JUDGMENT : ANOOP CHITKARA, J. 1. Vide present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (from now on referred to as the Act), the appellants/State is challenging the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2011, passed by the District Judge, Shimla, H.P. in Land Reference Case No. 7-S/4 of 2007, titled as M/s Sanatan Dharam Sabha vs. The Land Acquisition Collector and others. 2. The second Appellant, State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (PWD), Government of H.P., had notified and acquired 1161-75 square meters of land belonging to the claimant/respondent herein for the construction of 'Sanjauli Dhalli Bypass Road' by notification dated 3.08.2004, issued under Section 4 of the Act. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his Award No. 25/2005 on 26.09.2005. It is a matter of record that the market value of the acquired land came to be assessed INR 80,000/- per bigha. 3. Aggrieved by the compensation, not to be in tune with their entitlement, claimant/respondent herein, filed Land Reference No. 7- S/4 of 2007, under Section 18/30 of the Act. 4. The stand of the appellants is that the respondent can claim only 50% of the compensation, out of this land. It is for the reason that the revenue records do not reflect the claimant as owner. The claimant also did not prove its title of ownership. Therefore, the remaining 50% compensation amount has to go to the appellants/State of H.P., being the recorded owners in the records of land revenue. 5. The erstwhile ruler of Koti Estate had donated a large chunk of land, to Sanatan Dharam Sabha, Shimla, for religious purposes. He made such grant more than a century ago. The claimant/Society constructed one cremation ground on this chunk of land. It has come in the evidence that this cremation ground is the central funeral place for Hindus in Shimla. 6. The claim for enhancement is contested by the appellant herein. Their main contention is that the claimant/Society does not own the notified land. The proved facts point out that the revenue records mention the State of Himachal Pradesh as the owner of the property in question. The appellants also disputed the entitlement of enhancement of claim to the claimants. 7. Vide impugned judgment dated 29.04.2011, the market value of the acquired land stands re-determined @ INR 5,32,416/- per bigha, consistently, irrespective of the classification and category of the land. The appellants also disputed the entitlement of enhancement of claim to the claimants. 7. Vide impugned judgment dated 29.04.2011, the market value of the acquired land stands re-determined @ INR 5,32,416/- per bigha, consistently, irrespective of the classification and category of the land. The District Judge did not grant 100% claim to the claimant holding therein that 50% of the same would go to the State of H.P. Hence the Learned District Judge restricted the claim to 50% of the amount re-determined in the following terms: "17. In view of my findings on issue No. (i) above, the petitioner is entitled to the relief. The petitioner is entitled to 50% of the market value of the land under acquisition at the rate of 5,32,416/- per bigha. The petitioner is awarded additional compensation/interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 03.08.2004 till 26.09.2005 under Section 23(1-A) of the Act for 50% of its share of compensation. The petitioner is entitled to compulsorily acquisition charges/solatium at the rate of 30% on 1/2 share of the enhanced amount of compensation. Apart from this, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum w.e.f. 27.09.2005 for one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the amount of compensation was deposited in the court. Reference petition is accordingly answered." 8. The State is aggrieved by the impugned judgment on the ground that the learned District Judge has misinterpreted the law and has wrongly appreciated the evidence on record and that the judgment is against the facts as per law. It has further been stated that the land acquired is situated in revenue village Chalaunti (Sanjauli), Tehsil and District Shimla having meager population and the market value assessed by the District Judge is very high taking reliance of the sale deeds relating to small piece of land executed between the parties and as such the findings of the District Judge while making such reliance on one piece of land is not proper. 9. It has further been stated that the ld. District Judge Shimla has not appreciated the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector below who has assessed the value of the acquired land according to its potential based on the location of the said land. 9. It has further been stated that the ld. District Judge Shimla has not appreciated the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector below who has assessed the value of the acquired land according to its potential based on the location of the said land. The value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector is according to the revenue record and the value whatever was prevailing at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act which, as such, deserves to be upheld but not as assessed by the District Judge, Shimla. This being so because due to this abnormal hike in market value the burden upon the state, exchequer has unnecessarily been increased at the rate of 665.52% above for 1161.75 square meters, whereas total land acquired for 'Sanjauli-Dhalli Bypass' is 17552.52 square meters and thus the state government will also have to pay the enhanced value of the compensation. As such, the award of the Land Acquisition Collector being reasonable, legal and valid deserves to be upheld and the enhancement made by the District Judge, Shimla deserves to be set aside. 10. It has further been stated that pertaining to 'Sanjauli-Dhali Bypass' the District Judge, Shimla passed award in Land Reference Case No. 40-S/4 of 2005 Smt. Geeta Devi and others vs. State of H.P. (RFA No. 181/09), Land Reference No. 39-S/4 of 2008/06 Smt. Shankri Vs. State of H.P. (RFA No. 294/09), Land Reference No. 26- S/4 of 2005 in Sh. Inder Dass Bekta vs. State of H.P. and Land Reference No. 5-S/4 of 2007 Smt. Prabu Devi and others vs. State of H.P. All these cases stand challenged before the High Court by appellants on the grounds of the abnormal hike. Hence the impugned award also deserves to be clubbed and decided along with the said RFA's. