JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals have been filed under Section 54, Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter to be called `the Act') against similar awards passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer on reference made by the Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub Divisional Officer, Barmer. The facts of the cases giving rise to these appeals may be summarised thus. 2. The Central Government needed land of the villages Gehu and Barmer Agor of Tehsil and District Barmer for defence purposes. Notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (in short, Rajasthan Act) were published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated May 1,1985 and January 25,1986 respectively. Notices were also issued to all the interested persons under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Act. The possession of all the agricultural land acquired was taken on December 10, 1988. Khatedars of the fields filed their claims. On August 31, 1987 the Land Acquisition Officer gave his award granting compensation @ Rs. 625/- per bigha for the land acquired and Rs. 100/- per tree on the basis of his previous award No. 5 of 1984 dated March 19, 1986. Solatium was granted @ 10% only. The Khatedars moved applications under Section 18 of the Act for making reference to the court for the determination of just compensation stating as follows. The compensation @ Rs. 625/- per bigha is highly inadequate. They are entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per bigha Their agricultural land yields two crops every year. Such land is not now available and no khatedar is going to sell his khatedari land. The land acquired through award no. 5/84 is less fertile, it does not yield two crops, it is situated at a distance of 10 Kms, from Barmer, it is not on the National Highway and vacant land is lying in between it and Barmer City. On the contrary, their land is quite near to the municipal limits of Barmer, the population of Barmer is extending towards this side, it has great potential value, it is most suitable for raising construction, on account of its vicinity, the khatedars carry on horticulture along with agriculture. Land of the adjoining villages i.e. Chuli, Jalipa, Hapo-ki-Dhani and Lunu has fetched price @ Rs. 3,000/- per bigha in the year 1985 and the land of the village Barmer Agor from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Land of the adjoining villages i.e. Chuli, Jalipa, Hapo-ki-Dhani and Lunu has fetched price @ Rs. 3,000/- per bigha in the year 1985 and the land of the village Barmer Agor from Rs. 8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Valuation of the pucca and kalchha construction standing on the acquired land has also not been done correctly. Fruit trees standing on these agricultural fields, yield annual income of Rs. 5,00/- per tree. As a result of the acquisition, they have become jobless, homeless, landless and penniless. They have to establish themselves at other places after pending huge amounts. They are also entitled to get compensation under clauses IV and V of Section 23(1) of the Act The compensation awarded for the trees is also inadequate. They are entitled to get Rs. 500/- per tree. They are entitled to get solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) and also amounts under Section 23(1 A) of the Act. It has not at all been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 3. Reference was accordingly made in all cases to the District Judge, Balotra. He transferred them to the Additional District Judge, Barmer for deciding them in accordance with law. 4. In each case, the Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O.), Barmer admits in his reply that the agricultural fields of respondents have been acquired, he has given award allowing compensation for land @ Rs. 625/- per bigha and @ Rs. 100/- per tree, solatium at the rate of 10%. It has further seeing averred in repay that on the date of the notification issued under Section 4, Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be called `the Rajasthan Act') was in force and as such the respondents arc not entitled to get compensation according to the provisions of the Act and the compensation awarded have been paid to the claimants prior to taking over possession of their fields. 5. The learned Additional District Judge, Barmer framed the following issues:- 6. In support of their case for enhancement of amounts of compensation, in each case the respondents have filed a copy of the award No. 6/87 dated July 12, 1986 given by the Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O.), Barmer in respect of the agricultural land situated in the village Jalipa awarding compensation @ Rs. In support of their case for enhancement of amounts of compensation, in each case the respondents have filed a copy of the award No. 6/87 dated July 12, 1986 given by the Land Acquisition Officer (S.D.O.), Barmer in respect of the agricultural land situated in the village Jalipa awarding compensation @ Rs. 3,450/- per bigha, four sale deeds executed in the months of July and August, 1985 and another sale-deed executed in October, 1981 in respect of agricultural land situated in the adjoining village Gehu, Barmer Agor, Jalipa, Lunu, Hapo-ki-Dhani and Chuli, a certified copy of the award No. 5/84 dated March 39, 1986, a certified copy of the order of the Additional Collector, Barmer dated September 27,1984 passed under Section 47-A of the Stamps Act determining the market value of agricultural land situated in village Lunu Khurd @ Rs. 2,860/- per bigha, besides their own affidavits and also of two neighbours. The appellant filed affidavit of Shri Fateh Kishan Kalla, Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Barmer only. 7. In