ORDER Bajpai, J. 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of the following counter appeals preferred by the claimants and the cross objections preferred by Respondents Nos. 15 to 19, 23 to 33 and 103 to 119. (i) Misc. Appeal No. 166/77 preferred by Malkhansingh & Ors; (ii) Misc. Appeal No. 167/77 preferred by Deviprasad & Ors; (iii) Misc. Appeal No. 168/77 preferred by Bhawani & Ors; (iv) Misc. Appeal No. 169/77 preferred by Ramswaroop & Ors; (v) Misc. Appeal No. 170/77 preferred by Fakirchand & Ors; (vi) Misc. Appeal No. 171/77 preferred by Kishanlal. (vii) Misc. Appeal No. 172/77 preferred by Gopiram. (viii) Cross objections as referred above. The case of Chelaram one of the claimants had not been dealt by the arbitrator and as such has not been dealt in this appeal. It was reported that proceedings in respect of Chelaram had been stayed by Court Order. 2. These appeals and cross-objections arise out of the proceedings for determination of compensation in connection with the acquisition of certain lands for the purposes of the following three projects under the Ministry of Defence of Union Government of India. The acreage of lands acquired for the respective projects and the compensation awarded by the Competent Authority are as noted in the schedule detailed below :- Name of Area Compensation for Total Project acquired Lands Trees Wells and and other other Bigha Biswas structures structures Short and 839 15 906587.65 6459.00 913056.65 Long Ranges 419 07 534554.85 6059.00 540613.85 J. & K. 773 09 950944.60 1778.00 957765.60 Centre 5043.00 A. S. C. Centre Grand Total Rs. 2,411,436.10 The amount of compensation for lands, trees, wells, and other structures, as determined by the Competent Authority was to the tune of 24,11,436/- (Twenty four lacs, Eleven thousands and four-hundred thirty six) as per details in the respective columns of the Schedule. The said amount, as determined and recommended by the Competent Authority was not agreeable to the claimants and, therefore an Arbitrator was appointed in accordance with the provisions of section 8 (i) (b) of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act XXX of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Shri B.A. Nigam Additional District Judge being duly qualified for the aforesaid appointment, according to the provisions of the Act was appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute about compensation. Shri B.A. Nigam Additional District Judge being duly qualified for the aforesaid appointment, according to the provisions of the Act was appointed as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute about compensation. He has given his award on 17th March 1977. By the said award, the amount of compensation as determined by the Competent Authority at Rs. 24,00,000/- (Twenty four lacs) was doubled and as such a sum twice the amount determined by the Competent Authority has been awarded as compensation. The Union of India and the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, have preferred this appeal in accordance with the provisions of section 11 of the Act. Certain respondents, as referred above, have also preferred cross-objections claiming more compensation, whereas certain respondents have preferred separate miscellaneous appeals as noted above. 3. It will be significant to mention at the outset that the only reason given by the Arbitrator as given in paragraphs 38 and 39 of his Award for increasing the amount of compensation by twenty-four lacs is that since the claimants had claimed the market price of the lands at five to ten time more than that determined and recommended by the Competent Authority, they may get at least the double of the same. The Arbitrator has stated with great emphasis, of course without any basis, that it was the minimum which the claimants must get despite the fact that the evidence brought on record was fluctuating, vague and uncertain. 4. It is really painful to note that despite having reproduced the language of the relevant sections of the Act giving guide lines for determination of compensation the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the High Courts in various cases and despite having assured while mentioning each and every piece of evidence that the same would be considered later on, at the time of deciding the quantum of compensation, the learned Arbitrator at the end, all of a sudden found it convenient to increase the amount of compensation by twenty-four lacs simply by one stroke of pen by saying that since the claimants have claimed the compensation at 5 to 10 times more than that determined by the Competent Authority, they should at least get double the amount of compensation. It was really fortunate that the claimants demanded compensation only at five to ten times more than that was recommended by the Competent Authority because, according to the test applied by the Arbitrator, the amount should have been increased to 96 lacs if the claimants would have demanded ten to twenty times more. 5. Mere reproduction of the principles laid down by the superior Court and quoting the evidence like a ritual and making the final order without taking the trouble of appreciating the same is undisputedly a bad practice and in the present case, it appears to be worse. At every step the learned Additional District Judge went on recording that evidence will be taken into consideration but ultimately he did not do so and made the award The way in which the learned Additional District Judge has dealt with the subject matter constrains us to observe that dealing arbitrarily with an important matter of deciding the amount of compensation, which vitally affects not only the interest of individuals, but the public exchequer also, to which the tax-payers contribute by paying through their nose, discloses highly irresponsible attitude. If we go through the Act, it becomes apparent that Legislature thought it proper to provide the appointment of only such persons as an arbitrator who were qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the High Court. 6. In the aforesaid situation, we will have to examine the entire material on record to find out whether the amount of compensation, as determined by the Competent Authority, is at all liable to be increased and if so, to what extent. It would be relevant to mention that the acquisition in the present case has been made under the provision of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act, 1952. The lands in question were earlier requisitioned on payment of rent in or about the year 1963. Thereafter, a decision was taken to acquire them and accordingly, a notification under section 7 of the Act was made in the year 1971. The lands in question were earlier requisitioned on payment of rent in or about the year 1963. Thereafter, a decision was taken to acquire them and accordingly, a notification under section 7 of the Act was made in the year 1971. Sub-section (3) of section 8, as quoted below, which relates to the case of acquisition, provides that the compensation payable for acquisition of any property under section 7 of the Act shall be the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning on being sold on the date of acquisition :- "Sec. 8 - Principles and method of determining compensation- (3) The compensation payable for the acquisition of any property under section 7 shall be the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in open market, if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition." 