JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against Judgement/ Award dated 21.08.2013 and Decree signed on 30.08.2013, passed in L.A.R. Case No. 702/1981 [arising out of L.A. Case No. 22/1976 – 77], by learned Sub-Judge-II-cum-L.A. Judge, Ranchi. 2. The fact of the case in short is that land of the claimants measuring an area of 60½ Decimals, nature – Dhan-II, bearing Khata No. 129 and Plot No. 67/1, situated at Village-Hinoo, District – Ranchi were acquired for the purpose of construction of residential quarters of H.S.L. [now known as MECON]. Against the said acquisition, an Award being No. 55 for a sum of Rs.25,055.26 was prepared by the Collector for the aforesaid land and claimants received the said amount of compensation. Subsequently, Claimants raised their grievance, by filing reference application before the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, contending that the compensation awarded against the said acquired land by the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi is quite low and inadequate and the Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi has absolutely committed error in making proper and adequate valuation of the said land. The claimants raised their grievance on the ground that the acquired land was in the city of Ranchi and there are many important buildings and institutions around the acquired land and as such, in view of prime locality and potentiality of the land, the Collector has inadequately assessed the market value of the land and has awarded improper and inadequate compensation against their acquired land. The claimants have further raised their claim that the market value of the land at the time of acquisition and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was Rs. 3,500/- per decimals. 3. Claim of the claimants was objected by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) as well as the MECON on the ground that barren land could not fetch the price more than the amount of compensation and no agricultural activities was going on over the land, was acquired for the purpose of construction of residential quarters of HSL (now MECON). Adequate compensation has been awarded as per the prevalent market rate at the time of notification and as such claim application was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the reference petition was filed after expiry of prescribed period and as such the same was barred by limitation. Awardees already accepted compensation amount of Rs. Adequate compensation has been awarded as per the prevalent market rate at the time of notification and as such claim application was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that the reference petition was filed after expiry of prescribed period and as such the same was barred by limitation. Awardees already accepted compensation amount of Rs. 25,055.26 without objection and later filed application under Section 18 of the L.A. Act before the Collector to refer the matter for determination of amount of compensation, which is not at all maintainable. MECON was impleaded as opposite party in the present case after lapse of 33 years and as such, claim against opposite party is barred by limitation. The Reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act had been filed after expiry of period of six weeks of notice under Section 12 of Land Acquisition Act and even after six months from the date of making award and as such, the present reference case is barred by limitation. Claim of awardees for compensation at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per decimals is without any basis and against the materials on record. The Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi has rightly determined value of the land which was prevalent on the date of acquisition. The claim of the claimants would put the opposite parties to heavy financial burden and as such they prayed for dismissal of the application for enhancement of claim amount. 4. The Court below, after going through the records and considering facts and circumstances, framed following question for determination : I. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? II. Whether the objection filed by the awardees under Sec. 18 of L.A. Act is time barred? III. Whether the applicant is entitled to get enhanced compensation as claimed in the reference petition? 5. To prove their case, apart from the oral evidences the claimants also produced documentary evidences which were exhibited on record which has been considered and discussed in details by the learned Court below. After hearing the parties, considering facts and circumstances of the case, points of law, legal issues, Acts and Rules concerning to land acquisition, as well as oral and documentary evidence, the learned Court below held that claimants are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per decimals as against their claim of Rs.3,500/- per decimals for their land acquired through the aforesaid land acquisition case. It has further been held that the claimants are also entitled to get 6% interest per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date on which possession of the land was taken to the date when such enhanced amount of compensation is paid into the court. The claimants are also entitled to get 15% soletium with 6% interest. 6. The appellants have assailed impugned Judgment on the ground that the Court below has committed serious illegality in determining compensation amount of acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per decimal without referring to any materials for determining the compensation with reference to date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which is against materials of evidence available on record. The appellants have further taken the ground that the learned Court below failed in considering that the concerned Land Acquisition Reference Case was barred by limitation, specifically the petition filed by the respondents/ land owners under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the dispute to reference Court was not filed within the period of limitation. The Courts below did not consider valuation provided in the Khatiyan, which was already on record and which categorically provided the rates which were prevalent during the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and rates which were actually considered and awarded by L.A. Officer. 7. This case along with other tagged cases were earlier adjourned on various dates. On 30.01.2019, Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Sr. Counsel, upon instruction of appellant – MECON, came with a proposal that they are ready to pay balance amount along with 50% of the outstanding principal amount. Upon such submission, case was adjourned with a direction upon the respondents to seek instruction with respect to proposal of MECON. 8. Today when the case is taken up, Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Sr. Counsel submits that appellant – MECON is ready to pay the amount of compensation as already agreed by them i.e. the entire amount of outstanding principal amount and 50% of the outstanding principal amount and also the solatium. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that in the instant case, the amount of compensation has been claimed against Award-55, Khata No. 129, Plot No. 67/1, Class Dhan – II, Area – 60.5 Decimals and the awarded amount by the learned L.A. Judge is Rs.60,500. The original valuation is Rs. Learned Sr. Counsel further submits that in the instant case, the amount of compensation has been claimed against Award-55, Khata No. 129, Plot No. 67/1, Class Dhan – II, Area – 60.5 Decimals and the awarded amount by the learned L.A. Judge is Rs.60,500. The original valuation is Rs. 25,055.26 which was already paid and the outstanding principal amount as per the learned L.A. Judge in Impugned Award is Rs. 35,444.74. The soletium awarded by the learned L.A. Judge is Rs. 9,075. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the appellant is ready to pay the said outstanding principal amount along with additional 50% of the said outstanding principal amount. The appellant is further ready to pay the Solatium as awarded by the L.A. Judge. Learned Sr. Counsel submits that the appellants will not pay interest over and above these amounts including the principal amount as well as the Solatium. The amount shall be deposited by way of Demand Drafts with the Registrar General of this Court with respect to each case and the respondents may approach before the Registrar General who will disburse the amount upon presentation of respective identification. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the matter is very old and they have been deprived of their genuine grievance and meagre amount has been paid. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of Balwant Singh (D) through LRs. Gurbinder Singh Vs. The State of Haryana & others etc. etc. in Civil Appeal No. 2736 of 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(Civil) No. 15098 of 2016] and other analogous cases as also in the case of ONGC Limited Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel reported in 5 (2008) 14 SCC 745 and submits that respondents may be given compensation at a higher rate. He however on instruction of his clients, submits that since a fair proposal has come from the side of appellant for just decision of the case, the same is accepted from the side of claimants and further submits that a direction may be made for early disbursement of amount of compensation. 10. He however on instruction of his clients, submits that since a fair proposal has come from the side of appellant for just decision of the case, the same is accepted from the side of claimants and further submits that a direction may be made for early disbursement of amount of compensation. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of records, Judgments cited by learned counsels and fair proposal given by the appellant – MECON and in terms of the fair offer given by the Appellant and to end the prolonged litigation between the parties, this appeal is disposed of by accepting proposal of the appellant – MECON. Accordingly, appellant – MECON is directed to pay entire amount of outstanding principal amount and additional 75% of the outstanding principal amount and also the solatium in lieu of interest at the rate of 6% per annum, which would be just and proper and shall meet the ends of justice. Appellants are directed to deposit the said amount by way of Demand Drafts with the Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi with respect to each case separately and the respondents may approach before the Registrar General, who in turn will disburse the amount upon presentation of respective identification. 11. With the aforesaid observations and directions this appeal stands disposed of. 12. All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.