each case, the claimants served notice containing a good number of questions upon the appellant under Order 12 rule 4, C.P.C. read with Section 53 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Banner filed his. reply to the said notice admitting that the agricultural fields acquired are situated in one Chak. situated in the villages Barmer Agor and Gehu, they are on the National Highway No. 15, they are situated at a distance of about 4 Kms. from the municipal limit of Barmer City, the populations of the Barmer City has extended up to the fields bearing Khasras No. 14,68,1489,1304, 1297 and 1298 of the village Barmer Agor, the fields acquired are at a distance of about two kilometres from these khasras nos., they are at a distance of about 41/2 Kms. from Tumba Oil Factory, Ice Factory, Ventminc Grounding Factory and the villages Jalipa, Hapo-ki-Dhani, Lunu and Chuli adjoin the aforesaid villages, Barmer Agor and Gehu, the Radio Station and Polytechnic College arc situated on the other side of the road, the distance in between them is 50 yards only, the Military Head Quarter is towards the south of the acquired land, the fields bearing Khasra No. 176, 179 and 180 of the village Jalipa arc situated at a distance of 3 kms. from the village Barmer Agor and Gehu and award No. 6/87 has been given under Section 11 of the Act regarding these lands on July 12, 1989. It is also admitted by him that the fields bearing Khasra Nos. 124, 125, 138, 145, and 154 have been acquired through the award No. 5/85 dated March 19, 1986, these fields are not situated on the National Highway, they are situated at a distance of 8 Kms. from the municipal limits of Barmer City towards its cast, the distance in between the land of the respondents and the land of the reference No. 1/85 is 7 Kms., the land bearing Khasra No. 543 and 544 of the village Barmer Agor is at a distance of 50 meters from the land of the respondents, the land of the Khasra No. 1330, 1484 and 1502 of the village Barmer Agor are at a distance of 2-1/2-3 Kms. from the land of the claimants and the land of Khasra No. 1484 and 1502 of the village Barmer Agor have been converted into abadi. 8. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional District Judge awarded compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per bigha besides awarding solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act, Additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1 A) from May 1, 1985 to August 1, 1987 and interest as provided under Section 34 of the Act, observing that there is a great difference in the rate of compensation of the two awards i.e. No. 5/84 (granting compensation @ 625/- per bigha and No. 6/87 (granting compensation @ Rs. 3450/- per bigha), as such it is necessary to see the registered sale-deeds and the affidavits filed in the case. 9. The Slate of Rajasthan through Collector Laud Acquisition cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Barmer has preferred these appeals. The grounds taken in all these appeals are common. It would be best to quote them here. They run as under:- 1. That the judgment passed by the Court below are contrary to law as well as the facts. 2. That the court below has not considered the reference in the right perspective manner. The aspect that due to nearby limitary areas comes of land decreased due to certain business restrictions. 3. That the court below has not considered this aspect that due to short rain-fall in the area comes of land decreases. 2. That the court below has not considered the reference in the right perspective manner. The aspect that due to nearby limitary areas comes of land decreased due to certain business restrictions. 3. That the court below has not considered this aspect that due to short rain-fall in the area comes of land decreases. The comes of open land when any tree, Dam and constructions also decreases but the same has not been taken into account. 4. That the solatium awarded at the rate of 30% also without jurisdiction and basis. The notification Under section 4 was published on 5-5-1985. Therefore, according to Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act being applicable the amendment or notification made by Central Government in Central Act does not applying as it has not come into force. Therefore, the respondents were entitled for any benefit under the Central Act. 5. That the solatium awarded on the premises constructed is also without jurisdiction and basis as there were no construction at the rate of award. That the interest at the rate of 12% awarded is also without jurisdiction and basis. The interest could not be awarded from the date of notification up to the award. 6. That the interest can only be awarded at the rate of 4% under section 34 of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. That too is only after the possession of the land is handover. That other grounds shall be submitted at the time of arguments". 10. The respondent-claimants filed their cross-objections claiming compensation @ Rs. 3,000/- per bigha. 11. It may be mentioned here that the appeals were not filed within limitation. The respondents filed their cross-objections under Order 44 Rule 1, C.P.C. The relevant portions of the order-sheet dated April 30,1991 passed in each appeal run as under:- "Learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has no objection if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned on the condition that the respondents who are landless, jobless and homeless maybe exempted from paying court fee on their cross-objection under Order 44 Rule 1, C.P.C. The learned Govt. Advocate has no objection if the respondents arc permitted to file cross-objections as indigent persons under Order 44, Rule 1, C.P.C. