JUDGMENT - S.W. PURANIK, J. :---Large tracts of lands situate within the Municipal limits of Panvel and Kamothe were sought to be acquired for the New Bombay Township Project near the Bombay Pune Highway. 2. The present first appeals arise out of Land Acquisition Reference judgments delivered by the District Judge, Raigad in Land Acquisition Reference Cases Nos. 209 of 1986, 208 of 1986, 203 of 1986, 211 of 1986, 252 of 1986 and 223 of 1986 (all from Panvel) and Land Acquisition Reference Cases Nos. 257 of 1986 and 204 of 1986 (both from Village Kamothe). The claimants had sought references against the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer varying from Rs. 1.50 per sq.metre to Rs. 6 per sq.metre. After recording evidence of the claimants before the Reference Court which comprised of the claimants through their power of attorney holder as also an expert Valuer on their behalf and no evidence at all was adduced on behalf of the State, the Reference Court on considering the facts and submissions of the parties negatived their references and confirmed the valuation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer in each case. 3. It is in these circumstances that the claimants have carried these first appeals before this Court which we have heard in extenso with the assistance of Shri M.V. Paranjape, Shri S.M. Paranjape and Shri R.V. Pai appearing for the claimants and Shri Bagwe, Shri Padgaonkar and Shri Mirajkar, learned Government Pleaders appearing on behalf of the State. In particular, we have perused the record in detail pertaining to First Appeal No. 754 of 1986 which consists of the evidence of the power of attorney holder of the claimants and their expert as also various documents and earlier judgments which were placed before the Land Acquisition Reference Court. We are also informed that the evidence in all the matters is virtually identical except for the location of each claimant's piece of land which varies in distance from the highway. It is an admitted position that all the lands under acquisition in this group of appeals are paddy lands and there are no distinguishing features such as fruit-bearing trees, wells or structures in either of them. The only variable factor as already stated above is the distance from the highway. It is an admitted position that all the lands under acquisition in this group of appeals are paddy lands and there are no distinguishing features such as fruit-bearing trees, wells or structures in either of them. The only variable factor as already stated above is the distance from the highway. It is in these circumstances that we have taken up this group of appeals together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Even before we proceeded with the hearing of the main appeals, the learned Counsel for the appellants had pressed Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 and similar set of applications in other matters except First Appeal No. 755 of 1986. By these civil applications the appellants have prayed that they be permitted to lead and produce additional evidence in these first appeals by accepting documents at Annexures `A' to `L'. They also sought permission to amend the claim in these appeals in order to claim compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq.metre in respect of each of the land and lastly requested that on granting of this prayer, they be permitted to pay additional Court fee for the enhanced claim. 5. These applications have been opposed by the learned Government Pleaders on behalf of the State-respondent on various grounds. 6. Shri Paranjape, the learned Counsel, contended that since the matter was decided by the Reference Court there have been rendered many other decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court in respect of the lands situate and covered by the same notification dated 3-2-1970 and that market value having been determined in the said judgments, the same would be relevant for the purpose of arriving at the market value of these lands pending for consideration before this Court. 7. However the objection on behalf of the Government Pleaders is that apart from the fact that the judgments are post-facto judgments, it is not possible to deduce that the said lands subject-matter of the said judgments are comparable in all respects to the suit lands under consideration in these appeals, and therefore, evidence will have to be recorded. This, in our opinion, would entail a remand of the matter to the trial Court. We feel that such a procedure would be impermissible particularly at a stage even before assessing the original evidence on record. 8. This, in our opinion, would entail a remand of the matter to the trial Court. We feel that such a procedure would be impermissible particularly at a stage even before assessing the original evidence on record. 8. In so far as prayer for amendment and payment of additional Court fee is concerned, we do not think that the said relief is called for in any way inasmuch as section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act enjoins upon the Court to determine the market value of a land on a given date of notification of the factors relevant and stipulated therein. If the said valuation happens to be on a higher side than the one claimed, the Court can call upon the party to pay the additional Court fee. The prayer Clauses (b) and (c) of the applications are therefore rejected. 