7. The Competent Authority had recorded a finding that an the lands sought to be acquired had no potential value as building site. They were undisputedly being used as agricultural lands, and even before the Arbitrator as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the award, it was not disputed that the area acquired had an agricultural base and the owners of the land used them for agricultural purposes. The only circumstance pointed out was that the lands in question were close to Morar, a locality of the Gwalior township. From the statement of claims filed by some of the claimants before the arbitrator, the impression created is that the claim for compensation was ill ode keeping in view the lands in question as being of agricultural base and compensation was claimed by pointing out the superior quality of soil and facility of irrigation etc. As will be disclosed hereinafter, no evidence was led to establish the potentiality of the lands in question as building sites. The only material pointed out in this respect was about 'the distance of the lands from the Municipal Corporation limits which varied from about half a kilometer to three kilometers. As will be disclosed hereinafter, no evidence was led to establish the potentiality of the lands in question as building sites. The only material pointed out in this respect was about 'the distance of the lands from the Municipal Corporation limits which varied from about half a kilometer to three kilometers. The lands of Maheshpur a and Lal Tipara, happened to be within a distance of half to one Kilometer from the Municipal Corporation limits and those of Mohanpur and Badagaon were at a distance of more than two to three Kilometers. It was not disputed that no part of the lands acquired was within the Municipal Corporation limits. 8. Since before us, it was contended that the lands acquired were just touching the Municipal Corporation limits and they had potential value for building purposes, we had taken a round, in presence of the counsel for the parties, of the area in question and found that except for a small piece of land i.e., about 2 Bighas of survey Nos. 2038 and 2040 touching the Municipal Corporation limits and situate just adjacent to the same all other lands are quite far off at the distance quoted above. 9. You cannot say that simply because certain lands happened to be situate on the outskirts of a town, they acquire potential value for building purposes only for that reason itself. Despite the aforesaid location of the lands, you will have to establish various other aspects for persuading the Court or Tribunal to determine compensation by treating the lands as having potential, various questions arise whether there was pressure of land for building activity; whether the extension of the said activity even if any, was towards the lands acquitted; what was the pace of progress i.e. how far the said activity has extended and within what time; and whether buildings have been put on the lands purchased for building purposes in the vicinity ? If the answers are in affirmative and the said circumstances are established by sufficient cogent evidence, then alone a case for claiming compensation on the consideration of potential value for building purposes will be made out. Mere closeness to the town is in itself not sufficient to give the agricultural lands the potential value as building sites. 10. If the answers are in affirmative and the said circumstances are established by sufficient cogent evidence, then alone a case for claiming compensation on the consideration of potential value for building purposes will be made out. Mere closeness to the town is in itself not sufficient to give the agricultural lands the potential value as building sites. 10. In the present case, there is no such material on record except the mere fact that the lands in question happened to be situate at the distances referred above, i.e. within a range of half kilometer to three kilometers from the limits of the township of Morar. There is no evidence on record to show that there was any pressure on land in the area concerned for building activity. Similarly, there is nothing to gather that there was any extension of building activity towards the lands acquired. There is also no evidence to show as to with what speed the activity of the building houses was extending. There is no evidence to show that any buildings other than those put by the department of Defence for the purposes of the military had been constructed in the vicinity of the area acquired either on the date of requisition, i.e. in the year 1963 or even on the date of acquisition, i.e. in the year 1971. On the contrary, there is sufficient material on record in the shape of the testimony of the Patwaries that even today, there was no such activity of construction so as to hold the lands in question to be of potential value for building purposes. While taking a round of the area, we did no find any such construction even up to this date. Actually speaking, the area in question is quite far from the township of Morar. Whatever construction has been done is by the department of the Ministry of Defence for their own purposes which was the purpose for acquisition and which has to be excluded from consideration while determining the market value. The conditions in which the lands were requisitioned were purely of agricultural base without any tendency or immediate possibility for being used as building sites. This fact is fully home out from the following evidence brought on record which we find relevant to refer in details. [Paras 11 to 17 only discuss evidence and hence are not reproduced.] 18. The conditions in which the lands were requisitioned were purely of agricultural base without any tendency or immediate possibility for being used as building sites. This fact is fully home out from the following evidence brought on record which we find relevant to refer in details. [Paras 11 to 17 only discuss evidence and hence are not reproduced.] 