JUDGMENT 1. - All these appeals involve common question of law and fact to be determined by this Court except the different parcels of land of the respondents acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short, referred to hereinafter as 'the Act') and are thus decided by this common judgment.The Central Government required land for establishment of military-cantonment for the Ministry of Defence and, therefore, for the said public purpose, the State of Rajasthan issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act which was published in the Rajasthan Official Gazette on 30th April, 1996. Thereafter, the necessary declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 was published in the gazette on 21st December, 1987. After issuing notice under Section 9 of the Act and after hearing the objections of the land-owners, the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer), Jaisalmer passed award on 20th December, 1989 under Section It of the Act for the lands of the villages Thayat, Hamira, Kishanghat, Jehary, and Kalyangarh in Jaisalmer District. 2. The respondents were not satisfied with the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, moved the Land Acquisition Officer for referring their matters in reference to the Civil Court for adjudication of the amount of compensation and the matters were referred to the Civil Court. The Civil Court by its award, in each case, passed an order of compensation in the following manner: S. No. Name of Village Classification of land Rates Awarded per Bigha 1. Thayat Barani Rs. 8,000/- Banjar Rs. 8,000/- Khadeen Rs. 10,000/- 2. Hameera Barani Rs. 8,000/- 3. Kishanghat Barani Rs. 10,000/- 4. Jethwai Barani Rs. 10,000/- 5. Kaiyanghat Barani Rs. 10,000/-" Interest under Section 23(1), A consortium under Section 23(2), and interest under Section 28 of the Act were also ordered to be paid. The Court has awarded an amount of compensation for the trees standing on the lands on the basis of variety of trees viz., Rs. 500/- per tree of Bordi, Khejari, Kumbhat, and Babul; and, Rs. 250/- per tree of Ker and Jai. The Civil Court has also awarded compensation under Section 48-A of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for not passing award in one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 6 by the Collector. 3. 500/- per tree of Bordi, Khejari, Kumbhat, and Babul; and, Rs. 250/- per tree of Ker and Jai. The Civil Court has also awarded compensation under Section 48-A of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for not passing award in one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section 6 by the Collector. 3. All these appeals have been filed by the Union of India challenging the award of the Civil Court. At the very outset, counsel for the Union of India has stated that he does not challenge the award made by the Civil Court in respect of trees and the amount which would be payable under Sections 23 (1 -A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, on the amount of award, on the other hand, counsel for the respondents Mr. S. N. Sharma has frankly conceded that the award made by the Civil Court under Section 48-A of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 cannot be supported as on the date i.e., 30-4-86 when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 was not in force. Thus the compensation awarded to the respondents by the trial Court under Section 48-A of the Act is not sustained and, accordingly, the award of compensation under that head viz., Section 48-A, Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 is hereby set aside. 4. The real question requiring consideration is what compensation the claimant-respondents were entitled to for compulsory acquisition of their lands on the date of notification i.e., 30-4-86. 5. Learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the trial Court should have taken into consideration the material placed before the Land Acquisition Officer, although not produced and proved before the Civil Court by the Union of India, while determining the compensation. I am afraid such a course was not permissible for the trial Court. A reference under Section 18 of the Act is not an appeal against the award and, therefore, it is not permissible for the. Civil Court to taken into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Civil Court. A reference under Section 18 of the Act is not an appeal against the award and, therefore, it is not permissible for the. Civil Court to taken into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Civil Court. Similarly, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be treated as a judgment inasmuch as the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer only occasions cause of action for approaching the Civil Court. Thus, the Civil Court has to treat the reference as original proceedings before it and to determine the market value on the basis of the material produced before it. The trial Court has not committed any error of law in not taking into consideration the material not placed' before it simply because it was produced before the Land Acquisition Officer. Reliance is placed on AIR 1988 SC 1652 , Chimanal; Hargovind Das v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. 6. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the rates/cost of land fixed by the State Revenue Registration Authority for realisation of the stamp-duty for sale in the concerned village should have been taken note of by the trial Court while passing the award particularly so when there were no sale-deeds in the villages from which the lands were acquired nearby the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The submission made by the counsel for the Union of India is no longer res integral in view of the decision of the apex Court, reported in 1994 (4) SCC 595 , Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer , wherein it has been laid down that the basic valuation register prepared and maintained for the purpose of collecting the stamp-duty has no statutory basis. It cannot form a foundation for determining the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration. Equally it would not be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Act of the lands acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. It cannot form a foundation for determining the market value mentioned thereunder in instrument brought for registration. Equally it would not be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Act of the lands acquired in that area or town or the locality or the taluk etc. Similar is the view expressed by the Supreme Court in 1995 (1) SCC 717 , Land Revenue Officer v. Jastirohi (Smt.) wherein it is said that the basic valuation register is maintained by the municipalities on the basis of the notification issued by the Government under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. The notification which is meant for collection of the revenue cannot form the basis lot determination of the market value of the land under Section 23(1) of the Act. Fixation of the market value on the basis of the basic valuation register is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable. 7. The basic principle's. or which the computation of the quantum of (Compensation or respect of land acquired shall be made are now well-settled by a series the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the Court. The guiding principles for fixation of market value of the land would be the hypothetical vendor who would have offered the land and the willing purchaser would be willing to buy as a prudent person on the price fixed. When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition the best evidence of the; value of the property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is the party; and, in its absence, the sale of the neighbouring lands of the recent dates. To arrive at a fair fixation of the market value the Court is justified in taking into consideration the comparable sales undertaken, within a reasonable time of the date of notification, by a bona fide transaction of the lands adjacent to the land acquired having the similar characteristics and advantages. The Court can also take into consideration the potentialities of the agricultural lands being used as building-sites for fixation of the market value of the land. Normally, it is for the claimant to establish the market-value of the property by adducing material evidence before the Court. 8. I would now consider the oral and documentary evidence led by the claimants to establish the market value of the property. Normally, it is for the claimant to establish the market-value of the property by adducing material evidence before the Court. 8. I would now consider the oral and documentary evidence led by the claimants to establish the market value of the property. By order of the trial Court the evidence adduced by the claimants In some of the matters was directed to be read in other matters also. In Reference Case No. 15 of 1990, the claimants examined Sohan Singh P.W. 1 who deposed that the agricultural land situated at village Kishanghat has been acquired; this land s situated at 2-2V2 km away from Jaisalmer he is entitled for compensation of land at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha which was the value of the land in the year 1986; he has proved the sale-deed Ex.-1 dated 5-3-83 executed try Ratan Singh in favour of Bhagwan Das and others for the sale of land measuring 30 bigha 14 biswa in Khasra No. 201 for a considerate of Rs. 1,31,000/- which is at the rate of Rs 3,240/- per bigha. This witness also proved the document letter Ex.-2 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Rajasthan to the Collector, Jaisalmer dated 1st September, 1981 whereby the Finance Departments concurrence dated 14-7-81 for the sale of 250 bigha of the State land for construction of headquarters of the 19th Batta at the rate of Rs. 7/- per Sq. yd was communicated. The witness also protect document Ex.