Judgment 1. This appeal by the applicant arises out of a reference under S.18 Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") which was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 340 of 1961. In the reference case before the trial court, besides the question of valuation of the lands acquired, the question as to who was the person concerned entitled to the compensation for the lands acquired was also involved. The applicant who is the appellant in this Court was held to be the person who was exclusively entitled to the entire compensation for the lands acquired; the claims by Ganga Mahto and Rital Mahto being either given up or negatived. The sole question for determination in this appeal therefore, is the correct valuation of the lands acquired. 2. The lands which are the subject matter of this appeal were acquired along with other lands for the Chandradhari Museum in the town of Darbhanga. The notification under S.4 of the Act was published on 28-11-1959 and the declaration under S.6 of the Act on 9-1-1960. The lands which are the subject matter of appeal measure 0.43 acre in all and are comprised in survey plot No. 493 of village Haveli, pergana Haveli, within the jurisdiction of Darbhanga Police Station in the district of Darbhanga. They contained some trees and some structures of straw which were in occupation of the tenants of the appellant. In the award prepared by the Collector the lands were valued at the rate of Rs. 10,775/- per acre, which comes to Rs. 476/- per katha. The Collector further awarded 768.64 paise on account of the houses, trees etc. and additional compensation at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 491/-. In the application for reference the appellant claimed that the land should have been valued @ Rs. 1,000.00 per katha and the value of the trees should have been assessed on the basis of the annual income of the 42 khajur trees @ Rs. 6/- and of the single palm tree @ Rs. 8/- total Rs. 5,460 + Rs. 160, i.e., at Rs. 5,620/-. He further claimed Rs. 500.00 as compensation for loss of profit and income besides the additional compensation @ 15% and interest pendente lite and future till the date of realisation @ 6% per annum. 3. 6/- and of the single palm tree @ Rs. 8/- total Rs. 5,460 + Rs. 160, i.e., at Rs. 5,620/-. He further claimed Rs. 500.00 as compensation for loss of profit and income besides the additional compensation @ 15% and interest pendente lite and future till the date of realisation @ 6% per annum. 3. The learned Special Land Acquisition Judge, Darbhanga, heard the reference and upheld the compensation awarded by the Collector for the trees etc., but, being of the opinion that the land should have been valued @ Rs. 600.00 per katha, he assessed the compensation for the lands acquired at Rs. 5,914.20 and he further awarded additional compensation @ 15% on the combined value of the land and the trees etc. and interest on the amount awarded by him as compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector from 21-2-1961 to 21-1-1967 and future interest @ 6% per annum on the excess amount awarded till the date of realisation. 4. On behalf of the appellant Manzarul Haque, the applicant, two points have been urged in support of the contention that the compensation awarded by the court below is inadequate. It is urged that on the materials on the record the land should have been valued @ Rs. 1,000.00 per katha and the compensation for the trees should have been awarded at the rate claimed. So far as the grievance in respect of compensation awarded for the trees is concerned, in my opinion, it is unfounded. The learned counsel for the appellant urges that compensation for the trees should have been assessed on the capitalised value of the income from the trees, the annual income being multiplied by the multiple of 20 years. In my opinion, the contention that the compensation for the trees should have been awarded on the capitalised value of the annual income from the trees is completely misconceived. The lands have been valued as homestead lands and the entire lands under acquisition including the lands over which the trees stand have been valued as homestead lands on the basis of their market value. In these circumstances, if compensation on the capitalised value of the income from the trees were awarded, it will really result in the portion of the land over which the trees stand being valued twice. In these circumstances, if compensation on the capitalised value of the income from the trees were awarded, it will really result in the portion of the land over which the trees stand being valued twice. As was pointed out by a Bench of the Madras High Court in the State of Madras V/s. Alameluthayammal, AIR 1970 Mad 184 wherein it was held at p. 185 of the report that if the land had been valued as agricultural land, the tree cannot be valued again on the basis of its being fruit yielding tree "as such mode of valuation will really result in duplication of values. If the land had been valued as an agricultural land it is reasonable to ascertain the capitalised income of the fruit bearing trees. If the site is valued as a house site the tree could not be valued on the basis that it is a fruit yielding tree and at best the value of the tree as timber or fuel alone could be taken into account". 5. On behalf of the appellant reliance was placed on the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Rabindradhar Barua V/s. Collector of Kamrup, AIR 1982 Gauhati 17. That decision, no doubt, lends support to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, but for the reasons given hereinbefore I am unable to follow that decision and prefer to rely upon the decision of the Madras High Court referred to above which is also in consonance with the decision of the Bombay High Court in Collector of Thana V/s. Chaturbhuj Radha Krishna AIR 1926 Bom 365. As only 43 khajur and palm trees were in question, I do not think the value of these trees as timber and fuel could be more than the sum awarded therefor. I should state that there is no evidence as to the value of the trees as timber or fuel. 6. