Sunanda Bhandare, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated July 9, 1984 read with Order dated February 15, 1990 in LAC Case No. 81 of 1981. The brief facts are as follows:

2. The land belonging to respondents No. 3 to 6 in village Tughlakabad, New Delhi was acquired by Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated July 5, 1973. The declaration under Section 6 was issued on August 12, 1975. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on February 8, 1979 and fixed the market value at Rs. 3000 per bigha. A reference petition was filed under Section 18 of theand the Additional District Judge fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 49,000 per bigha. The Additional District Judge, however, in his order of July 9 1984 had not given benefit of interest under the amended Act to the respond dents No. 3 to 6. These respondents filed a review petition before the Additional District Judge for amendment of the decree praying that solatiam and interest be awarded at an enhanced rate. Therefore, the Additional District Judge passed the order of February 15, 1990 and allowed the review petition. This appeal has been filed by the Union of India against the decree passed by the Additional District Judge on the ground that the additional interest awarded by order of February 15, 1990 was unjustified. During the pendency of the appeal respondents No. 3 to 6 have filed cross-objections seeking further enhancement of the market value to Rs. 68,000 per bigha.

3. As regards the question of interest at enhanced rate awarded by the Additional District Judge is concerned, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the Union of India as the point raised is squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Zora Singh etc. J.T. 1991 (4) page 538. However, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are not entitled to enhanced compensation as claimed by them in their cross-objections because the cross-objections are not maintainable in this appeal. It has been submitted that the appeal filed by the Union of India is only in respect of interest awarded by the Additional District Judge against the order passed in review and there is no appeal filed against the main order dated July 9, 1984 fixing the market value of the land. Learned Counsel submitted that the appellant has not challenged the enhancement in the appeal and has not even paid Court fees in that regard. It is also submitted that the copy of judgment of the Additional District Judge dated July 9, 1984 has not been filed by the appellant in this appeal.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the order of the Additional District Judge dated February 15, 1990 passed in the review petition filed by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 got merged with the judgment and order dated July 9, 1984 and the final decree was drawn up only thereafter incorporating the relief given to respondents No. 3 to 6 in both the orders. Thus, the appellant could file the appeal against the whole decree incorporating both the orders of July 9, 1984 and February 15, 1990. Learned Counsel further submitted that in the grounds of appeal filed by the appellants they have actually challenged the enhancement granted by the Additional District Judge and respondent Nos. 3 to 6 would not know whether sufficient Court-fees had been filed by the appellant or not.

5. Moreover, it is submitted that respondents No. 3 to 6 filed the cross-objections on receipt of the notice of the filing of the appeal despite the fact that consolidated notice was issued to the respondents. The cross-objections according to the learned Counsel, are, therefore, within time and it is proved that the cross-objections be allowed granting further enhancement following the judgment of this Court in Virender Singh v. Union of India, (1992) 1 LAL 35, where compensation has been given at the enhanced market value at Rs. 68,000 per bigha in respect of the same notification and the same village.

6. We find from the pleadings that the Union of India in its memo of appeal has categorically challenged the enhanced compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge to respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in the reference petition. Undoubtedly, the appellant have not paid Court fees in that regard. However, that is the defect in the appeal for which respondents No. 3 to 6 cannot be penalised. We find substantial force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 3 to 6 that the order of the Additional District Judge passed in review dated February 15, 1990 and the order of July 9, 1984 got merged and the final decree was drawn up only incorporating the relief given in both these orders. The Union of India could file an appeal in this Court only against the final order and final judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge.

7. The appeal filed by the Union of India is also defective for not filing the order of the Additional District Judge dated July 9, 1984. Again, the Union of India could not have done that because only one decree giving effect to both the orders was passed and also because both the orders by then had merged. Again, respondent Nos. 3 to 6 cannot be penalised for this defect in the appeal filed by the Union of India.

8. In the circumstances the appeal filed by the Union of India is dismissed. The cross-objections filed by respondents No. 3 to 6 are allowed and we direct that respondent Nos. 3 to 6 be given compensation at enhanced market value at Rs. 68,000 per bigba. We may repeat that in respect of the same notification and the same village we had in Virender Singh v. Union of India (supra), assessed the market value of the land in village Tughlakabad at Rs. 68.000 per bigha. The respondent Nos. 3 to 6 will also be entitled to interest and solatium as awarded by the Additional District Judge, and costs.