-3, an order passed by the Collector, Jaisalmer dated 23-12-75 where under the Forest Departments land measuring 608 bigha 18 biswa comprising in Khasra No. 286, 287, 288, 294 and 295 near Jaisalmer town was allotted to the army-authorities for establishment of F.M.A. on the condition that the land allotted shall be used for the purpose for which it is allotted. The cost of land was Re. 0.50 per Sq. ft which was to be deposited by the army authorities with the Forest Department. Condition was also laid that the land will vest in the State Government in case the same is not required for the purpose allotted. The Divisional Forest Officer, Jodhpur was directed to hand over the land to the Officer Commanding, Military Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur. ft which was to be deposited by the army authorities with the Forest Department. Condition was also laid that the land will vest in the State Government in case the same is not required for the purpose allotted. The Divisional Forest Officer, Jodhpur was directed to hand over the land to the Officer Commanding, Military Estate Officer, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur. This witness has slated that the land transferred under Ex.-P/1 is km away from his land and that there was no sale-deed executed in respect of any neighbouring land. He made a general statement that after 1983 the price of land has increased by 10-15 times. In the course of examination, this witness denied the fact that all his land is sand-dunes, but admitted that some of the land is such, however, some land is khadeen. Arjun Singh is another witness who was Patwari of Jaisalmer from 1987 to 1992. He has deposed that the land sold by Ratan Singh is 11/2 km away from the land of Sohan Singh. The B.S.F. land was also 11/2-2 km away from the land of Sohan Singh. He has made a statement that during last 8-10 years prices of land have increased. Witness Bhagwan Das, purchaser of land under Ex.-P/ 1 deposed that he had purchased 30 bigha 14 biswa land from Ratan Singh (purchased under document Ex.-P/1). The land purchased is situated 2/2 km away from Jaisalmer; there was no building in the vicinity of the land purchased; and, after he purchased the land, Gandhi Colony and RIICO premises have come up in the neighbourhood. He has made a statement that during last ten years the value property nearby Jaisalmer has increased, here is no proof that some building activity was started at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 9. In Reference Case No. 31 of 1990 the claimants have examined Vijay Singh who has stated that in village Thayat no sale of lands took place so far; his land is situated 6 km away from the land under Ex.-3, and 9 km away from the land under Ex.-2. He has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Rawat Singh is another witness who has stated that factory and hotel owners were willing to purchase the land at the rate of 8 to 10 thou-sand per bigha. He has claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per bigha. Rawat Singh is another witness who has stated that factory and hotel owners were willing to purchase the land at the rate of 8 to 10 thou-sand per bigha. In his cross-examination, he said that no agreement was entered into nor any offer was made in writing. He has admitted that the cultivation of the land depends on rains. Bhera Ram is a witness who stated that at about 7 years back the factory and hotel owners approached him for sale of the land and they were willing to purchase the land at the rate of Rs. 8,000/- per bigha. No agreement in writing was, however, signed. He has admitted that the cultivation depends upon rains. The statement of Bhera Ram and Rewat Singh that they were approached for purchase of their land at the rate of 8 to 10 thousand rupees per bigha cannot be believed in absence of any offer made in writing or in the absence of any person who made the offer being examined by the claimants. From perusal of the oral evidence led by the claimants it is clear that the lands in question are agricultural lands and, there was no indication that at the relevant time there was potentiality of buildings coming up at the site. As such computation of compensation can only be based on the basis of land being used for agricultural purpose. 10. The trial Court has given compensation at different rates to the claimants for which I do not find any justification to adopt such course. The respondent-claimants have not produced before the Court any evidence indicating that the lands acquired, at the relevant time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, had potentiality of being used as building sites nor there is any evidence to show that the particular piece of land acquired had special advantages or disadvantages. No evidence has been led to show that because of location, situation, topography, lay-out of a particular land there would be a difference of price among different parcels of land. There is no evidence on record to demonstrate the yield capacity of a particular piece of land. No evidence has been led to show that because of location, situation, topography, lay-out of a particular land there would be a difference of price among different parcels of land. There is no evidence on record to demonstrate the yield capacity of a particular piece of land. There is also no evidence on the basis of which the Court can arrive at the conclusion that specific piece of land had produced more crops than the others. In such state of evidence, the material brought on record would not justify putting up different prices on different parcels of land simply because they are differently recorded in the revenue-records as barani, banjar and khadeem. Moreover, the trial Court has taken judicial note of the fact that cultivation of the area is solely dependent upon rains which is invariably irregular in the region and often falls good enough for cultivation, after long intervals of 4 to 5 years. Thus it would be just and appropriate to award compensation at uniform rate for all the parcels of land acquired. 