18. In order to make out a case for interference with the compensation determined and recommended by the Competent Authority, whatever oral evidence was led, has already been discussed above. The testimony of about 88 witnesses examined by the claimants mostly comprises of bare allegation claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 15000 to Rs. 20.000 per Bigha without disclosing any basis. Certain witnesses, who were examined to prove various sale deeds could not provide any relevant material because most of the transaction proved by them were not comparable with the lands in question. This aspect of the case, we well deal with hereinafter while referring teach and every transaction relied by the claimants for proving the market value. [Paras 19 to 26 deal with evidence only and are not reproduced.] 27. Thus, this is the entire evidence which has been brought on record and we do not find any material to justify interference with the amount of compensation as determined by the Competent Authority. The learned Arbitrator, in the absence of any material brought on record could not double the amount of compensation arbitrarily merely for the reasons that the claimants demanded 5 to 10 times more than that what was recommended. The scope of interference is little in the absence of any material on record to justify increase in the compensation. The award made by the Arbitrator is, therefore, set aside and the amount of compensation as determined and recommended by the Competent Authority is affirmed and finally determined to be the compensation to the claimants except in respect of survey Nos. 2038 & 2040 comprising of an area 213 Bighas belonging to one Mst. Satobai widow of Hiralal and others residents of Ghosipura. According to the recommendations made by the Competent Authority these claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 3,384.05 P. According to the award given by the Arbitrator, when doubled, these claimants would get Rs. 6,768.10 P. in respect of these lands. Satobai widow of Hiralal and others residents of Ghosipura. According to the recommendations made by the Competent Authority these claimants have been awarded a sum of Rs. 3,384.05 P. According to the award given by the Arbitrator, when doubled, these claimants would get Rs. 6,768.10 P. in respect of these lands. As we have already discussed above, the situation of these lands was such that though they being of agricultural base, they would be said to have potential building site values also to some extent. The reason being that they are situate just touching the municipal limits and are located in between the residential locality of Morar and the Military area,. Undisputedly, there was expansion of building activities towards these lands. The situation of these lands in quite different from the other lands which are far off and are separated from the residential locality of the township of Morar due to intervention of the Military area in between. We would, therefore, not disturb the amount of compensation of Rs. 6,768.10 p. awarded by the Arbitrator, in respect of these two Khasra numbers belonging to Mst. Satobai and others, however on different reasons. 28. In the cross-objection preferred by Respondents Nos. 15 to 19, 27 to 33 and 103 to 109, the claim was regarding the increased rate of compensation. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the cross-objection stands rejected. The amount of compensation as determined and recommended by the competent authority having been found to be quite reasonable, the cross objection fails and is dismissed. 29. As regards cross-appeal No. 172/77 preferred by Gopilal, it would suffice to observe that in view of the aforesaid discussion and the conclusions drawn, the claim for increased rate of compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,25,000/- at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per Bigha stands rejected. In this appeal, the appellant has further claimed compensation for the bunds, i.e. the Medh and two wells-(one Kachha and one pucca) alleged to have been built by him over the lands acquired. The appellant has claimed Rs. 10,000/- for the aforesaid structures. But on going through the award we find that the Competent Authority has awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- towards the price of the bund, i.e. the Medh, and Rs. 100/- for the Kacha well. The appellant has claimed Rs. 10,000/- for the aforesaid structures. But on going through the award we find that the Competent Authority has awarded a sum of Rs. 500/- towards the price of the bund, i.e. the Medh, and Rs. 100/- for the Kacha well. So far as the pucca welt is concerned, it was stated in the report that whatever .valuation the public works Department could assess, the same will be awarded. Before us, it was agreed by both the sides that the claimants will accept the valuations which might have been or may be given by the public works Department in respect of these pucca wells. 30. Similarly, the cross-appeal No. 171/77 preferred by Kishorilal for compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per Bigha, however, stands rejected for the reasons stated above, and the compensation determined and recommended by the Competent Authority is found to be reasonable and appropriate. This appellant has further claimed compensation for certain structures in the shape of a house alleged to be in existence on the date of taking over possession of his land and for the structures in the shape of a pucca well and Medh. The appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2,000/- for the Medh and Rs. 10,000/- for the well. He has also claimed a sum of Rs. 14,000/- for the alleged house. The Competent Authority has rejected the claim for the Medh and the house for the reason that in the Dakhilnama Ex. D-43, which was prepared at the time of taking possession and had been signed by claimant himself, there is no mention about the existence of such structure. The structures found on the spot comprised of only one well and two trees, one of Andi and the other of Beri and a hut ¼>ksaiM+h½ . There was no structure in the shape of any house either Kachha or pucca nor was there anything in the shape of a Medh or Bund. There is no material on record to establish the aforesaid facts. On the contrary, from the contents of the Dakhilnama, Ex. D-44, the aforesaid claim regarding the existence of a Kachha house and Medh stands falsified. The Competent Authority has awarded a sum of Rs. 15/- towards the value of the Andi tree and one Beri tree and Rs. 100/- for the hut ¼>ksaiM+h½ . On the contrary, from the contents of the Dakhilnama, Ex. D-44, the aforesaid claim regarding the existence of a Kachha house and Medh stands falsified. The Competent Authority has awarded a sum of Rs. 15/- towards the value of the Andi tree and one Beri tree and Rs. 100/- for the hut ¼>ksaiM+h½ . So far as the well is concerned, the same was to he assessed by the P.W.D. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of this appellant had stated that later on, a sum of Rs, 1,500/- has been awarded and thus the dispute about the compensation for the pucca well does not remain at this stage. 