9. It is in these circumstances and in order to appreciate the evidence available on record and in order to find out whether prayer (a) of civil applications should be considered, we called upon the Counsel for the appellant to open the case on merits on the available record. With the assistance of the Counsel we have read the entire evidence and the set of documents which were presented and we find that there was no necessity to import additional evidence in order to determine the market value as the evidence available on record was just and sufficient. At any rate, the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence contain four documents (a), (b), (c) and (d) which are judgments which have been delivered prior to the date of impugned orders and which would serve as guidelines and of great assistance to this Court in determining the market value on the date of notification. However importing additional evidence in respect of subsequent judgments starting from documents (e) to (l) would unnecessarily entail remand of the case for additional evidence which is not permissible. A useful reference may be made to the decision of our own High Court reported in I.L.R. 47 Bombay 674 in the case of (The Bombay Sizing and Stores Supplying Co. v. V.B. Kusumgar Co.)1, decided by Sir Norman Macleod Kt. Chief Justice and Justice Crump. 10. A useful reference may be made to the decision of our own High Court reported in I.L.R. 47 Bombay 674 in the case of (The Bombay Sizing and Stores Supplying Co. v. V.B. Kusumgar Co.)1, decided by Sir Norman Macleod Kt. Chief Justice and Justice Crump. 10. While dealing with the interpretation of the words "sufficient cause" as appearing in Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. it was observed as follows : "The words "or for any substantial cause" in sub-rule 1(b) of the above rule do not give the Court justification to entertain an application for recording further evidence on the grounds which would enable an application to be entertained under Order XLVII, Rule 1." While referring to the earlier judgment of the Privy Council in (Kessowji Issur v. Great Indian Peninsula Railway)2, (1907) L.R. 34, it was reiterated : "This is important, because the legitimate occasion for section 568 is when, on examining, the evidence as it stands, some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent, not where a discovery is made, outside the Court, of fresh evidence and the application is made to import it. That is the subject of the separate enactment in section 623." Similarly, the Supreme Court dealing with a similar issue under Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. in the case of (K. Venkataramiah v. A. Seetharama Reddy and others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1963 Supreme Court 1526 has observed : "Under Rule 27(1) the appellate Court has the power to allow additional evidence not only if it requires such evidence "to enable it to pronounce judgment, but also for "any other substantial cause". There may well be cases where even though the Court finds that it is able to pronounce judgment on the state of record as it is, and so it cannot strictly say that it requires additional evidence to enable it to pronounce judgment, it still considers that in the interest of justice something which remains obscure should be filled up so that it can pronounce its judgment in a more satisfactory; manner. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code. Such requirement of the Court is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent on an examination of the evidence. Such a case will be one for allowing additional evidence for any other substantial cause under Rule 27(1)(b) of the Code. Such requirement of the Court is not likely to arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacuna or defect becomes apparent on an examination of the evidence. It may well be that the defect may be pointed out by a party, or that a party may move the Court to supply the defect, but the requirement must be requirement of the Court upon its appreciation of evidence as it stands. (Parsotim Thakur v. Lal Mohar Thakur)4, A.I.R. 1931 P.C. 143 Rel. on." (Emphasis supplied) Recently also the Supreme Court has taken the same view in the case of (Bhag Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh)5, reported in A.I.R. 1993 Supreme Court 222. 11. In the light of the above settled law, it would not be permissible to accept additional evidence at this stage in the form of post-facto judgments particularly when the available data on the record was adequate enough to enable the Court to pronounce its judgment. Such a procedure would give a tool in the hands of the appellants to protract the litigation from one stage to the other by merely producing on record subsequent judgments one after the other as they occur coming from different forums to take advantage of the maximum market value decided in one case or the other. Similar are the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Singh (supra) and are to this effect : "Such procedure if is resorted to by courts in determination of market value of lands lying in large tracts based on previous awards or judgments can never reach finality. Besides, recourse to such procedure could give ample scope for making of arbitrary and fanciful awards in land acquisition cases." This view was expressed by the Supreme Court while distinguishing its earlier judgment in (Krapa Rangiah v. Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition)6, A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 877. 12. In view of this position, we have no hesitation to reject prayer Clause (a) of the applications in respect of documents appearing at serial Nos. (e) to (l). However prayer Clause (a) is granted in respect of documents (a) to (d). Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 and similar set of applications in other matters except First Appeal No. 755 of 1986 are partly allowed and disposed of. 13. (e) to (l). However prayer Clause (a) is granted in respect of documents (a) to (d). Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 and similar set of applications in other matters except First Appeal No. 755 of 1986 are partly allowed and disposed of. 13. Having set at rest these questions arising out of the civil applications for additional evidence and amendment, we now proceed to examine the appeals on their individual merits in the light of the evidence already on record and in the light of the additional evidence of contemporaneous judgments vide documents (a) to (d). 14. The claimants in the trial Court have examined P.V. Deodhar their power of attorney holder as witness No. 1 and A.R. Wagle, a Valuation Expert as witness No. 2. The same set of witnesses are examined in each of these reference cases. Their depositions are virtually identical except for the fact that each piece of land concerned in that particular reference has been described separately with its area and distance from the highway or industrial estate or railway station etc. As already stated above, it is an admitted position that the lands in all these reference cases are identical in so far as they are all paddy lands and have no distinguishing features such as of fruit-bearing trees, wells or structures, the only variable factor being that of distance from the highway or industrial estate or railway station etc. This being so, we will omit from consideration for the present the description of each individual land. In order to appreciate the rest of the evidence for the purpose of assessment of market value, suffice it to say that all these lands except the last two are situate in Panvel, while the last two are in adjoining village Kamothe. These two villages are just outside the limits of Greater Bombay and on the side of Bombay Pune Highway, one of the busiest highway in the country. Judicial note can be taken of the fact that the industrial growth in and around Bombay has started with rapid stride from the year 1965 onwards. In fact, the growth is by leaps and bounds in the magnitude of industries as well as number of industries and virtually all the industries of the country are represented on the industrial estates scattered on this highway. In fact, the growth is by leaps and bounds in the magnitude of industries as well as number of industries and virtually all the industries of the country are represented on the industrial estates scattered on this highway. It is also an admitted position that on this highway on all sides the facility of electric supply is available as also of abundant water supply. In the area in question it is also an admitted position that all the lands have suitable access roads of Zilla Parishad and State highway including lands which are the farthest from the highway. Such being the topographical situation of these lands, one will have to bear in mind the tremendous potential of these lands even though they may be presently under paddy cultivation. 15. The claimants' witness No. 1 has stated that the acquired land is situated by the side of highway. There is electric supply and water supply available. It is well developed having approach roads from the factory of Jenson and Nicolson, Panvel Industrial Estate and Jawahar Industrial Estate, quite near the land under acquisition. He further states that the residential colonies of Hindustan Organic Chemicals and Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation are also quite near. The lands are near the junction of Panvel Sion Highway and Bombay Pune Highway. There is no cross-examination on this vital aspect of the location of these lands. Thus even though the lands may be under paddy cultivation for the present, the non-agricultural potential of these lands in the surrounding environment cannot be disputed and the lands will have to be, therefore, assessed as non-agricultural lands useful for purposes of industry, commerce or housing complex. 16. The next witness of the claimants is the Valuation Expert Shri A.R. Wagle. He is an Engineering graduate and a practising Architect Valuer for over 18 years. He is also on the panel of Maharashtra State Finance Corporation as a Valuer for Raigad and Ratnagiri areas. He is also a Valuer on the panel of Bank of India for Raigad District and he is registered with the Central Board of Direct Taxes for valuation of immovable properties under the Wealth Tax Act. He is also on the panel of Maharashtra State Finance Corporation as a Valuer for Raigad and Ratnagiri areas. He is also a Valuer on the panel of Bank of India for Raigad District and he is registered with the Central Board of Direct Taxes for valuation of immovable properties under the Wealth Tax Act. These credentials show that he is not only an expert in the matter of property valuation, but that his services and expertise has been recognised by such authorities as the M.S.F.C., the Bank of India and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. Weightage will have to be attached to the testimony of this Valuer. 