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone the entire record. I have even gone through the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 42 of 2009 (Dr. Saif Ali Khan vs. State of H.P.) along with connected appeal (RFA No. 293 of 2009), decided on 23.3.2016. The land in issue in this appeal was also acquired for construction of 'Sanjauli Dhalli Bypass Road.' 12. I have even gone through the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 42 of 2009 (Dr. Saif Ali Khan vs. State of H.P.) along with connected appeal (RFA No. 293 of 2009), decided on 23.3.2016. The land in issue in this appeal was also acquired for construction of 'Sanjauli Dhalli Bypass Road.' 12. This Court had passed the following order on 24.10.2018 in the present appeal: "Both learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel representing the respondent are in agreement that point in issue involved in this appeal is covered by the judgments of this Court in RFA No. 42 of 2009, titled as Dr. Saif Ali Khan vs. State of H.P. and ors., decided on 23.3.2016 and in RFA No. 414 of 2010, titled as Prabhu Devi vs. Sate of H.P. and ors., decided on June 2, 2016. But, the respondent-claimant is entitled to the compensation at the rates as enhanced by this Court in the judgments cited supra without filing any appeal or cross-objections or not, they seek adjournment to assist this Court qua this aspect of the matter on the next date. Granted."... 13. I have gone through the judgment in the matter of Dr. Saif Ali Khan (supra). The acquired land was identical and similar. It has come in the evidence that the land involved in the present RFA was only at a walking distance of half a kilometer from the main Sanjauli bazar. The appellants object that at the cremation ground, the value of the land would be less. However, no evidence has been led to prove that the property which is near the cremation ground would have lesser market value than the similarly placed land. In modern times, people have a scientific temper, and in the absence of the specific evidence, no such presumption would arise. 14. I am of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Saif Ali Khan (supra) covers the present case on all fours. 15. The decision in Dr. Saif Ali Khan (supra) was further followed by this Court in RFA No. 414 of 2010 (Smt. Prabhu Devi vs. State of H.P.) along with connected Appeal (RFA No. 416 of 2010), decided on 2.6.2016. This Court also followed it in RFA No. 17 of 2010 (State of H.P. vs. Sh. 15. The decision in Dr. Saif Ali Khan (supra) was further followed by this Court in RFA No. 414 of 2010 (Smt. Prabhu Devi vs. State of H.P.) along with connected Appeal (RFA No. 416 of 2010), decided on 2.6.2016. This Court also followed it in RFA No. 17 of 2010 (State of H.P. vs. Sh. Inder Dass Bekta) along with Cross Objections (CO No. 360 of 2010), decided on 2.6.2016. The holdings of the co-ordinate bench of this Court binds me to follow the same. I am also inclined to take a similar view on the evidence proved in these proceedings. 16. In all these above matters, this Court had enhanced the claim by determining the market value of the acquired land @ INR 9,05,107/- per bigha along with statutory benefits. 17. Also during arguments learned Additional Advocate General did not point out as to why the compensation in respect of the acquired land should not be enhanced to INR 9,05,107/- per bigha, instead of INR 5,32,416/- per bigha. 18. The more important question involved in the present petition is as follows: Whether it is possible for the appellate Court to enhance the compensation in the absence of any appeal or crossobjections? 19. In Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India and another, (2015) 15 SCC 220 , a three Judges Bench of Supreme Court holds as follows: "Insofar as land situate in Village Burari is concerned, as already noted above, though the LAC had given the categorisation, the Reference Court had refused to accept the same finding that the entire land was to be treated uniformly as Category 'A' land. Apart from the topography of the land, which was almost identical, the Reference Court also pointed out that the distinction had no relevance because the acquisition was for the same purpose, namely, "Biodiversity Park", and, therefore, potentiality of the land would be the same for the aforesaid purpose and it did not matter as to whether a particular parcel of the land was different from the other (though it was not even factually correct). We find this reason to be quite convincing. There appears to be no manifest justification in the judgment of the High Court in reintroducing the said categorisation. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the compensation should be awarded to all the appellants uniformly at Rs. 20,20,568 per acre. We find this reason to be quite convincing. There appears to be no manifest justification in the judgment of the High Court in reintroducing the said categorisation. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the compensation should be awarded to all the appellants uniformly at Rs. 20,20,568 per acre. For the same reasons, similar treatment is to be accorded to the appellants whose lands in Jharoda Mazra Burari are acquired by granting compensation at uniform rate of Rs. 12,60,580 per acre." 20. It will be relevant to advert to the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows: "33. Power of Court of Appeal: The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees: Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under section 35A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order." 21. The Division Bench of this Court in L.A.C., Solan and another vs. Bhoop Ram, (1997) 2 ShimLC 229 holds as follows: "12. We may give reasons for invoking extra-ordinary powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure to award uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square metre or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha to all the Respondents-claimants in these appeals. Though we have dismissed the appeals of the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh, yet we have allowed the appeal of one of the Respondents-claimants, namely, Bhoop Ram in R.F.A. No. 9 of 1984 to the limited extent that he will be entitled to compensation for his acquired land at uniform rate of Rs. Though we have dismissed the appeals of the Land Acquisition Collector and the State of Himachal Pradesh, yet we have allowed the appeal of one of the Respondents-claimants, namely, Bhoop Ram in R.F.A. No. 9 of 1984 to the limited extent that he will be entitled to compensation for his acquired land at uniform rate of Rs. 40 per square metre or Rs. 30,000 per Bigha, as a result of which the impugned award is modified only in respect of the acquired land of Respondent-claimant Bhoop Ram but in respect of other Respondents-claimants by the same award different rates of market price are awarded according to classification of their acquired land, which creates an anomalous position. Therefore, in order to give just and fair compensation to all the Respondents-claimants whose lands have been acquired for the same purpose and by the same notification under Section 4 of the Act, it is in the interest of justice and fair play to award compensation at the same rate which has been awarded to one of them, namely, Bhoop Ram, without their filing appeal or cross-objections. 13. Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in its number of judgments and we may refer to a few of them. In Panna Lal v. State of Bombay and Ors., (1963) AIR SC 1516, the learned Judges have held in para 12: (12) Even a bare reading of Order 41, Rule 33 is sufficient to convince any one that the wide wording, was intended to empower the appellate Court to make whatever order it thinks fit, not only as between the Appellant and the Respondent but also as between a Respondent and a Respondent. It empowers the appellate Court not only to give or refuse relief to the Appellant by allowing or dismissing the appeal but also to give such other relief to any of the Respondents as "the case may require" In the present case, if there was no impediment in law the High Court could therefore, though allowing the appeal of the State by dismissing the Plaintiff's suits against it, give the Plaintiff a decree against any or all the other Defendants who were parties to the appeal as Respondents. While the very words of the section make this position abundantly clear the illustration puts the position beyond argument. 14. While the very words of the section make this position abundantly clear the illustration puts the position beyond argument. 14. These principles are reiterated in Koksingh v. Deokabai, (1976) AIR SC 634, wherein the Respondent did not appeal from the decree of the trial Court negativing her claim in a suit for charge on the property, still the High Court had granted a decree for the enforcement of the charge. Upholding the decree of the High Court, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have held that under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure the High Court was competent to pass such a decree in favour of the Respondent notwithstanding the fact that the Respondent did not file any appeal from the decree. 15. In a later judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahant Dhangir and Anr. v. Shri Madan and Ors., (1988) AIR SC 54, the learned Judges have further elaborated that: "... ...If the cross-objection filed under Rule 22 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable against the co-Respondent, the Court could consider it under Rule 23 of Order 41, Code of Civil Procedure, Rule 22 and Rule 33 are not mutually exclusive. They are closely related with each other. If objection cannot be urged under Rule 22 against co-Respondent, Rule 33 could take over and come to the rescue of the objector. The appellate Court could exercise the power under Rule 33 even if the appeal is only against a part of the decree of the lower Court. The appellate Court could exercise that power in favour of all or any of the Respondents although such Respondent may not have filed any appeal or objection The sweep of the power under Rule 33 is wide enough to determine any question not only between the Appellant and Respondent, but also between Respondent and co-Respondent. The appellate Court could pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed in the circumstances of the case. The appellate Court could also pass such other decree or order as the case may require. The words "as the case may require" used in Rule 33 of Order 41 have been put in wide terms to enable the appellate Court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice. What then should be the constraint? We do not find many. The words "as the case may require" used in Rule 33 of Order 41 have been put in wide terms to enable the appellate Court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice. What then should be the constraint? We do not find many. We are not giving any liberal interpretation. The rule itself is liberal enough. The only constraints that we could see may be these: That the parties before the lower Court should be there before the appellate Court. The question raised must properly arise out of judgment of the lower Court. If these two requirements are there, the appellate Court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or decree of the lower Court. It may be urged by any party to the appeal. It is true that the power of the appellate Court under Rule 33 is discretionary. But it is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to determine all questions urged in order to render complete justice between the parties. The Court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on mere technicalities. 16. From the above pronouncements of the Supreme Court it is clear that Order 41, Rule 33 confers wide and unlimited jurisdiction on Courts to pass a decree in favour of a party who has not preferred any appeal, there are however certain well defined principles in accordance with which that jurisdiction should be exercised. Normally a party who is aggrieved by a decree should file appeal or cross-object ions against it within a period of limitation, but there are well recognised exceptions to this rule. Some of them are: (i) Where as a result of interference in the appeal it becomes necessary to readjust the rights of other parties; (ii) where the question is one to settle mutual rights and obligations between the same parties and (iii) when relief prayed for is single and indivisible but is claimed against the number of Defendants." 22. In view of the provisions under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC read with Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, even if Cross Objections/Cross Appeals are not on the file of this Court, on the ground of parity, the State cannot deprive the claimants of their lawful entitlement of just, fair and adequate compensation. 23. In view of the provisions under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC read with Section 53 of the Land Acquisition Act, even if Cross Objections/Cross Appeals are not on the file of this Court, on the ground of parity, the State cannot deprive the claimants of their lawful entitlement of just, fair and adequate compensation. 