Judgment (1.) G. S. N. Tripathi, J. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 31st January, 1973 in a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act passed by the Presiding Officer, Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Agra (Lower Court) in a Land Acquisition Case No. 41 of 1965, Sarda Charan v. Nagar. Mahapalika, Agra and case No. 27 of 1965, Narain Das v. Nagar Mahapalika, Agra. By virtue of this judgment, the learned Tribunal has assessed the valuation of the disputed property @ Rs. 4 per square yard. (2.) IN all, 15 plots with an area of 14 bighas, 19 biswas and 4 biswansis, equivalent to 41233 square yards were acquired. The notification under Section 4/36 was issued on 8-9-1951. The notification under Section 6/42 was issued on 14-3-1957. The possession was taken on 3-1-1958. The award was delivered by Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 12-6-1964 under Section 11. The SLAO assessed compensation @ 75 paise per square yard in respect of the land of first belt and @ 40 paise per square yard in respect of the second belt. On reference, this amount was increased at behalf rate of Rs. 4 per square yard uniformly. The case taken by the claimant has been given in detail in the judgment of the learned lower court. Indisputably, the disputed land is situated within the area of Civil Lines, Agra and is contiguous to the compound of District Judge's residence, Agra in an abadi of new Agra. There existed civil amenities in the immediate neighbourhood, namely, electricity, water supply, telephone etc. Thus it was situate within the abadi area and had acquired potential for building site. Therefore, the normal compensation should be @ Rs. 8 per square yard. Admittedly, the acquisition has been made by Agra Improvement Trust (now Agra Nagar Mahapalika) for Mahatama Gandhi Road Housing Scheme. (3.) THE defence mainly was that some of the plots were full of deep pits and were totally unlit for abadi. These plots comprise of an area of 12 bighas, 8 biswas of the total acquired laud and the SLAO has rightly ordered a compensation @ 40 paise per square yard beltwise. THE remaining land was lying banar @ its adequate compensation has been awarded by the SLAO. THE claim of the claimants is exaggerated. (4.) BEFORE the learned lower court, parties tiled exemplars and other documents. THE remaining land was lying banar @ its adequate compensation has been awarded by the SLAO. THE claim of the claimants is exaggerated. (4.) BEFORE the learned lower court, parties tiled exemplars and other documents. After considering them, the learned lower court (Tribunal) passed the award as noted above. Feeling aggrieved, claimants have filed this appeal. They have claimed in this court that at least compensation @ Rs. 6 per square yard should be awarded to them. (5.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. I find that there is some force in this appeal and to that extent, it deserves to be allowed. (6.) NOW, it is not disputed that the rate of assessment of compensation should be on the consideration of a willing buyer and willing purchaser, paying and giving the value in a free manner. Exorbitant rates or absolutely low rates should be ignored, because they do now show the free market exchange value as adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In that process, the potential value of the land has also to be taken into consideration. This legal propositions have not been disputed before me. As regards the situation of the disputed land, there is not much dispute PW 1 Sarda Charan, claimant has deposed that the disputed land is situate near the Civil Court and abuts the residence of the District Judge. It is at a distance of about 10 yards only from the building of Sri Taukela, Advocate There is office of Assistant Director, Health situate in the house of Sri Taukela. This house is 100 or 150 years old. The land is about 2 furlongs away from Mohalla Jorpura and is contiguous to Wazirpur Mohalla. Apra University is situate at a distance of 3 furlongs. Vijai Nagar Colony is situate at a distance of about 4 furlongs. This colony is about 30 or 40 years old. New Agra Colony is at a distance of about 2 furlongs. This was in existence about 5-6 years prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Kothi of Maharaja Bharatpur is at a distance of 20 paces from the disputed land. Despite a very lengthy cross-examination on these points nothing could be culled out on the basis of which statement of Sarda Charan could be rejected. This was in existence about 5-6 years prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Kothi of Maharaja Bharatpur is at a distance of 20 paces from the disputed land. Despite a very lengthy cross-examination on these points nothing could be culled out on the basis of which statement of Sarda Charan could be rejected. (7.) NOT only this, DW 1 Krishna Kumar, Amin and an employee of the respondents had deposed that he was employed as an Amin of the Improvement Trust even in 1951. He admits that Civil Court building is at a distance of 1 1/2 furlongs from this land. Wazirpur is at a distance of 3 furlongs and so is