17. Apart from the description of the individual land, he has also narrated that for the acquired lands the essential facilities of water supply and electricity are available since prior to the date of the notification. He also states that these lands are situate at a high level and are within short distance from the highway. He has tendered his valuation report which is duly exhibited. He has also tendered a map of the acquired lands showing all other details and distances. This valuation expert has been cross-examined by the Government Pleader. Part of the cross-examination relates to the fee charged by the Valuer as if to show that he is an interested witness. One wonders whether the lawyer or the Government Pleader was appearing free of charge. No professional would render his services without charging any fee for the services rendered by him and this cross-examination leads us nowhere. The Valuer has accepted that he has taken into consideration the sale deeds in respect of non-agricultural lands and not the agricultural lands. But we feel that he is justified in doing so in view of the non-agricultural potential as described earlier. The present acquisition is itself for a township. He also admits that he has been examined as a Valuer in earlier land acquisition reference cases and there also he has referred to various sale deeds and pronouncements in other cases. He admits that the High Court had granted Rs. 8 to 10 per sq.metre in some cases. There is no evidence tendered on behalf of the Government. He also admits that he has been examined as a Valuer in earlier land acquisition reference cases and there also he has referred to various sale deeds and pronouncements in other cases. He admits that the High Court had granted Rs. 8 to 10 per sq.metre in some cases. There is no evidence tendered on behalf of the Government. On a total compass it would be seen that the factual aspects of these lands being situate at a short distance from the highway and industrial estate and that it is a fast growing industrial zone are not disputed by way of cross-examination. It is in this light that we will have to consider the rest of the evidence tendered by the witnesses. 18. In order to appreciate the evidence tendered by these witnesses we sought assistance from the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge sitting under reference. The judgments impugned in all these first appeals are virtually identical except for the description of the properties. As noted earlier, the Reference Court has rejected all the references and has confirmed the valuation as offered in the awards by the Land Acquisition Officer which ranges from Rs. 1.50 per sq. metre to Rs. 6 per sq. metre. 19. Perusal of the judgment however shows that unfortunately the said judgment is of no assistance at all. While referring to the various situations in paragraph 7 and the two sale deeds of Jenson and Nicolson and Esso Petrol Pump, the learned Judge has nowhere analysed the evidence tendered by the claimants and their Valuer in an objective manner. The entire judgment does not refer to Wagle's valuation report and the analysis with which he has reached his conclusion regarding the market value of the acquired lands. This is a gross omission on the part of the Reference Court. Similarly, in paragraphs 15 and 17 the Reference Court has cursorily dealt with the two sale deeds sited by the claimants viz., the sale deed of Jenson and Nicolson and the Esso Petrol Pump. One is of the year 1963 and the other of the year 1967. He has cursorily brushed aside these sale deeds without realising the significance of the value disclosed by these sale deeds as far back as in the years 1963 and 1967 at which point of time the industrial activity had just started to begin. One is of the year 1963 and the other of the year 1967. He has cursorily brushed aside these sale deeds without realising the significance of the value disclosed by these sale deeds as far back as in the years 1963 and 1967 at which point of time the industrial activity had just started to begin. Prior to the year 1963 this tract was a sleepy area and it was suddenly awakened after 1965 when the prices started soaring up. Similarly, we find several instances of non-application of mind on the part of the learned District Judge particularly at the end of paragraph 17 where he makes a vital mistake in respect of the location of the land in question. Whereas in fact it is only 50 metres from Bombay Pune Highway, the learned Judge has stated that the distance is one kilometre from Bombay Pune Highway. This has no basis except for the say of the Government Pleader as reproduced in paragraph 11. Suffice it to say that the claimants themselves as well as their Valuer and the report clearly say that the distance is 50 metres from the highway and it is not disputed in evidence. It is in these circumstances that we will have to omit from consideration the entire reference judgments impugned in these cases. 