11. Now, the question is what should be the quantum of compensation the respondents are entitled to. The note of caution by the highest Court of the land is that the Court must not indulge in fits of imagination, but, sit in the armchair of the prudent purchaser in open market and put the question to itself, "Whether as a prudent purchaser it would offer the same price in the open market as is to be determined". Counsel for the appellant has strongly relied upon documents Ex.-2 and Ex.-3 dated 18-4-81 and 23-12-75. The document Ex.-2 is of the year 1981 and Ex.-3 is of the year 1975, whereas the notification under Section 4 was published on 30-4-86. Under the document Ex.-2 the price is Rs. 7/- per Sq yd which comes to Rs. 13,552/- per bigha. Under Ex. -3, the price of land has been quoted 50 per sq. ft which comes to Rs. 8,712/- per bigha. But, these documents reflect the price of land much prior to the date of notification. The lands under these documents are not adjacent lands of the acquired lands as admitted by the witnesses examined by the claimants. The trial Court relying upon the documents Ex.-2 and Ex-3 has determined the market value of the property. 8,712/- per bigha. But, these documents reflect the price of land much prior to the date of notification. The lands under these documents are not adjacent lands of the acquired lands as admitted by the witnesses examined by the claimants. The trial Court relying upon the documents Ex.-2 and Ex-3 has determined the market value of the property. As indicated by me herein above, these documents are not proximate in time and particularly when the latter sale-deed dated 5-3-83 does not indicate the same market value of the property nearby to the acquired land, it would not be prudent or permissible under the law to rely on these documents for fixation of the price of the land acquired. The sale-deed dated 5-3-83 is more proximate in time to the date of notification i.e., 30-4-86. It is a sale-deed under which a big chunk of 38 bighas 14 biswa of land was transferred. The price under the sale-deed comes to Rs. 3,240/- per bigha. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of the witness Bhagwan Das, purchaser of the land, that the transaction was not genuine. Of course the sale-deed is not near the date of notification but can safely be relied upon for arriving at a just and fair quantification of the amount of compensation for the lands acquired. This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that after 1983 the value of land nearby the city of Jaisalmer has not decreased. The land under Ex.-1 is not very near to the land acquired but is similar type of land situated in the vicinity of the land acquired and, therefore, can be safely treated as an appropriate yardstick for determining the market value of the property. The scheme of the Land Acquisition Act permits little measure of guesswork for arriving at the market-value of the property. Therefore, relying upon sale-deed Ex.-1 dated 5-3-83 the market value of the land acquired is estimated as Rs. 3,250/- per bigha. 12. As a-result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals stand partly allowed. It is accordingly decreed that: (i) the respondent-claimants are entitled to and be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. Therefore, relying upon sale-deed Ex.-1 dated 5-3-83 the market value of the land acquired is estimated as Rs. 3,250/- per bigha. 12. As a-result of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals stand partly allowed. It is accordingly decreed that: (i) the respondent-claimants are entitled to and be paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,250/- per bigha for the land acquired under notification dated 3-4-86 and the declaration dated 21-12-87 under Section 6 of the Act; (ii) the respondent-claimants be paid interest on the amount of award at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 i.e., 30-4-86 till the date of award dated 20-12-89; (iii) the claimant-respondents are awarded an amount of consortium at the rate of 30 per cent of the amount of award; (iv) the claimant-respondents shall be entitled to and paid interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from 23-10-91 the date when the possession of the land was taken, till the date the difference of the amounts of the award made by this Court and the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, is paid, (v) compensation in respect of the trees standing on the lands acquired shall be payable at the rate of Rs. 500/- per tree of Bordi, Khejari, Kumbhat and Babul; and, Rs. 250/-per tree of Ker and Jal; and (vi) the award of the trial Court made in favour of the claimant-respondents under Section 48A of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.Appeal partly allowed. *******