23. In Narendra and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2017) 9 SCC 426 the Supreme Court holds as follows: "(5) After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue has already been settled by this Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544 wherein it is held that it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim made by the land owner and there is no cap on the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the court and the courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has been claimed by the land owners/applicants in their application before it. The relevant paras of this judgment is quoted as under: "6. Prior to amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation that could be awarded by the Court was limited to the amount claimed by the applicant. Section 25 read as under- '25. Rules as to amount of compensation- (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given Under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less 1 (2016) 4 SCC 544 than the amount awarded by the Collector Under Section 11. (2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector. (3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.' The amended Section 25 reads as under: '25. (3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.' The amended Section 25 reads as under: '25. Amount of compensation awarded by Court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector- The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.' The amendment has come into effect on 24.09.1984. 7. The pre-amended provision put a cap on the maximum; the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap on the minimum; compensation cannot be less that what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner. xxx xxx xxx 9. In Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1985) 3 SCC 737 , this Court held that there may be situations where the amount higher than claimed may be awarded to the claimant. The Court observed- '3. ... It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the Appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the Appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is no reason why the Appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the Appellants would tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the Appellants on payment of less than the true market value. There may be cases where, as for instance, under' agrarian reform legislation, the holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few and bringing about its equitable distribution, be deprived of land which is not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no compensation at all, but where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value' 10. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal, (2000) 7 SCC 756 , this Court held that under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Court can grant a higher compensation than claimed by the applicant in his pleadings.... 11. Further, in Bhimasha v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors., (2008) 10 SCC 797 , a three-Judge bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh (supra) and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court." (Emphasis supplied) (6) The matter can be looked into from another angle as well, viz., in the light of the spirit contained in Section 28A of the Act. This provision reads as under: "28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court. This provision reads as under: "28-A. Re-determination of the amount of compensation on the basis of the award of the court. - (1) Where in an award under this Part, the Court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector under Section II, the persons interested in all the other land covered by the same notification under Section 4, sub-section (1) and who are also aggrieved by the award of the Collector may, notwithstanding that they had not made an application to the Collector under Section 18, by written application to the Collector within three months from the date of the award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be re-determined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the court." 7. It transpires from the bare reading of the aforesaid provision that even in the absence of exemplars and other evidence, higher compensation can be allowed for others whose land was acquired under the same Notification." 24. Whenever the authorities acquire the lands under the Act, then it is not the will of the landowner, but it is the will of the State which prevails. In a regular sale transaction, there is a bargain, and terms of Contract Act apply like offerer, offeree, acceptance, and consideration. All this takes place on the mutually agreed terms and conditions. To the contrary, when the authorities initiate acquisition proceeds under some statute, then even if the landowner is unwilling to sell, he can challenge such move only on extremely limited grounds. He can not negotiate the acquisition price unless the proceedings are under those provisions. Simply because some land owners or persons in possession could not file Cross Objections or Appeals because of any reason, then it does not mean that the State should close its eyes. It is expected of the State to voluntary extend equal benefits even without the claimants asking for it. India is a welfare State where the Constitution of India has declared Article 14 that Equality before Law as a fundamental right. A welfare state would give compensation, which is warranted and determined, after following just procedure of law, and which the claimant deserves and is entitled to, even without his asking for it. 25. India is a welfare State where the Constitution of India has declared Article 14 that Equality before Law as a fundamental right. A welfare state would give compensation, which is warranted and determined, after following just procedure of law, and which the claimant deserves and is entitled to, even without his asking for it. 25. Given the above, in the impugned judgment dated 29.04.2011 instead of land acquisition rate mentioned as INR 5,32,416/- per bigha, it shall read as INR 9,05,107/- per bigha, and this Court increase the rates to such an extent, with no other modification. All the other reliefs stand as it is. The impugned award stands modified accordingly. All pending applications, if any, also stand closed.