the distance of Paliwal Park, Agra University building which is at a distance of 4-5 furlongs. Vijai Nagar Colony is at a distance of 5 furlongs. Gandhi Nagar is at a distance of 3 furlongs. Gandhi Nagar was in existence even in 1951. New Agra Colony is at a distance of 1-1/2 furlongs. Bharatpur Kothi is towards the east of Mahatraa Gandhi Road near the disputed land. This way, from the evidence of both these witnesses, it is clearly established that the disputed land is ideally situated within the municipal limits of Agra Naear Mahapalika and had a potential value for raising buildings even in those days Being very close to Civil Lines area of Agra, all the modern civic amenities, like road, electricity, water and sewer lines etc. were bound to be there Thus the learned lower court has rightly concluded that the disputed land was of a very high potential for being used as house sites. In fact, for house sites itself, the land has been acquired in the present case. This way, the conclusion drawn by the learned lower court cannot be said to be ill-founded from any standard. (8.) BEFORE the learned lower court, certain exemplars have been filed and they have been dealt with at considerable stretch. I will point out certain errors in the judgment of the lower court while assessing the value of the disputed land. 12. The disputed land lies in village Lashkarpur. Exhibit 9 is the judgment of Additional District Judge, Agra in a Land Acquisition reference No. 59/53 Kumar Ashraf Ali Khan v. Collector, Agra, dated 23-12- 1960. I will point out certain errors in the judgment of the lower court while assessing the value of the disputed land. 12. The disputed land lies in village Lashkarpur. Exhibit 9 is the judgment of Additional District Judge, Agra in a Land Acquisition reference No. 59/53 Kumar Ashraf Ali Khan v. Collector, Agra, dated 23-12- 1960. That was in respect of 2805 square yards area in Mandi Syed Khan, Hariparwat Ward, Agra in the same village, namely Lashkarpur. The learned Judge assessed compensation @ Rs. 15 per square yard. However, parties compromised vide Exhibit 10 and the compensation was lowered to the rate of Rs. 13 per square yard instead of the rate of Rs. 15 per square yard as decreed. The notification in that case was also of the same time, namely, 31-1-1951. The learned lower court has dealt with this exemplar at page 41 of the paper book in simply casual manner. He has observed as follows : - "PW 1 Sharda Charan has stated that this land of Ashraf Ali was situate at a distance of about 3 or 3-1/2 furlongs away from the land in suit. However, OW 1 Krishna Kumar has stated that this plot No, 541 is about 5 or 6 furlongs away. It will be evident from the award marked Exhibit 9 itself that the above plot was situated in Mandi Sayed Khan which is undisputedly an Abadi area. Therefore, this award cannot be taken as an exemplar in the present case. " I think that such a valuable document should not have been dealt with in such a manner. It was ignored that the initial assessment of valuation was @ Rs. 15 per square yard by the learned Additional District Judge. In execution proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise and the rate was lowered to Rs. 13 per square yard. Even if the amount is further lowered by 50% it comes to Rs. 6. 50 per square yard, after giving all margins in favour of the respondents. As observed earlier, even the disputed land lies within the municipal limits of Agra and they are very favourably situated and all the modern amenities were available to it even on the date of notification. 6. 50 per square yard, after giving all margins in favour of the respondents. As observed earlier, even the disputed land lies within the municipal limits of Agra and they are very favourably situated and all the modern amenities were available to it even on the date of notification. There fore, the learned lower court should have taken into consideration the rate fixed by the parties and he should have assessed the value of the disputed land after giving some margins on the ground of location. These documents were very relevant for coming to a reasonable conclusion at the hands of the learned lower court. But unfortunately, he did not examine them with the requisite care. I think that if these two documents Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 10 are taken into consideration, the value of the disputed land will go higher than Rs. 6.50 per square yard in any manner whatsoever. 