20. On behalf of the claimants the sale deed of Jenson and Nicolson for purposes of factory and another sale deed for the Esso Petrol Pump are two important citations on which they relied heavily in the trial Court. No doubt, both these sale deeds reflect a transaction for commercial purposes. But at any rate, allowance will have to be given for the soaring prices from 1965 onwards in the vicinity of these areas which started buzzing in industrial activity from 1965 onwards. Even if 12 percent per year appreciation is calculated then the value of Jenson Nicolson land at Rs. 6.25 per sq.metre in 1963 would come to Rs. 15 per sq.metre in the year 1970, the date of the notification. So also with regard to the land of the Esso Petrol Pump which was purchased at the rate of Rs. 14.65 per sq.metre in 1967, the same will come to Rs. 21 in the year 1970. The learned District Judge in confirming the awards between the rates of Rs. 1.50 per sq.metre to Rs. So also with regard to the land of the Esso Petrol Pump which was purchased at the rate of Rs. 14.65 per sq.metre in 1967, the same will come to Rs. 21 in the year 1970. The learned District Judge in confirming the awards between the rates of Rs. 1.50 per sq.metre to Rs. 6 per sq.metre was therefore clearly in wrong and completely off the track. 21. Besides this the Valuer had already referred to cases decided by the High Court from out of the same group of lands where valuation was arrived at Rs. 8 to 12 per sq.metre. Now by partly allowing Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 and similar set of applications we have also accepted on record four contemporaneous pronouncements of the courts which were in fact available at the time the reference cases were decided, but not being within the knowledge of parties were not tendered before the Reference Court. They are documents (a) to (d). Exhibit `A' attached to Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 is a judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 431 of 1968 and 432 of 1968. These first appeals were arising out of the Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 6 of 1966 and 8 of 1966 respectively from Panvel but acquired by an earlier notification of 13th August 1964 for purposes of extension of the Station Yard. In the said judgment the High Court had confirmed the rate of Rs. 10.28 per sq.metre as granted by the Reference Court. A reference to the said judgment would show that the High Court had confirmed the rate Rs. 8.50 per sq.yard which is equal to Rs. 10.28 per sq.metre. It must be borne in mind that this is the rate for the year 1964, whereas we are at present dealing with the acquisition of 1970. Further appreciation in prices at the rate of 12 per cent will have to be granted for purposes of market value in 1970 which by calculation comes to Rs. 20.28 per sq.metre in the year 1970. 22. The second document Exhibit `B' attached to Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 is a judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 404 of 1975 arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 81 of 1971 from Panvel itself and in respect of a notification of 25-4-1966. There the valuation arrived at was Rs. 22. The second document Exhibit `B' attached to Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 is a judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 404 of 1975 arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 81 of 1971 from Panvel itself and in respect of a notification of 25-4-1966. There the valuation arrived at was Rs. 13 per sq.yard which is equal to Rs. 16.25 per sq.mt. This acquisition was for the purposes of a State Transport Bus Stand. This is also quite adjacent to the lands in question. Again by the method of appreciation of 12 per cent per annum from the year 1966 the value of Rs. 16.25 per sq.metre would come to Rs. 25.57 per sq.metre in the year 1970. 23. The third instance is Exhibit `C' attached to Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 which is a pronouncement in First Appeal No. 1123 of 1985 by this Court arising out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 79 of 1981 from Panvel proper in respect of the current notification with which we are dealing i.e. dated 3-2-1970. As already stated the said land is comparable to the lands under acquisition of being paddy, of being nearby the highway and of being situate in vicinity of an industrial area. The valuation arrived at in this pronouncement is Rs. 25/- per sq.metre in the year 1970. As already stated above, this acquisition is for the new township under the very same notification as in the present case. 24. The last instance is Exhibit `D' to the Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 which is a decision of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 25 of 1983 arising out of the very same notification for the same purpose of new township from Panvel. The land is adjacent to the railway station and the valuation arrived at is Rs. 25 per sq.metre in the year 1970. 