JUDGMENT : This appeal has been preferred against Judgment/Award dated 21.08.2013 and Decree signed on 30.08.2013, passed in L.A.R. Case No. 702 of 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 these claimants and others 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 more price than the amount of compensation and no agricultural activities were 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 at 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. 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 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. 7. Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Sr. Counsel submits that 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 counsel submits that the appellant herein are the respondent nos. 7 and 10 in F.A. No. 193 of 2013 and said appeal has already been disposed of and as such this appeal may be disposed of in view of orders passed in said F.A. No. 193 of 2013. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants does not object to the submission of learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the MECON. 9. Having heard counsel for the parties and upon perusal of records and order passed in F.A. No. 193 of 2013, this appeal is disposed of in agreement with the parties in terms of order passed in F.A. No. 193 of 2013. 10. With the aforesaid observations and directions this appeal stands disposed of. 11. All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.