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has, however, substance. Admittedly, the land in question is north of Dighi tank and adjacent south to a road. Towards the eastern side of the plots of lands acquired also there is a road and there are Railway quarters north of the said road. There is a Harahi Mill to the east of the plots of lands acquired, vide the deposition of the Kanungo (Q. W. 14). Towards the eastern side of the plots of lands acquired also there is a road and there are Railway quarters north of the said road. There is a Harahi Mill to the east of the plots of lands acquired, vide the deposition of the Kanungo (Q. W. 14). The Darbhanga railway station is in the vicinity of the lands acquired, as has been admitted by the Land Acquisition Officer (O. W. 18), for, he has said that he had considered all the three sides of the road, market, station and Harahi Mill. The Land Acquisition Officer (O. W. 18) further stated "to the north of the acquired land there is road and to its north are residential houses and Terrace market of Harahi". The learned Subordinate Judge had also made a local inspection and he has stated in para 29 of his judgment that the land exists by the side of the road as well as the railway station and the Harahi Mill. The lands, therefore, were building site, having great advantage of the railway station and the market nearby and are situate in Darbhanga town itself. 7. To prove the market value of the land, the applicant exhibited three sale deeds - Exts. 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d). Ext. 1(b) is a sale deed dated 13-7-1959 by which 10 dhurs of land in Mohalla Donar, pergana Haveli, Darbhanga, were sold for Rs. 400/-, i.e., @ Rs. 800.00 per katha. Ext. 1(c) is a sale deed dated 23-3-1956 in respect of 4 kathas 14 dhurs and odd of land in village Mirzapur, pergana Haveli, the consideration being Rs. 3,768/-. This land was sold @ slightly less than Rs. 800.00 per katha. The other sale deed Ext. 1(d) is dated 19-3-1956 and by this sale deed 2 kathas 12.475 dhurs of land were sold for Rs. 2,623.75. 7A. On behalf of the State a sale deed dated 5-9-1957 (Ext. E/1) was produced by which 4 kathas 12 dhurs of land were sold for Rs. 2,000/-. The Collector valued the lands on the basis of Ext. E/1. The learned Judge has refused to value the land on the basis of Ext. E/1 because the lands acquired were more valuable, and he has valued the lands at Rs. 600.00 per katha. 8. 2,000/-. The Collector valued the lands on the basis of Ext. E/1. The learned Judge has refused to value the land on the basis of Ext. E/1 because the lands acquired were more valuable, and he has valued the lands at Rs. 600.00 per katha. 8. As regards the contention of the State that the lands were low lands and drain water used to be discharged thereon, the learned Special Land Acquisition Judge on inspection had come to the conclusion that though drain water was discharged, there was no accumulation of water in the land and, therefore, increased the valuation of the land. 9. The learned Judge did not rely on Ext. 1(b) as it related to lands in Mohalla Donar and there was no evidence as to the distance between the aforesaid land and the lands acquired and assumed that it must be far away. As regards Exts. 1(c) and 1(d), the learned Judge had seen the lands covered thereunder as well as those under Ext. E/1. As regards the lands covered by Ext. 1(d), the learned Judge observed that "the lands covered by Ex. 1(d) lie to the north of the road running to the north of the northern block at a distance of about two furlongs, but they lie on the side of the road. Therefore, both of the lands covered by Exts. E/1, 1(c) and 1(d) cannot form the basis for arriving at the proper value of the land acquired which has got all facilities as it exists by the side of the road as well as near the railway station and the Harahi Mill". Now there is no specific evidence regarding the lands covered by Exts. 1(b) and 1(c), but there is specific evidence regarding the quality of the land covered by Ext. 1(d). A. W. 22 deposed that the lands covered by Ext. 1(d) are inferior to the lands acquired and that evidence was not shaken in cross-examination and as is clear from the passage in the judgment extracted above, the learned Judge who made local inspection and had seen the lands covered by Ext. 1(d) and the acquired lands was of the same opinion, that is that the acquired lands were superior to the lands covered by Ext. 1(d). There is nothing on the record to indicate that the sale evidenced by Ext. 1(d) and the acquired lands was of the same opinion, that is that the acquired lands were superior to the lands covered by Ext. 1(d). There is nothing on the record to indicate that the sale evidenced by Ext. 1(d) was not a genuine sale or that the price paid for these lands was more than the market price. In these circumstances when the court below was of the opinion that the acquired lands were superior in quality to the lands covered by Ext. 1(d), I can see no justification for valuing the acquired lands, i.e., the superior lands, @ Rs. 600.00 per katha only and when the inferior lands covered by Ext. 1(d) had been sold in 1956. The prices in 1959 must have been risen since then to nearly Rs. 1,000/-per katha. I have already said that the lands covered by Ext. 1(b), which were sold later than the lands which were the subject matter of the sale evidenced by Ext. 1 (d), were sold at the rate of Rs. 800.00 per katha. As the applicant himself relied on this document and there is no evidence that the land covered by Ext. 1(b) was inferior to the acquired lands and, admittedly, the acquired lands are somewhat low lands, I think that the acquired lands should have been valued @ Rs. 800/-per katha. 10. In the result, therefore, the appellant is entitled to compensation for the lands acquired at the rate of Rs. 800.00 per katha. He is also entitled to the sum of awarded i.e. Rs. 768/- and odd as compensation on account of the trees, houses, etc., and 15% additional compensation thereon and he is further entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the amount in excess of the sum awarded from 21-1-1961 till the date of payment or deposit. As, however, the appeal has been valued only at Rs. 5,000/-and court fee only on Rs. 5,000.00 has been paid, the amount shall not exceed the amount awarded by the court below by more than Rs. 5,000.00 The award of the court below is modified accordingly. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part with proportionate costs.