Judgment P. S. Sahay, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of land acquisition proceedings. They have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment. 2. By notification no.872, dated 26.12.1967 the State of Bihar acquired some land for the construction of Sone Bridge in the district of Shahabad (now Rohtas ). In Land Acquisition Case No.17/65, out of which F. A.133/67 arises the land of khata no.28 plot no.347 having an area of 1.25 acres (40 kathas)had been acquired and a sum of Rs.2795.39 paise was awarded as compensation by the Collector. In Land Acquisition Case No.15/64, out of which F. A. No.136/67 arises, the land of katha no.23, plot no.332 having an area of 0.16 dec only was acquired and a sum of Rs.357.81 was awarded as compensation by the Collector. The appellants received the money under protest and filed applications under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) claiming higher compensation. According to the case of the appellants, the land was within Dehri Notified Area committee and it was closeto the river, railway line and the station. They further claimed that it had potential value and the compensation awarded by the collector was wholly inadequate. 3. In support of their case the appellants filed a number of documents, including Ext.3/a, a judgment passed in another land acquisition case, dated the 2nd Septemper, 1965, and examined three witnesses. One witness was also examined on behalf of the State. 4. The learned Judge on a consideration of the materials on the record granted Rs.3212.50 as the compensation for the land of plot no.347, besides a sum of Rs.300/- for the well. A sum of Rs.410.88 was awarded for plot no.332. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment the appellants have preferred these appeals. 5. Mr. Radha Raman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appelants, has contended that the compensation for the land is too inadequate and the learned Judge has not considered material evidence. In support of his contention he has relied on the petition filed under section 18 of the Act in which it has been stated that the site of the acquired land is such that it is a part of Dehri town area and is situated within the Dehru - Dalmia Nagar Notified area Committee. In support of his contention he has relied on the petition filed under section 18 of the Act in which it has been stated that the site of the acquired land is such that it is a part of Dehri town area and is situated within the Dehru - Dalmia Nagar Notified area Committee. It may be pertinent to mention that there was similar acquisition of other land and in connection therewith the land Acquisition officer was examined. A copy of his deposition has been exhibited in this case vide Ext.4. In that case he stated that the lands of all the villages, which had been acquired, were within the Dehri Notified Area Committee. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the map (Ext.5) to show that plot nos.331 and 327, which were acquired vide the judgment Ext.3/a, are close to plot nos.347 and 332. In Ext.3/a the compensation was allowed at the rate of rs.2,000/ per katha. 6. Learned Government pleader appearing for the State has contended that the lands, which were acquired under Ext 3/a, were of superior quality and, therefore, higher amount of compensation was allowed. He also submitted that the lands of plot nos.347 and 332 are much inferior wherein no residential house could be constructed, as held by the learned Judge, and, therefore, the rate of compensation allowed by the Judge was just and proper and did not call for any interference. Learned Government Pleader could not state whether any appeal was preferred against the judgment (Ext.3a) dated 2.9.1965 and for that purpose the present appeals were adjourned. Today he has stated that in spite of the fact that information was sent to the authorities concerned, ha has received no instruction in the matter. On the other hand, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellants stating that against the judgment (Ext.3/a) no appeal had been filed in this Court and this fact has been controverted by the learned Government Pleader. Therefore, so far as the judgment (Ext.3/a) is concerned, that has become final. 7. Now the point for consideration is what amount of compensation should be awarded in the instant case. So far as plot no.332 is concerned, it is almost adjacent to plot nos.331 and 330, which we have ourselves compared from the map (Ext.5 ). Therefore, so far as the judgment (Ext.3/a) is concerned, that has become final. 7. Now the point for consideration is what amount of compensation should be awarded in the instant case. So far as plot no.332 is concerned, it is almost adjacent to plot nos.331 and 330, which we have ourselves compared from the map (Ext.5 ). As I have said earlier, a sum of Rs.2000/- per katha has been awarded as compensation for plot nos.331 and 330. Therefore, even if is not absolutely close to the road, I think, the amount of Rs.15.00/-per katha should be awarded as compensation for a portion of plot no.332, that is, the area acquired being 16 dec. only. So far as plot no.347 is concerned, it is close to the river and also the railway line It is not so close to plot nos.330, 331 and 327. According to the evidence adduced in the present case and the finding of the learned Judge some portion of the earth has been dug from this land. Considering all these, in my opinion, a sum of Rs.600/- per katha should be awarded over and above Rs.300/- for the well, which has been awarded by the Judge. The appellants will also be entitled to compensation of 15% besides interest 6% per annum from the date of possession till the date of payment of the amount so awarded, if not already paid. 8. In the result, the appeals succeed in part. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.