25. The rough calculation that we have done in consideration of the trend in price-rise with respect to the sale deeds of 1963 and 1967 cited by the claimants in the trial Court viz. Jenson and Nicolson sale deed and Esso Petrol Pump sale deed, the final rate in the year 1970 comes to Rs. 15 and Rs. 21 respectively, whereas in the true import of the growth of industrial development in the vicinity, the courts have arrived at a rate of Rs. Jenson and Nicolson sale deed and Esso Petrol Pump sale deed, the final rate in the year 1970 comes to Rs. 15 and Rs. 21 respectively, whereas in the true import of the growth of industrial development in the vicinity, the courts have arrived at a rate of Rs. 25 per sq.metre in respect of similarly situate paddy lands of Village Panvel in this vicinity. 26. It must be mentioned here that the purpose of the acquisition is for development of a township and the valuation of the land is not to be determined merely for purpose of residence or a township thereby signifying the non-agricultural use, but the fact must be borne in mind that this township is a necessary supplement to the industrial growth in and around this area thereby enhancing its value more than an ordinary residential area would fetch. It is necessary that the industries will try to accommodate their officers and workers in its vicinity and thereby it becomes a necessary supplement to the industry itself. Therefore assessing the market value of these lands has to be in consonance with the industrial growth of whole tract as such. It was urged on behalf of the Government that these pronouncements at Exhibits `A', `B', `C' and `D' to the civil applications are not comparable for the reason that Exhibit `A' land is near the Railway Station Diva Panvel Yard, while the land in Exhibit `B' is close to the railway station and is only 2-3 furlongs from that railway station. However he had no grounds to attack the pronouncements which are at Exhibits `C' and `D' which arise out of the present notification of 3-2-1970 from Panvel for purposes of the New Bombay township except for the fact that they are situate near the railway station the valuation arrived at is Rs. 25/- per sq.metre. Assuming that some of the sites are near railway station and some are not, we feel that in the magnitude of the growth of industrial development and the surrounding areas the disadvantage merely on the ground of distance disappears particularly when there are access roads of Zilla Parishad and State highway available to each of these lands. This being the position, nearness or a little distance away from the highway will be of little significance albeit it may make a difference of a rupee or two in the total evaluation. This being the position, nearness or a little distance away from the highway will be of little significance albeit it may make a difference of a rupee or two in the total evaluation. For this purpose with the assistance of learned Counsel of both the parties we had prepared a table showing four groups, the first one showing the lands abutting the Bombay Pune Highway. The survey numbers concern with First Appeals Nos. 754 of 1986 and 763 of 1986. The second group refers to lands within a distance of 800 metres from the highway but not exactly abutting the highway. These lands are covered by First Appeal No. 751 of 1986 (part) and First Appeal No. 756 of 1986. The third group is of lands abutting Kamothe Zilla Parishad but within 1200 metres from the Bombay Pune Highway. These lands are covered by First Appeals Nos. 753 of 1986, 751 of 1986 (part) and 752 of 1986. The next group is IV-A covered by First Appeal No. 755 of 1986 and the lands in this group are within a distance of 800 to 2200 metres from Bombay Pune Highway, while the last group is Group IV-B of lands covered by First Appeal No. 743 of 1986, situate within a distance of 200 to 640 metres from Zilla Parishad Road and Gaothan. The lands covered by the decision at Exhibit `A' to the Civil Application No. 1596 of 1989 are admittedly at a distance of approximately one kilometre from the national highway as deposed by Shri Wagle and the said valuation arrived at is in respect of the notification issued in 1964. The map tendered by the appellants has been taken on record by consent of parties. The said map is drawn exactly as the official map which is with the Land Acquisition Officer and the map on record of the Reference Court except for the fact that the map tendered by the appellants shows the locations of lands covered by various judgments. We are however not taking into consideration the lands covered by judgments (e) to (l). However lands covered by judgments (a) to (d) of the Civil Application are relevant and have been admitted by us for the purposes of this appeal as additional evidence. We are however not taking into consideration the lands covered by judgments (e) to (l). However lands covered by judgments (a) to (d) of the Civil Application are relevant and have been admitted by us for the purposes of this appeal as additional evidence. The location clearly shows that the lands covered by Exhibit `A' are at a distance of approximately one kilometre from the national highway, while Exhibit `B' lands are somewhat closer to the national highway, but both these lands are in respect of the older notifications. In so far as lands covered by Exhibits `C' and `D' are concerned, they are almost