13. Another document of relevance is Exhibit 17. This is also an award given in Land Acquisition Case No. 72/52, Vidhyawati Devi v. Collector, Agra regarding 5962 square yards of land in the same Mauja Lashkarpur. The compensation awarded was @ Rs. 7 per square yard. The notification in that case was issued on 12-5-1948 i. e. three years anterior to the present notification. This land was also situate at a distance of 3 furlongs away from the disputed land. The learned lower court dismissed this valuable document by observing as follows at page 19 of his judgment. "also no plot numbers are given in this award and hence it cannot be ascertained as to which plots this award actually related and what was their location and situation. In these circumstances, this award cannot be accepted as an exemplar in the present case. " The learned lower court forgot that this was the award in respect of the land situate in village Lashkarpur itself. He further forgot that this notification was issued 3 years anterior to the present notification and the price rise, which had become a natural phenomena, was also not considered. Taking all these factors into consideration I think that this award could have played a decisive role in this case and the value of the disputed land could have been assessed much more than @ Rs. 7 per square yard. This is an error of grave type committed by the learned lower court. 14. Taking all these factors into consideration I think that this award could have played a decisive role in this case and the value of the disputed land could have been assessed much more than @ Rs. 7 per square yard. This is an error of grave type committed by the learned lower court. 14. Another exemplar Exhibit 1 is a sale-deed dated 14-9-1918 in respect of 620 square yards of land situate in village Nagla Patti. The rate works out to Rs. 9. 37 P. per square yards. Another exemplar is a sale-deed dated 7-9-1948, Exhibit 2 in respect of 56 square yards and the rate works out to Rs. 11 per square yard. At page 35 of the paper book, the learned lower court has dealt with these documents and has found that the situation of the land was about 3 furlongs away from the land in suit. Also the said plot was situate within the village Abadi. OW 1 Krishna Kumar had deposed that the distance was about 6 furlongs of that plot from the disputed land. Again it was stated that the areas covered by these documents were similar. But even then these documents could constitute a valid basis for assessment and they could not have been summarily rejected as done by the learned lower court. 15. Exhibit 6 is a sale-deed dated 6-8-1945 in respect of 7 bighas and 6 biswas of land situate in Azad Nagar Colony. The rate works out to about Rs. 8. 50 P. per square yard. Exhibits 7 and 8 are sale-deeds dated 28-8-1945 and 21-7-1946. The rate works out to Rs. 7 per square yard. Two things are important. These documents came into existence about 6 years prior to the disputed notification in the present case dated 8-9-1951. But the present case is of freehold land. Whereas, the documents Exhibits 6, 7 and 8 are in respect of lease hold land, It is a matter of common knowledge that in lease hold lands, the tenant and landlord used to co-share the benefits to the extent of 50% each. Taking these factors into consideration and also the trend of price rise in between the year 1945 and 1951, the price of the disputed land could have been assessed @ Rs. 7 at least per square yard. The learned lower court has ignored these documents without any valid basis. Taking these factors into consideration and also the trend of price rise in between the year 1945 and 1951, the price of the disputed land could have been assessed @ Rs. 7 at least per square yard. The learned lower court has ignored these documents without any valid basis. The consideration which weighed with the learned lower court was that those lands abutted roads. But it was forgotten that in the present case also land abuts the road It had great and equal potential for building purposes. This way, from the documents Exhibits 1, 2, 7, 8, 18, 9, 10 and 17, the value of the disputed land could have been in the neighbourhood of at least Rs. 6 or Rs. 7 per square yard on the date of notification. The learned lower court has taken into consideration two other documents filed by the respondents. Exhibit A-l is the sale-deed dated 12-7-1949 executed by Narain Das and Sharda Charan appellants. The rate comes to Rs. 2. 25 P. and Rs. 3. 00 per square yard. They were also in respect of the properties situate in Mauza Lashkarpur. It is significant to note that a portion of plot No. 483 was subject-matter of those sale-deeds as well as the present acquisition proceedings. It has been also admitted by the learned lower court that this sale-deed is much nearer to the date of notification of this case issued in September 1951. It has come in evidence of Sharda Charan, PW 1 that this land was somewhat lower in level. Therefore it fetched lesser price. This fact has been half hartedly admitted by Sri Krishna Kumar, Amin also. Whether the level was 4 feet or 5 feet or 1 feet below the road is the only controversy to be decided between the parties. Taking the worst case that it was about 2 or 3 feet below the road level, it cannot be denied that it had building potential. As observed, it was for building purposes only that the land was acquired. So also on fact more needed consideration that that was a transaction in respect of the period 1949, that is two years anterior to the present notification. In between these two years, the price rise trend was continuing. If these things are also taken into consideration, the value of the disputed land would rise to not less than Rs. So also on fact more needed consideration that that was a transaction in respect