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the respondents are permitted to file cross-objections as indigent persons" 12. The learned Government advocate reiterated the aforesaid grounds in his arguments. Advocate has no objection if the respondents arc permitted to file cross-objections as indigent persons under Order 44, Rule 1, C.P.C. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the respondents are permitted to file cross-objections as indigent persons" 12. The learned Government advocate reiterated the aforesaid grounds in his arguments. He also contended that the learned Additional District Judge has not discussed the evidence on record properly and he was not justified to award compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per bigha. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the Land Acquisition Officer cum Sub-Divisional Officer, Barmer in his award No. 6/87 dated July 12, 1989 has granted compensation @ Rs. 3,450/- per bigha and acquiring the agricultural fields bearing khasra No. 179, 176 and 180 measuring 102, 96 and 121 bighas respectively for the defence purposes and admittedly they are at a distance of 3 Kms. from the village Barmer Agor and Gehu where the acquired land are situated. 14. In reply, it has been contended by the learned Government Advocate that in reference No. 6/87 dated July 12, 1989 notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1987 and as such this award is of no help. 15. The first question for consideration is whether the provisions of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 or of the Land Acquisition Act (Central Act No.l of 1894) were applicable in these cases. By Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Central Act 68 of 1984), Sub-Section (2) of Section 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was amended. As a consequence thereof with effect from September 24, 1984, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stood extended to the State of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act No. 24 of 1953) stood repealed. This is also clear from Section 2 of the Land Acquisition (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1987. By this Act, Section 56 has been added in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Sub-section (1) of this Section runs as under:- "(1) Consequent on this Act having been extended to the State of Rajasthan on the 24th day of September, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the date of extension, the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (Rajasthan Act No. 24 of 1953), herein after referred to as the State Act shall be deemed to have been repealed on the date of extension". It makes the position crystal clear that the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (Rajasthan Act No. 24 of 1953) stood repealed with effect from September 24, 1984. Admittedly, notifications under Section 4 were issued on May 1, 1985 and the awards were given by the Land Acquisition Officer on August 31, 1987. It would be deemed that the notifications were issued and awards were given by the Land Acquisition Officer and all subsequent proceedings took place under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, in these cases Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was applicable and not Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953. As such the reference of Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act. 1953 in the memorandums of appeals is not correct. 16. The next question for consideration is about the prevailing market value of similar agriculture kind on the date of the notification i.e on May 1,1985. The Land Acquisition Officer has relief upon the award No. 5/84 dated March 19, 1986. This award was given in respect of about 345 bighas of agricultural land situated in the village Dhudha, notification under Section 4 was issued on July 17,1984 and the Khatedar did not produce any evidence. The claimants have filed a certified copy of the award No. 6/87 dated July 12, 1989 given by the Land Acquisition Officer (SDO), Barmer. In this case, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on November 14, 1987 for about 319 bighas of agricultural land situated in village Jalipa and it has reference of many sale-deeds of the agricultural fields sold in the vicinity. It has been observed in it that the agricultural lands situated in the village Jalipa fetched price @ Rs. 3,(XX)/- per bigha in the year 1985, the Sub-Registrar, disclosed that during the period from 1985 to 1986 the prices have increased by 15% compensation was granted @ Rs. 3,450/- per bigha. The learned Additional District Judge has observed in his judgments under appeals that there is a great disparity in between these two awards i.e. No. 5/84 and 6/87. It may also be mentioned here that the land of the award No. 5/84 is situated at a distance from 8 Kms. from Barmet City, also the same distance from the land of the claimants and it is also at a distance of 7 Kms. from the National Highway. It may also be mentioned here that the land of the award No. 5/84 is situated at a distance from 8 Kms. from Barmet City, also the same distance from the land of the claimants and it is also at a distance of 7 Kms. from the National Highway. On the contrary, the land of the award No. 6/87 is situated at a distance of 3 Kms. only from the land of the respondent. As already observed above, the fields of the respondents acquired are situated on the National Highway No. 15 at a distance of 4 Kms from Barmer City and the Polytechnic College and Akashwani arc just in-front of them. In other words, the land of the respondents lie in between the Barmer City and the land of the Award No. 6/87. They are better situated than the land of the award No. 6/87. 