31. Thus, with the aforesaid observation in respect or payment of compensation for the well in the case of Gopiram, the cross-appeals preferred by Gopiram and Kishorilal stand dismissed. 32. Now, we will deal with the five Miscellaneous appeals preferred by various other claimants which have been registered as Misc. Appeals Nos. 166/77 to 170/77. In all these five appeals also, the claimants have claimed compensation towards the price of the land at the increased rate. So far as the claim for increased rate of compensation is concerned, the same stands already decided by the findings which we have recorded in the earlier paragraphs holding that the amount of compensation as determined and recommended by the Competent Authority, was proper and the claimants have not been able to establish anything which may call for increase. We have accordingly set aside the award of double of the compensation as given by the Arbitrator in respect of all the claimants except in respect of survey numbers 2038 and 2040 comprising of an area 13 Bighas belonging to one Mst. Sato Bai widow of Hiralal and others. The claims made in those five appeals also, therefore, stand rejected. 33. Apart from claiming increase in compensation the appellants in these five appeals have also claimed compensation for certain structures in the shape of Bunds, wells, Kachha houses and trees etc......... 34. In Misc. Appeal No, 166/77 preferred by Malkhan Singh and others the appellant Malkhan Singh has claimed that on about 7 Bighas of land, he had constructed medhs of about 3 Ft. in height and 2 Ft. in width and the cost of the same was about Rs. 2.000/-. 34. In Misc. Appeal No, 166/77 preferred by Malkhan Singh and others the appellant Malkhan Singh has claimed that on about 7 Bighas of land, he had constructed medhs of about 3 Ft. in height and 2 Ft. in width and the cost of the same was about Rs. 2.000/-. The claim was that the compensation towards the costs of medh, as demanded, should have been awarded. It would be significant to mention that since the lands in question were earlier requisitioned and possession was taken in or about the year 1963, the officers of the department prepared Panchanamas in presence of the parties. While preparing the Panchnamas, at the time of taking possession, spot was inspected and in each case whatever structures were found, the same were noted and approximate value of the same was put in consultation of the Panchas The Competent Authority has relied on the aforesaid Panchanamas for awarding the compensation and has determined and recommended the claim for compensation only in respect of those items which were found to be in existence at the time of taking possession and were duly noted in the Panchanama. It is not disputed that no such mention of the existence of any such structure in the shape of bund as claimed by Malkhansingh was noted in the Panchanama and accordingly no compensation has been allowed in this respect. So far as the evidence adduced by the claimants before the Arbitrator is concerned, it is apparent that except their own bare say there is no evidence to establish the fact that such structure did exist and the costs of the same were claimed. In case of Malkhansingh, he has himself not- stated the said fact in his statement before the Arbitrator as is evident from the perusal of his disposition, which finds place at page 134 of the paper book of M.A. 166 of 1977. Thus, here is no evidence and therefore, the clam for compensation on this account has been rightly rejected. 35. The other claimant appellant Gangasingh has stated that on the entire holding, there were Bunds, the cost of which was Rs 2,000/-. and that there was one tree of Neem and one of Babul. The compensation for these trees has been claimed at Rs. 35. The other claimant appellant Gangasingh has stated that on the entire holding, there were Bunds, the cost of which was Rs 2,000/-. and that there was one tree of Neem and one of Babul. The compensation for these trees has been claimed at Rs. 150/- each, On perusal of the record, it is apparent that according to Panchnama, there existed one Neem tree and one Babul tree and the same had been noted at the time of taking over possession, There is no mention., of existence of any bund for which a sum of Rs. 2000/- has been claimed, Except the bare say of appellant Gangasingh himself, there is nothing on record to establish the fact that there was any such bund on the field. The claimants appear to be of the tendency to claim compensation arbitrarily for any such item. In his compensation arbitrarily for any such item. In his deposition, Gangasingh (witness No. 64 at page 204 of the paper book of the main appeal No. 166 of 1977) has stated that there was a bund on his field, the cost of which was about Rs. 500/- In appeal, he claimed Rs. 2,000/-. Except this bare say, there is no evidence on record to prove its existence. When he was asked as to why this structure was not got noted by him in the Panchnama at the time of taking possession, he found it convenient to say that he did not remember. In our opinion, the claim for compensation on this account has been rightly rejected and actually speaking, there was no evidence to prove the existence of such structure on the fields. The Competent Authority has determined and recommended compensation of Rs. 80/- for a Neem tree and Rs. 4/- for the Babul tree. There is no material on record to infer that the aforesaid valuation, which was made before the Panchas, was arbitrary in any manner or calls for interference. 36. The appellant Bishalsingh has claimed that there were Babul trees, the cost of which was Rs. 300/-. The existence of 3 Babul trees was not disputed. The Competent Authority has awarded a sum of Rs. 15/- for the said trees. There is no material on record to infer that the cost of the Babul trees was Rs. 300/-. 36. The appellant Bishalsingh has claimed that there were Babul trees, the cost of which was Rs. 300/-. The existence of 3 Babul trees was not disputed. The Competent Authority has awarded a sum of Rs. 15/- for the said trees. There is no material on record to infer that the cost of the Babul trees was Rs. 300/-. The position about the evidence on record is similar as has been in the case of other claimants referred above. No case is, therefore, made out for allowing compensation, more than what was been determined and recommended by the Competent Authority in respect of three Babul trees as claimed. 