at a distance of 1 kilometre from the national highway and are the lands covered by the present notification of 1970 for purpose of new township. The valuation arrived at is Rs. 25 per sq.metre for lands at Exhibits `C' and `D'. In so far as the present suit lands are concerned, they are identical, similar and comparable to the lands covered by the judgments at Exhibits `A' to `D' as well as to the two lands of Jenson Nicolson and Esso Petrol Pump. However as has been laid down time and again that market value assessment will always depend on broad common sense, general topography, prospective use and the facilities available to a particular tract of land. It is therefore likely to be based more or less on rough inferences drawn from various factors. We have also the assistance of various pronouncements of a contemporaneous period, one of which pronouncement is of this Court at Exhibit `C' and the one pronouncement is of the Reference Court at Exhibit `D', in respect of the lands from the same village, for the same purpose and under the same notification. These serve as guidelines and lead us to the conclusion that these four groups of lands will have to be valued in the best interest of parties as follows : Lands in Group I covered by First Appeals Nos. 754 of 1986 and 763 of 1986 at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq.metre, those in Group II covered by First Appeals Nos. 751 of 1986 (part) and 756 of 1986 at the rate of Rs. 23 per sq.metre, those covered by First Appeals Nos. 753 of 1986, 751 of 1986 (part) and 752 of 1986 in Group III at the rate of Rs. 25 per sq.metre, those in Group II covered by First Appeals Nos. 751 of 1986 (part) and 756 of 1986 at the rate of Rs. 23 per sq.metre, those covered by First Appeals Nos. 753 of 1986, 751 of 1986 (part) and 752 of 1986 in Group III at the rate of Rs. 22 per sq.metre, those covered by First Appeal No. 755 of 1986 in Group IV-A at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq.metre as also those covered by First Appeal No. 743 of 1986 lying in Group IV-B at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq.metre. The chart in respect of these groups is annexed to the judgments and forms part of this judgment. 27. In view of the compensation awarded in excess of the claim made in the appeal, the appellants are hereby directed to pay the additional Court fee stamp for the excess sum as per the chart attached to this judgment. 28. The calculations of enhanced amount of compensation, interest and other reliefs granted are shown in the annexures which form part of this judgment. The said calculations of enhanced amount of compensation, interest and other reliefs granted and serialised in the annexures as well as in the operative part of the order have been compared by Counsel for both the parties and are admitted to be correct. The charts and annexures referred to in the proceeding and this para are initialled by one of us for the purpose of identification. 30. In the result all these appeals succeed. They are allowed. The reliefs granted in each appeal are stated hereinafter : First Appeal No. 754 of 1986 preferred by the claimants is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed : The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimants Rs. 2,06,000.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 61,800.00 by way of solatium at 30% plus Rs. 3,73,441.00 as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,38,470.80 already awarded and paid to the claimants as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 5,02,770.20 ps. 3,73,441.00 as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,38,470.80 already awarded and paid to the claimants as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 5,02,770.20 ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 5,02,770.20 ps. It is clarified that the interest under section 34 on the amount payable at the rate of 12 per cent under section 23(1A) shall accrue in the succeeding year and at the end of every year thereafter till payment as and when the said 12 per cent amount falls due under the said provision. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 751 of 1986 preferred by the claimants is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimants Rs. 1,93,910.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 58,173.00 by way of solatium at 30 per cent plus Rs. 3,49,930.50 ps as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 55,121.70 ps. already awarded and paid to the claimants as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimants Rs. 5,46,891.80 ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 5,46,891.80 ps. It is clarified that the interest under section 34 on the amount payable at the rate of 12 per cent under section 23(1A) shall accrue in the succeeding year and at the end of every year thereafter till payment as and when the said 12 per cent amount falls due under the said provision. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 752 of 1986 preferred by the claimant is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 752 of 1986 preferred by the claimant is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimants Rs. 55,000.