17. The learned Additional District Judge has observed that in view of the great disparity between the said two awards, it is necessary to look into the various sale-deeds filed by the claimants. The sale-deeds, C7/16, C7/18, C7/20 and C7/22 have been executed in the month of July and August, 1985. They show that the land situated in the village jalipa was sold @ Rs. 2,150/- per bigha, the land situated in the village Lunu was sold @ Rs. 2,360/- per bigha, the land situated in village Haxpo-Ki-Dhani was sold @ Rs. 2,920/-per bigha and the land situated in village Chuli was sold @ Rs. 2,700/- per bigha. The respondents have also filed a certified copy of the order dated September 27, 1984 of the Additional Collector, Barmer passed under Section 47-A, Stamps Act in respect of land situated in the village Lunu and it has been valued @ Rs. 2,860/- per bigha. The learned Additional District Judge has not discussed these documents filed by the respondents. He has simply, observed that keeping in view all the sale-deeds and affidavits, the market value of the land acquired comes in between Rs. 2,500/- to 3,000/- per bigha. He further observed that this price includes the cost of trees, construction and dam, the prevailing market rate in other adjacent villages is Rs. 2,000/- per bigha and there are scanty and uncertain rains in Barmer district, and as such the fair market value comes to Rs. 2,000/- per bigha and accordingly awarded compensation at this rate. 18. He further observed that this price includes the cost of trees, construction and dam, the prevailing market rate in other adjacent villages is Rs. 2,000/- per bigha and there are scanty and uncertain rains in Barmer district, and as such the fair market value comes to Rs. 2,000/- per bigha and accordingly awarded compensation at this rate. 18. It has been observed in State of Madras v. A.M. Nanjan, AIR 1976 S.C. 651 at page 657 para 7 as follows:- "We are unable to accept the submission that the awards in question cannot be taken as safe guides in the matter of determination of compensation. As a matter of fact these awards given by the Collector are at least relevant material and may be in the nature of admission with regard to the value of the land on behalf of the State and if the land involved in the awards is comparable land in the reasonable proximity of the acquired land, the rates found in the said documents would be a reliable material to afford a basis to work upon for determination of the compensation on a later date. The awards therefore, cannot be dismissed as inadmissible for the purpose of determination of the compensation". 19. It has been observed in Mahabir Prasad Sartuka v. Collector, Cuttack, AIR 1987 S.C. 720 at page 722 para 6 , as follows:- "We find that the appellants' land is quite adjacent to those plots which were the subject matter of the decision in the appeals decided by the High Court. Compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre. In the circumstances there is no valid reason to award compensation to the appellant at a reduced rate specially so when the respondents have failed to point out any material difference in the situation, topography, lay out of the appellant's land with that of the adjacent land in respect of which compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per Acre. If the impugned order of the High Court under appeal is upheld an anomalous position would arise inasmuch as the appellants will be denied that amount of compensation which has been awarded to other claimants in respect of similar adjacent land. 15,000/- per Acre. If the impugned order of the High Court under appeal is upheld an anomalous position would arise inasmuch as the appellants will be denied that amount of compensation which has been awarded to other claimants in respect of similar adjacent land. We are therefore of the opinion that the High Court committed error in interfering with the order of the Subordinate Judge and in determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,000/- per Acre. We hold that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000/- per acre as determined by the Learned Subordinate Judge". 20. It has been observed in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, 1988 (2) SCC 150 : All India Land Acquisition cases 262 (S.C.) as under:- "Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification arc the usual and indeed best evidences of market value. Other methods or valuation arc resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar land is not available". 21. In view of these facts, circumstances and authoritative observations, the market value of the land acquired in May, 1985 could not be less than Rs. 2,800/- per bigha. As such the appeals have no force and the cross-objections have great force. 22. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly awarded amounts under Sections 23(1 A) and 23(2), Land Acquisition Act. His order regarding the payment of interest is in accordance with provisions of Section 34 of the Act. He has included in his awards the same amounts of compensation for the trees, constructions and bandh which have been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The respondents have not produced satisfactory evidence for their enhancement. 23. Consequently, all the appeals are dismissed with costs. All the cross-objections are allowed with costs. The rate of compensation for the land acquired is increased from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 2,800/- per bigha. The amounts payable under Section 23(1 A) and 23(2) and interest payable under Section 34 of the Act will be calculated accordingly. The awards passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Barmer are modified to this extent.Appeals dismissed with costs. Cross objections allowed. *******