of the period 1949, that is two years anterior to the present notification. In between these two years, the price rise trend was continuing. If these things are also taken into consideration, the value of the disputed land would rise to not less than Rs. 4 per square yard. So this was not a circumstance very much against the appellants. As it was of a lower level land than the disputed plots, the valuation shall be at least @ Rs. 7 per square yard. 16. From the evidence of Sharda Charan, it has been revealed that the land was lying parti for a year and so on the date of acquisition. But that was nut an adverse circumstance, which should have been taken seriously, because the building potential was not diminished thereby. Taking these factors into consideration the learned lower court had himself came to the conclusion at page 25 of the paper book in these words : "in view of this location and situation of the land in suit, it is evident that it had already acquired a great potential value as a building site at the time when the notification came to be issued in this case in September, 1951. " 17. The learned lower court drew an adverse inference because the sale-deed in favour of the claimants had not been filed by them, although it was of the same year. That was a registered document, its copy could have been filed even by the respondents. So adverse inference could not have been drawn against the appellants on this ground alone. 18. This way if all the relevant documents and oral and documentary evidence are taken into consideration, including the potential value of the land, the price of the land would come to at least Rs. 8 per square yard Assessment made by the learned lower court @ Rs. 4 per square yard is clearly wrong. It deserves to be modified. It is done accordingly @ Rs. 6 per square yard as the appellant want the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6 per square in this appeal. 19. Apart from that, there is another error. The rate of solatium has been increased from 15% to 30% by the Parliament. Hence it is granted accordingly. It deserves to be modified. It is done accordingly @ Rs. 6 per square yard as the appellant want the compensation at the rate of Rs. 6 per square in this appeal. 19. Apart from that, there is another error. The rate of solatium has been increased from 15% to 30% by the Parliament. Hence it is granted accordingly. Similarly the rate of interest on account of compulsory acquisition has also been raised from 6% to 9% pendente lite. Therefore even on this score, the judgment of the learned lower court deserves to be modified interest for compulsory acquisition is raised and awarded @ 15% (fifteen per cent) per annum under Section 28, L. A. Act after the expiry of one year. 20. Regarding the cost awarded by the learned lower court there was a submission of the learned counsel that Section 27 provides that if the award of the Collector is not upheld, the cost shall ordinarily be paid by the Collector, unless the Court shall be of the opinion that the claim of the applicant was so extravagant or that he was so negligent in putting his case before the Collector that some deduction from his costs should be made and that ha should pay a part of the Collector's costs. No such finding has been recorded by the learned lower court against the appellants. Therefore, they should have been awarded full costs of both the courts. Without recording any finding and giving reasons, this mandatory provisions of Section 27 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act could not have been ignored. 21. Apart from it, the benefit available to the appellants under Section 4 (3) of the land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Act No. 13 of 1967) is also available to the appellants. 22. The result of the aforesaid discussion comes to this. The anneal is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned lower court is modified to this extent: (1) The valuation of the land is uniformly assessed @ Rs. 6 per square (2) The rate of solatium is increased from 15% to 30%. (3) The interest on excess compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for compulsory acquisition is raised from 6% to 9% on the amount from the date of possession till the date of payment to the appellants for the first year and at the rate of Rs. (3) The interest on excess compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act for compulsory acquisition is raised from 6% to 9% on the amount from the date of possession till the date of payment to the appellants for the first year and at the rate of Rs. 15 for the subsequent years till the date of payment (4) The costs of both the courts below shall be paid to the appellants by the respondents. (5) Interest @ 6% per annum on the market value of the land as determined under Section 23 of the Principal Act, from the date of expiry of the said period of three years to the date of tender of payment of compensation awarded by the Collector for the acquisition of such land is also awarded under Section 4 (3) of the Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1967 (Act No. 13 of 1967). Appeal allowed.