37. From the claims as put up in the cross appeals and cross-objections, it appears that there was tendency to raise baseless claims for compensation in respect of even such items which were not at all in existence and accordingly not noted in the Panchnama prepared at the time of taking possession. No evidence also could be led for proving the existence of such structures and the claim was thus based only on the bare say of the claimants without any material to corroborate the same. 38. Similar is the position of claimant Jagana son of Maniram. He has claimed compensation of Rs. 400/- for three Neem trees and bund on about two Bighas of land, which, according to him was of Rs. 700/- in value. It was not disputed that there was no such mention of these structures in the Dakhilnama which was prepared at the time of taking over possession when this claimant, during the course of evidence before the Arbitrator, was confronted with this position, he found it convenient to say that he had not told about the existence of those structures and did not take care to get it noted because nobody had asked him for the same. It is difficult to believe his explanation. The very purpose of the spot inspection was to take a note of various structures found in existence on the land requisitioned. Apart from the bare say of the witness himself, there is no evidence on record. Therefore, the claim for compensation for bunds cannot be allowed when the very fact or existence of the structure itself has not been proved. So far as the claim for the compensation for trees is concerned, the Competent Authority has determined and recommended Rs. Apart from the bare say of the witness himself, there is no evidence on record. Therefore, the claim for compensation for bunds cannot be allowed when the very fact or existence of the structure itself has not been proved. So far as the claim for the compensation for trees is concerned, the Competent Authority has determined and recommended Rs. 113/- and the same was allowed, Similarly, compensation has been allowed for various other trees which have been noted in the schedule of compensation as recommended by the Competent Authority. Thus, the Misc. Appeal No. 166 of 1977 stands dismissed, Parties will bear their own costs. 39. In Misc. Appeal No. 167 of 177, the claim for increased rate of compensation towards the price of land has already been dealt and decided and this appeal is also governed by the same and the compensation awarded and recommended by the Competent Authority is held to he proper. 40. Apart from the increased rate of compensation towards price of lands, claim for compensation towards the price of various structures i.e. Medh, well, trees etc. have also been made in this appeal Deviprasad has stated (witness No. 77 at page 226 of the paper book) that there was a Rahet (A manual device for taking water for irrigation purposes). Deviprasad claimed a sum of Rs. 900/- for the same. There is no such mention of existence of any Rahet, the possession of which was taken over by the Department in his own deposition itself. This claim for Rs. 900/- as the price of Rahet is therefore, absolutely baseless. He has further claimed a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for a well. The Competent Authority has allowed a sum of Rs. 3,863/- towards the cost of the well. This figure has been arrived on the basis of valuation which was got done by the P.W.D. There is no material on record to show that the cost of the well was more than this amount. In the absence of any such evidence, it is not possible to increase the amount of compensation as claimed. Similar is the position about the valuation of the trees and the par (bund). There is no mention of any Chabutra. A sum of Rs. 200/- has been allowed for par (bund). The claim made by the appellant is of Rs. 1,000/-. The compensation at Rs. Similar is the position about the valuation of the trees and the par (bund). There is no mention of any Chabutra. A sum of Rs. 200/- has been allowed for par (bund). The claim made by the appellant is of Rs. 1,000/-. The compensation at Rs. 120/- has been allowed for the trees as against the claim of Rs. 500/- made by the appellant. There is no material on record to support the amount claimed in respect of these items also. In these circumstances, the amount already determined and recommended by the Competent Authority has been rightly upheld by the Arbitrator and no case is made out for allowing any increase in appeal. 41. In this appeal, claimant Shambhoodayal has claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for his well. The Competent Authority has allowed a sum of Rs. 3,592/- This valuation too has been got done by the P.W.D. and there is no material on record to infer that the cost of the well was more than the aforesaid amount. There is no mention of existence of any par (bund) or any Kachha house. So far as the price of trees is concerned, a sum of Rs. 52/- has been allowed as against the amount of Rs. 500/- claimed in this appeal. In the absence of any material on record, it is not possible to increase the amount of compensation on these items. This appeal also therefore fails and is dismissed, Parties will bear their own costs. 42. In Misc. Appeal No. 168 of 1977 also increased rate of compensation for the lands bas been claimed but the same stands decided for the reasons stated earlier while dealing the question of compensation towards the price of lands in respect of other claimants. This claim, therefore, stands rejected. In this appeal claim for increased compensation in respect of various structures has also been made Bhawaniram has claimed Rs. 1,000/- for a Patore and Rs. 25/- towards the cost of tiled roof on a Kachha hut. He has also claimed Rs. l.000/- for a Sarpata and Rs 1.700/- for Bunds. So far as the compensation for bunds is concerned the same has been allowed at Rs. 150/- according to the Panchnama. A sum of Rs. 80/- has been allowed for the Kachha hut and Rs. 200/- for the Patore and Rs. 55/- for another bund. He has also claimed Rs. l.000/- for a Sarpata and Rs 1.700/- for Bunds. So far as the compensation for bunds is concerned the same has been allowed at Rs. 150/- according to the Panchnama. A sum of Rs. 80/- has been allowed for the Kachha hut and Rs. 200/- for the Patore and Rs. 55/- for another bund. There is no material on record for showing that the amount of compensation, as awarded deserves to be increased. Even in the deposition of this claimant which finds place at page 139 of the paper book, there is nothing to infer that the compensation on this account is not proper. He has not stated anything about the valuation except his saying that the construction of the boundary might have caused expenditure of Rs. 10.000/-. In the absence of any material on record, this cannot be believed. 43. The other claimant Ramprasad has claimed Rs. 1,6000/- for two Patores, Rs. 1.600/- for one Pipal tree and Rs. 100/- for a bund. He has been allowed Rs 15/- for the Pipal tree, Rs. 1.600/- for two Patores and Rs. 400/- for the bunds. Thus he has got much more than what he had c1aimed for the Patores and Bunds. Valuation of Pipal trees Rs. 15/- Fifteen could not be shown to be arbitrary. It is based on the Panchnama which was prepared on the spot and no case is made out for any interference. 