This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. N.L.Hindley, arbitrator, ap­pointed in pursuance of 8. 19, Defence of India Act. The facts material to the appeal are these: [2] It appears that in 1942 some land and structures belonging to one Gobordhan Mahesri, the possession of which had been taken by the military authorities, were acquired by the Govern­ment of Assam. The Collector of Sibsagar acting as Ex-Officio Land Acquisition Officer under the Land Acquisition Act took proceedings for the purpose of determining compensation to the claimant, Gobordhan Mahesri. In due course he decided that a sum of Rs. 2859/3/- was a fair-compensation for the properties acquired. In the acquisition proceedings before the Collector the claimant had contended that the shop and other structures were made of C. I. sheet roofs and C.I. sheet walls and valuable wooden posts and that the value of the shop premises, according to the-then market value, was more than Rs. 8000 and that the value of the two houses was Rs. 2500. The claimant relied upon the report of Major B. A. Khan, Executive Engineer, Bengal & Assam Railway, who had been deputed to value the properties. According to the report of Major B. A. Khan dated 27th November 1943, the two houses were valued at Rs. 8000 and the shop at Rs. 5000 to Rs. 6000. [3] Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimant demanded an arbitration and Mr. Hindley was appointed an arbitrator under the provisions of S. 19, Defence of India Act. Before the. arbitrator, the peti­tioner filed a claim in which he valued the shop premises at Bs. 6000 and the two houses at rs. 3500. In addition to the value of the proper­ties be claimed compensation for loss of business which he assessed at Rs. 6000 from 1942 to 1944. The Collector of Sibsagar filed a written state­ment to the claimant's claim in which he re­iterated that the compensation awarded by him was a fair compensation. On the pleadings the arbitrator framed the following three issues: 1. Is the compensation awarded by the Collector adequate and just? If not, to what amount the claimant entitled? 2. Is the market value made by the Executive Engin­eer, (Mariani) based upon the market rate available in the locality at the time of the requisition? How far can his report be acted upon? 3. Is the compensation awarded by the Collector adequate and just? If not, to what amount the claimant entitled? 2. Is the market value made by the Executive Engin­eer, (Mariani) based upon the market rate available in the locality at the time of the requisition? How far can his report be acted upon? 3. To what relief is the claimant entitled? [4] We think on the pleadings the issues were not adequately framed by the arbitrator. More-over we are not satisfied with the manner in which the arbitrator has approached the question of determining compensation in this case. In framing issue 1, the arbitrator appears to have thought that the main question for determina­tion was whether the compensation awarded by the Collector was adequate and just. It might be that such an issue would be the principal issue if an award of the Collector were the subject matter of a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, to the District Court. The proceedings, however, before an arbitrator appointed under the Defence of India Act are original proceedings and it seems to us that in framing the first issue, the arbitrator has unduly stressed the importance to be attached to the Collector's award. [5] Under the Defence of India Act an arbi­trator's award must conform to the provisions of S. 23 (l), Land Acquisition Act. Had the arbi­trator framed proper issues with reference to the provisions of S. 23 (1), we might have derived some assistance from his decision. [6] It appears that certain contentions based upon the relevant clauses of S. 23 were raised before him but the arbitrator proceeded to dis­pose of them in these words : "Had such claims been urged before the Collector, supported by relevant accounts, it is quite possible that such loss, if any, would have been taken into account." We think the arbitrator has erred in taking this view. As we have pointed out, the proceedings before him being original proceedings, it was his duty to call upon the claimant to produce evi­dence including account in support of his case. We find from the record that the claimant was assessed to income-tax for the year 1941 in the sum of Rs. 2500. This was an indication of the claimant's income and it tends to support his claim that he had suffered a loss of some Rs. 6000 or Rs. 7000 between 1942 and 1944. We find from the record that the claimant was assessed to income-tax for the year 1941 in the sum of Rs. 2500. This was an indication of the claimant's income and it tends to support his claim that he had suffered a loss of some Rs. 6000 or Rs. 7000 between 1942 and 1944. We can find nothing on the record which shows that the arbitrator ever called upon the claimant to pro­duce his accounts. The arbitrator has even thought fit to draw an adverse presumption against the claimant for not producing his ac­counts. In view of the fact that the claimant was assessed to income-tax, we think the arbi­trator was in error in drawing an adverse inference in this behalf, the more so when he had not called upon the claimant to produce his accounts. [7] In dealing with the value of the proper­ties, the arbitrator says : "The Collector's award in this respect was made after the Kanungo's work had been checked by two gazetted officers......The claimant has got to dis­place the figures in Ex. D. by producing something oral or documentary to prove them wrong." [8] As we have pointed out, this was an erro­neous approach to the proceedings before him. One of the ways by which the valuation of an acquired property is to be determined is to deter­mine its market value by comparison with sales in the neighbouring locality. Assuming this was not possible in this case, we think Major Khan's report was entitled to some consideration. It is possible to assess the value of old houses with reference to the value of new houses at the date of the notification by deducting from the value of the new houses, such depreciation as is allowed by recognised principles. Similarly it was possi­ble to determine the value of the sheets, etc., in this manner. [9] In the penultimate paragraph of his award the arbitrator says : "There is no material before me providing necessary data to enable this Court to consider and decide whether the assessment of compensation for the land and premises is wrong; (2) that there is no material at all By which this Court can decide whether there has been any loss of earnings : the figure of Rs. 6000 is purely arbitrary and not supported by anything on record; (3) that cost of removal has not been either claimed or proved nor damage to other moveable property. There­fore on issue (3) I hold that the claimant is entitled to no relief." [10] As we take the view that the arbitrator should have called upon the claimant to produce evidence in support of the various items of his claim and that as the arbitrator has failed to do so, we would set aside his award and remand the claim to be decided according to law. In dealing with this matter on remand, the arbitrator should bear in mind that it is his duty to arrive at compensation independently of the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer by all such means as can be properly resorted to for arriving at just and equitable award. [11] The award is accordingly remanded to the arbitrator for re-trial of the claim according to law. We understand that Mr. Hindley has left India in which case another arbitrator would have to be appointed to hear and decide this claim. Award, remanded.