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 16,500.00 by way of solatium at 30 per cent plus Rs. 98,601.44 ps. as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 11,311.75ps. already awarded and paid to the claimant as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 1,58,789.69ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 1,58,789.69ps. It is clarified that the interest under section 34 on the amount payable at the rate of 12 per cent under section 23(1A) shall accrue in the succeeding year and at the end of every year thereafter till payment as and when the said 12% amount falls due under the said provision. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 753 of 1986 preferred by the claimant is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 68,200.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 20,460.00 by way of solatium at 30 per cent plus Rs. 1,23,656.80 ps. as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 14,282.25ps. already awarded and paid to the claimant as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 1,98,034.55ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 1,98,034.55ps. 1,98,034.55ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 1,98,034.55ps. It is clarified that the interest under section 34 on the amount payable at the rate of 12 per cent under section 23(1A) shall accrue in the succeeding year and at the end of every year thereafter till payment as and when the said 12 per cent amount falls due under the said provision. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 756 of 1986 preferred by the claimants is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimants Rs. 2,62,660.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 78,798.00 by way of solatium at 30 per cent plus Rs. 4,81,855.16ps. as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 94,926.35ps. already awarded and paid to the claimants as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimants Rs. 7,28,386.81ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 7,28,386.81ps. It is clarified that the interest under section 34 on the amount payable at the rate of 12 per cent under section 23(1A) shall accrue in the succeeding year and at the end of every year thereafter till payment as and when the said 12 per cent amount falls due under the said provision. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 763 of 1986 preferred by the claimant is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 2,68,750.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 80,625.00 by way of solatium at 30 per cent plus Rs. 4,40,455.47ps. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 2,68,750.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 80,625.00 by way of solatium at 30 per cent plus Rs. 4,40,455.47ps. as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 71,987.20ps. already awarded and paid to the claimant as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 7,17,843.27ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 7,17,843.27ps. It is clarified that the interest under section 34 on the amount payable at the rate of 12 per cent under section 23(1A) shall accrue in the succeeding year and at the end of every year thereafter till payment as and when the said 12 per cent amount falls due under the said provision. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 743 of 1986 preferred by the claimant is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 1,33,200.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 39,960.00 by way of solatium at 30 per cent plus Rs. 2,42,606.35ps. as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 40,553.65ps. already awarded and paid to the claimant as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimant Rs. 3,75,212.70ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 3,75,212.70ps. 3,75,212.70ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 3,75,212.70ps. It is clarified that the interest under section 34 on the amount payable at the rate of 12 per cent under section 23(1A) shall accrue in the succeeding year and at the end of every year thereafter till payment as and when the said 12 per cent amount falls due under the said provision. There shall be no order as to costs. First Appeal No. 755 of 1986 preferred by the claimants is allowed. The order passed by the trial Court is set aside and in its place the following order is passed. The Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimants Rs. 1,29,200.00 by way of market price, plus Rs. 38,760.00 by way of solatium at 30 per cent plus Rs. 2,34,428.68ps. as additional amount payable on the market value under section 23(1A) of the Act, after deducting the amount of Rs. 59,290.25ps already awarded and paid to the claimants as per award of the Acquisition Officer, that is to say, that the Land Acquisition Officer shall pay to the claimants Rs. 3,43,098.43ps. additionally together with interest at 9 per cent per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till the date of payment on the said amount of Rs. 3,43,098.43ps. It is clarified that the interest under section 34 on the amount payable at the rate of 12 per cent under section 23(1A) shall accrue in the succeeding year and at the end of every year thereafter till payment as and when the said 12 per cent amount falls due under the said provision. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. *****