44. Similarly, Kaluram has claimed Rs. 500/- for Patore, Rs. 100/- for a Kachha hut, Rs. 175/- for three trees and Rs. 700/- for bunds. He has been allowed Rs. 400/- for the Parore, Rs. 21/- for the 3 Neem trees. I have gone through his deposition which finds place at page 217 of the Paper Book. There is nothing in it to infer that the amount of compensation awarded calls for interference. There is no mention of any such Kachha hut in the Panchnama. The additional structures were only Patore and trees for which the compensation has been awarded. 45. Appellant Nadariya has claimed compensation of Rs. 700/- for 8 Neem trees. Actually speaking there were only 3 Neem trees and a sum of Rs. 75/- was awarded. There was also one Beri tree for which a sum of Rs. 15/- has been awarded. The additional structures were only Patore and trees for which the compensation has been awarded. 45. Appellant Nadariya has claimed compensation of Rs. 700/- for 8 Neem trees. Actually speaking there were only 3 Neem trees and a sum of Rs. 75/- was awarded. There was also one Beri tree for which a sum of Rs. 15/- has been awarded. He had claimed compensation for a well also but there is no mention of any such well to be in existence. Ex. D-10 is the Panchanama. It does not make any mention of any well. Whatever items were found on the spot, they were taken note of and compensation has been awarded for the same. Except the bare say of the claimant, there is no material in the shape of evidence so as to allow the claim put forth in appeal. 46. The claimant Chunnilal has claimed a sum of Rs. 2.000/- for a build, where as a sum of Rs. 300/- only has been allowed. This valuation is on the basis of the Panchanama which was prepared before the Tahsildar and other panchas of the village. In the absence of any material on record, it is not possible to increase the amount of compensation as claimed. 47. Monalal has claimed a sum of Rs. 500/- for two Kachha wells known as Khaiyees. There is no mention of any such Khaiyees in the Panchnama prepared on the spot. In the absence of any satisfactory material, except the bare say, it is not possible to allow any compensation for the alleged Khaiyees. 48. The other claimant Ghamandi has claimed a sum of Rs. 500/- for 3 Khaiyees, Rs. 500/- for a Madai i.e. Kachha hut and Rs. 25/- for 3 Beri trees. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 8/- for the Beri tree and Rs. 12/- for the Kachha hut. He has himself stated in his deposition that the cost of hut was about Rs. 40/-. Now he claims Rs. 500/-. There is no mention of any such Khaiyee i.e. Kachha well. All this shows the tendency of the claimant to exaggerate their claim. In the absence of any material on record, the claim of this appellant also stands rejected. 49. Ramcharan claims Rs. 500/- for a Medh of 2 feet in height, Rs. 1.000/- for a Patore and Rs. 100/- for Neem tree. He has been allowed Rs. All this shows the tendency of the claimant to exaggerate their claim. In the absence of any material on record, the claim of this appellant also stands rejected. 49. Ramcharan claims Rs. 500/- for a Medh of 2 feet in height, Rs. 1.000/- for a Patore and Rs. 100/- for Neem tree. He has been allowed Rs. 720/- for the Patore and the Kachha hut. He has also been allowed Rs. 100/- for the Medh (Bund). He has signed the Dakhilnama, Ex. D-24. Where is no mention of any Neem tree. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Arbitrator for the Patore and Bandhiya (bund) appears to be quite proper being in accordance with the Panchayatnama prepared on the spot. No material has been brought on record to warrant any increase in the aforesaid amount of compensation. The claim of Ramcharan, therefore, also stands rejected. 50. Claimant Nekssiya has claimed compensation for a pucca well at Rs. 2500/- Rs. 700 for Medha (Bandhia, Rs. 200/- for Neem and Kaitha trees. According to the Panchayatnama, the Neem tree was found to be very small and a sum of Rs, 2/- has been allowed. For the Bandhiya (bund) a sum of Rs. 25/- has been allowed. The other trees of Kaitha, and Beri and Neem had been valued at Rs. 25/-, Rs. 10/- and Rs. 76/- respectively and compensation has been allowed accordingly. A sum of Rs 1,947/- has been allowed for the well. This valuation has been got done by the P.W.D. There is no material on record to infer that the cost of well was more than that in any manner. In the absence of any satisfactory evidence it is not possible to interfere with the award already made. 51. Kalaram has claimed Rs. 500/- for 5 trees and Rs. 1,500/- for Bandhiya (bund). There is no mention of any such tree or Bandhiya in existence at the time of taking over possession. There is no material at all on record to infer otherwise. Even the appellant-claimant has not examined himself before the Arbitrator. His bare say in the statement of claim cannot be believed. 52. Ramdayal has claimed a sum of Rs. 4.000/- for Medh. There is no such mention about the existence of any such Medh for which compensation could be claimed. Even in his statement, he has not made any claim for any Medh. His bare say in the statement of claim cannot be believed. 52. Ramdayal has claimed a sum of Rs. 4.000/- for Medh. There is no such mention about the existence of any such Medh for which compensation could be claimed. Even in his statement, he has not made any claim for any Medh. He has admitted that he had signed the Panchnama. He could not give any reason why these structures were not mentioned in the same. This claim is also baseless. 53. Similar is the position about the claim of Dhuwaram in respect of a Kachha hut one Neem tree and one Pipal tree and Medh. There is no mention of these structures in the Panchnama nor is there any material on record to prove the existence of the same. 54. Claimant Hiralal has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for Medh and Rs. 2,500/- for one well. A sum of Rs. 1.875/- has been allowed for the well according to the valuation given by the P.W.D. There is no mention of the existence of any Medh or Sojna tree or a Kachha hut in the Panchnama. Ex. D. 43 is on record. It does not mention the existence of these items except that of the well. He has admitted that possession was delivered by Mulchand and he had signed the document Ex. D-42. In the said document, there is mention of only one well. He found it convenient to say that he could not remember whether he had pointed out about the existence of any other structure or not. In the absence of any other material on record, it is not possible to hold that there was any such Medh or a Kachha hut or trees which do not find place in the Dakhilnama. The valuation of the well by the P.W.D. appears also reasonable and proper and in the absence of any other material. On record, it is not possible to increase the same. This appeal, therefore, also stands dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs. 55. In Misc. Appeal No. 169 of 1977, increase in the amount of compensation in respect of trees on the lands has