation at any stage of the proceedings under the Act and even if it can be claimed in state Appeal and no separate appeal or cross objections before the High Court are required to be filed. 6.6. In the case of Prahlad (supra) where the claimants filed note under Order 41 Rule 33 without filing any Cross Appeal or Cross Objections from the order of the reference court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has observed and held that the original claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits available under the Act on the basis of the Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6.7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra). 6.8. 6.7. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in the case of Ranjana Prakash (supra). 6.8. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bansari and others (supra) by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body is concerned, it is required to be noted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not dealing with statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, which is there in the present case. Under the circumstances, on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and with respect to the statutory benefits available under the Act. 6.9. Under the circumstances and in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as the benefits under section 23(1)(A) are statutory benefits and considering provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we are of the opinion that the original claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act and said benefits in the appeal preferred by the acquiring body without preferring any Cross Appeal or Cross Objections, and the same deserves to be granted and it is to be held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation with statutory benefits including benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. 6.10. Under the circumstances, respective First Appeal Nos. 583 and 584 of 2014 are required to be partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Additional Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in LAR Case Nos. 722 and 723 of 2012 is required to be modified and it is required to be held that original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 193/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired of village Pansar, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act including benefits under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. However, it is required to be clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. First Appeal Nos. 583 and 584 of 2014 are required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. However, it is required to be clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28A of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. First Appeal Nos. 583 and 584 of 2014 are required to be allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, respective First Appeal Nos. 583 and 584 of 2014 are partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned reference court-learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in LAR Nos. 722 and 723 of 2012 is hereby modified and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 203/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired of village Pansar, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar with all other statutory benefits available under the Act including the benefits available under section 23(1)(A) of the Act. It is further clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to interest under section 23(1)(A) of the Act from the date of taking over the possession under section 16 of the Act. Both these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Registry is directed to return R&P of the case to the learned reference court forthwith.