been made and the same stands disposed of by the findings recorded by us earlier in this respect. Ramswroop has also claimed a sum of Rs. 7,000 towards the cost of par (embankments) and Rs. 55. In Misc. Appeal No. 169 of 1977, increase in the amount of compensation in respect of trees on the lands has been made and the same stands disposed of by the findings recorded by us earlier in this respect. Ramswroop has also claimed a sum of Rs. 7,000 towards the cost of par (embankments) and Rs. 350/- for 7 Kaitha trees. There is no mention of any such structure in existence. A sum of Rs. 25/- has been awarded towards the cost of Kaitha trees, and there is nothing to interfere with this. 56. Pratapsingh has claimed Rs. 3,200/- for Bandhiya and Medh, but there is no mention of any such structure in the Dakhilnama requiring payment of any compensation. He could not explain as to why the existence of Bandhia or Medh was not mentioned in Ex. D-35 at the time of its preparation. He simply found it convenient to say that since no body had asked him, he did not mention about them. It is difficult to believe the same. Apart from his own say there is no material on record to support his claim. His claim, therefore, stands rejected. 57. Jagannath has claimed a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for a well, Rs. 500/- for a Bandhiya and Rs. 1,000/- for Remja trees. There is no mention of any such well in the Dakhilnamas Ex. D-38 and D-39. These documents have been signed by the claimants. This witness has stated that nobody did inspect the spot and, therefore, the existence of well and Medh and trees was not noted. It is difficult to accept this explanation. Since the existence of these items itself has not been established, in the absence of any material except the bare say of the claimant, it is not possible to award any compensation as claimed. 58. Gayaprasad has claimed Rs. 500/- for Bandhias which he alleges were on the entire fields. There is no such mention of any such Bandhias (Bunds) and this claim is also baseless. 59. Matadin s/o Ramchand has claimed compensation of Rs. 100/- for embankments and Rs. 100/- for a Neem tree. Rs. 150/- has already been allowed for the embankments. There is no mention of any such tree in the Dakhilnama and as such, the claim in this respect is without any basis in the absence of any other evidence. 59. Matadin s/o Ramchand has claimed compensation of Rs. 100/- for embankments and Rs. 100/- for a Neem tree. Rs. 150/- has already been allowed for the embankments. There is no mention of any such tree in the Dakhilnama and as such, the claim in this respect is without any basis in the absence of any other evidence. So far as the value of the Par (embankment) is concerned, there is no material on record to prove its existence. This claim therefore, stands dismissed. This appeal also fails and is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs. 60. In Misc. Appeal No. 170/77, increased amounts of compensation towards price of lands have been claimed and the same stands adjudicated by the findings already recorded by us earlier while dealing with the said aspect of the case. This claim therefore stands dismissed apart from the claim for increased rate of compensation towards the price of land, the claimants have made additional claims in respect of trees, Bunds etc. Claimant Fakirchand has claimed Rs. 150/- for a Kaitha tree and Rs. 1,500/- for Medh. A sum of Rs. 80/- has already been granted for the Kaitha tree. There is no mention of any Medh in the Panchnama. There is no evidence on record to establish this fact. Even the claimant has not examined himself. This claim, therefore, stands rejected. 61. Rikhiram has claimed Rs. 1500/- for a Bandhiya. Similar is the position of evidence in his case also. His claim also, therefore stands rejected like that of Fakirchand. 62. Ramdayal has also claimed Rs. 3000/- for Medh and Rs. 800/- for trees. There is no material on record to infer existence of these items at the time of taking possession. The claimant has not examined himself. However, one Nathuram has been examined. He could not give any explanation as to why the existence of the Bandhia and trees was not mentioned in the Panchnama though the same was prepared in his presence. This claim is also baseless. 63. Kamalsingh has claimed compensation of Rs. 2000/- for Medh and Rs. 300/- for 3 Neem trees. He has not been able to explain as to why there was no mention of these items. His claim is also baseless. 64. Similar is the position in case of the claim of Amarsingh claimant for Medh and trees. The Panchnamas Ex. 63. Kamalsingh has claimed compensation of Rs. 2000/- for Medh and Rs. 300/- for 3 Neem trees. He has not been able to explain as to why there was no mention of these items. His claim is also baseless. 64. Similar is the position in case of the claim of Amarsingh claimant for Medh and trees. The Panchnamas Ex. D/7 and D-8 do not mention the existence of these structures. This witness has expressed his inability to explain the circumstances, when he was confronted with the same, as to why these structures were not got noted in the Panchnamaa. He admitted that his aunt Mst. Parvati did put her thumb impression in the Panchnamas. 55. Devisingh has claimed Rs. 3,000/- for Medh and Rs. 4,000/- for wire fencing and Rs. 240/- towards the cost of trees. On spot, it was found that there was no wire fencing. There was a Kacha Medh and one Babul tree. A sum of Rs. 100/- has been allowed for the Medh and Rs. 10/- for the trees. In the absence of any material on record to establish the existence of other items and to infer that the price awarded for the Medh and trees was less, it is not possible to allow the claim in appeal. 66. Maharajsingh has claimed compensation for a well a Kachha pit, 4 Khaiyees and 2 trees of Saras and Beri. There is no mention of these items in the Panchnama and accordingly no compensation has been rightly awarded. He simply found it convenient to say at the time of delivery of possession that his brother Bharatsingh was present on the spot and, therefore, he could not say why these items did not find place in the Panchnama prepared and executed at the time of taking possession. 67. Ramcharan has claimed Rs. 1, 500/- for Medh and Rs. 400/- for Neem and Babul trees. There is no such mention of these items in the Panchnama. His claim appears to be frivolous, because in his statement, which finds place at page 136 of the paper book, he himself has not mentioned about the existence of these items. His claim is therefore, rejected. 68. Sambhariya has claimed Rs. 1,000/- for the Medh and Rs 200/- for Babul trees. There is no mention of these items in the Panchnama. He could not explain as to why in Ex. His claim is therefore, rejected. 68. Sambhariya has claimed Rs. 1,000/- for the Medh and Rs 200/- for Babul trees. There is no mention of these items in the Panchnama. He could not explain as to why in Ex. D-24, there was no mention of these items. He simply found it convenient to say that he was never asked about these things. His deposition does not inspire confidence. We have gone through the Panchanama Ex. D-24, and we are satisfied that there were no such structures in existence at the time of taking possession. This claim too also fails. 69. Roshanlal has claimed Rs. 4,000/- for Medh. There is no such mention of the Medh in the Panchanama. The statement of this witness at page 135 of the paper book makes it clear that this witness himself has not stated about the existence of any such Medh in his deposition. The claim now made in appeal is frivolous. 70. Ramdayal has claimed Rs. 3,400/- for Medh. There is no mention of any such Medh in the Panchanama, Only one Neem tree was found to be in existence for which a compensation of Rs. 5/- has been awarded. The statement of this claimant at page 146 of the paper book makes it clear that at the time of his evidence, he himself had not stated about the fact of existence of Medh. He simply stated that mention of one Beriya tree was not made despite he had told the Patel about the same. This goes to show that all sorts of frivolous and baseless claims in appeal are being put forth by the claimants for which they themselves had not said a word before the Arbitrator. 71. Harinarayan has claimed compensation for 3 Babul trees and 3 Kachha Pits. No Babul tree was found to be in existence. One Neem tree was found as per note in the Panchnama and sum of Rs. 70/- has been allowed. The statement of Chhotelal, one of the joint-holders, which finds place at page 158 of the paper book, shows that Dakhalnama was prepared and was signed by two of the co-sharers. In the absence of any material on record to support the claim it is not possible to accept the bare say of the witness Chhotelal about the existence of these items and to allow his claim. This also stands rejected. 72. Mst. In the absence of any material on record to support the claim it is not possible to accept the bare say of the witness Chhotelal about the existence of these items and to allow his claim. This also stands rejected. 72. Mst. Ochhi Bai had claimed Rs. 700/- for Kachha embankments. There is no such mention in the Panchanama. Her statement at page 157 of the paper book does not explain as to why this fact was not mentioned in Ex. D-18, which was prepared at the time of taking the possession. Her claim, therefore, cannot be allowed in the absence of any evidence to prove the existence of these items. 73. Similar is the position in respect of Ganesha son of a Jagannath of village Lal tipara and Bharosi Son of Mithoo of Maheshpura Ganesh has been awarded compensation for 4 Khasra numbers at Rs. 1275/- per Bigha. His land was acquired for J. & K. Centre Morar. Bharosi has been awarded compensation of Rs. 1277 /- per Bigha in respect of 3 survey numbers. His land was also acquired for the aforesaid centre at Morar. In the Panchanama prepared for the J. & K. Centre Ex. D-60, there is no mention of the names of these persons because there was no such additional item like trees, wells or Bunds etc. Their claims for compensation for Kaccha pits, as made in this appeal, are baseless in 'the absence of any material on record. These claimants have also not entered into witness box. The Misc. Appeal No. 170/77 also stands dismissed. Parties will bear their own costs. 74. On behalf of the Union of India and the Government of Madhya Pradesh, an attempt was made to press certain objections regarding the tenability of the claims for the increased compensation before the Arbitrator by contending that most of the claimants did not raise any specific dispute claiming reference to the Arbitrator and some of them had already withdrawn the amount of compensation, as determined and recommended by the Competent Authority. The argument was that since no specific dispute was raised and particularly in the cases of those who had already withdrawn the entire amount, there was no question of adjudication of their claims by the arbitrator. The argument was that since no specific dispute was raised and particularly in the cases of those who had already withdrawn the entire amount, there was no question of adjudication of their claims by the arbitrator. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants were asked to show any provision in the Act prescribing any time limit for filing such claims or requiring any such written objection while withdrawing the amount of compensation determined and recommended by the Competent Authority, but they could not point out any such provision. On the other hand according to the scheme contemplated by the rules and the provisions of the Act, the Arbitrator has to be appointed for determining the compensation if there is no specific agreement arrived. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that the claimants agreed to the amount of compensation determined and recommended by the Competent Authority. The department did include the claims of all of them while making a reference to the Arbitrator. Being faced with this situation, these objections were ultimately not pressed by the appellants, 75. No other point was pressed. 76. The appeal preferred by the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh stands accordingly partly allowed. The amount of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator at the rate of double of that determined and recommended by the Competent Authority is set aside except in respect of Survey Nos. 2038 and 2040 belonging to Mst. Sato Bai and other. The amount of compensation awarded by the Arbitrator in respect of these lands at the rate double to that was determined and recommended by the Competent Authority is sustained in view of the fact that these two survey numbers did have some potential value as building sites and stand on a different footing due to their location and various other advantages pertaining to them. The compensation determined in respect of all other claimants at the rate recommended by the Competent Authority as per Ex. D-54 and the schedules annexed thereto are maintained and the award of the Arbitrator to that extent is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs, For the determination of fees to the Government advocates appearing for the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh, the remuneration is fixed at Rs. D-54 and the schedules annexed thereto are maintained and the award of the Arbitrator to that extent is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs, For the determination of fees to the Government advocates appearing for the Union of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh, the remuneration is fixed at Rs. 3,000/- to be divided equally in between them in respect of the appeal, counter appeals and cross-objections. 77. A copy of this order be sent to the Competent Authority.