JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. This first appeal by Opposite party-appellant-State of Bihar arises out of a land acquisition case. The judgment and award dated 2nd December, 1990, passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Nawadah in Land Acquisition Case No. 663/86/1/89 are under challenge. 2. On behalf of the appellant, only two questions raised, i.e. (a) whether the application for reference under section 18 was time barred and (b) whether the quantum of compensation can be determined u/s 23 (1) of L.A. Act without determination of market value of the land. 3. In the impugned judgment dated 2nd December, 1990, in Land Acquisition Case No. 662/89/1/89 the detailed facts leading to filing of application for reference has not been dealt nor such pleading has been made either by the appellant or by the Respondents in their respective memo of appeal and the application under section 18 of the L.A. Act. 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, L.C.R. and the relevant official file produced by the counsel for the appellant have been relied upon to ascertain the relevant dates and events. 5. It appears that the land acquisition proceeding was initiated against different land-holders in the district of Nawadah to acquire land for proposed 'Phulwaria Dam'. A notification was made on 25th September, 1981 and another on 1st October, 1981. The award under section 11 of the L.A. Act was made by Collector, vide Award No. 131 dated 18th July, 1984. The notice to receive award under section 12 L.A. Act was issued on 21st July 1984 and award money was received by the applicants-Respondents on 10th July, 1985. Admittedly, application under section 18 of the L.A. Act was signed by the counsel for the applicants-Respondents on 1st August, 1985 and was presented in the court of Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9th August, 1985, on which reference was made on 6th October, 1986, wherein after it was registered as L.A. Case No. 662/86. 6. The applicants-Respondents in their application at para-1 mentioned that their house measuring 24,355 sft. was situated at Village Singar Khas, P.S. Rajauli, Pargana-Jarha in the district of Nawadah was acquired under the provision of L.A. Act and award was granted in favour of the applicants-Respondents by Award No. 131 dated 18th July, 1984 concerning the land shown in Annexure-1 to the said petition. was situated at Village Singar Khas, P.S. Rajauli, Pargana-Jarha in the district of Nawadah was acquired under the provision of L.A. Act and award was granted in favour of the applicants-Respondents by Award No. 131 dated 18th July, 1984 concerning the land shown in Annexure-1 to the said petition. It was alleged that there were clerical and arithmetical mistake in such award which deserved correction under section 13 (A) of L.A. (Amendment) Act, 1984. It was also pleaded that the second aspect related to the determination of the 'actual market value of the land' under L.A. Act. A typed copy of Measurement Book containing details and particulars relating to the house was enclosed as Annexure 2 to the said application. At para 7 to the said application, it was stated that according to the scientific calculation made by the applicants-Respondents, the whole issue and damages estimated to be Rs. 92,08,856.29p. plus interest. The Annexure-V was attached with such application to justify such claim of Rs. 92 lac and odd. 7. The opposite-party appellant (State of Bihar) opposed the aforesaid claim and oral and documentary evidences were before the court below. 8. By the impugned judgment, the court below assessed the compensation of Rs. 20 lacs and allowed 30 percent of solatium as well as the statutory interest in terms with section 23 (1 A) and saction 28 of the L.A. Act. The impugned award was prepared on that basis for payment of a total sum of Rs. 42,22,000/-, including solatium with statutory interest etc. 9. According to the counsel for the appellant (State of Bihar), the application for reference under section 18 of L.A. Act preferred by applicants-Respondents was time-barred and so the said application was not maintainable. The court below should have dismissed the application on the point of limitation. Giving reference of date of Award (18th July, 1984) and the date of filing of application u/s 18 for reference (9th August, 1985), it was submitted that the application having filed beyond the six months period from the date of award, it was barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on S.C. decision in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Satinder Singh Bir. (1995)3 S.C.C. 330 and Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others, (1996)9 S.C.C. 414 . 10. Reliance was placed on S.C. decision in the case of State of Punjab and another vs. Satinder Singh Bir. (1995)3 S.C.C. 330 and Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another vs. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others, (1996)9 S.C.C. 414 . 10. The counsel for the appellants also relied on Supreme Court decision in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi (A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 943) and submitted that the court below failed to determine the market value of the land as also the depreciation value of the structures thereon. 11. According to the counsel for the applicants-Respondents, the appellant (State of Bihar) having not raised the question relating to limitation before the court below, cannot agitate the same before this Court, the same being a mixed question of fact and law. The relevant facts have not been brought on record to decide the issue of limitation. Further, according to him, the period of limitation of six months u/s 18 of L.A. Act is to be counted from the date of knowledge and not from the date of award. He, in this connection, relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and another, reported in A.I.R. 1961, A.C. 1500 and the case of State of Punjab vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum and another, reported in AI.R. 1963 S.C. 1604. 12. So far as the market value of the land is concerned, the counsel for the applicants-Respondents submitted that when the land and building are acquired by a common notification, there need not be any separate valuation of building and the land. The person concerned is entitled to compensation either of the two methods but not both. The assessment of the house acquired having been made and taken into note by the court below, there was no need for separate assessment relating to market value of the land. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment and award. In this connection, reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in the case of Ratan Kumar Tandan and others vs. State of U.P., (1997)2 S.C.C. 161 ; the case of Administrator General of W.B. vs. Collector, AI.R. 1988 S.C. 943; and the case of State of Kerala vs. R. Hassan Koya, reported in A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1201. 13. In this connection, reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in the case of Ratan Kumar Tandan and others vs. State of U.P., (1997)2 S.C.C. 161 ; the case of Administrator General of W.B. vs. Collector, AI.R. 1988 S.C. 943; and the case of State of Kerala vs. R. Hassan Koya, reported in A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1201. 13. Before the court below, the applicants-Respondents placed a house plan (Ext. 1) ground floor plan (Ext. 1/1); first floor plan (Ext. 1/2); second floor plan (Ext.1/3); out-house plan (Ext/1/4); and the plan relating to boundary wall (Ex. 1/5), all dated 26th November, 1987 and were prepared by private Engineer, namely, Shri Anil Kumar Sinha (A.W.I). In the Ext. 1 series aforesaid, while dimensions of different rooms, court yard, boundary walls etc. have been shown including the sizes and dimensions of different floors, the total calculation of plinth area or carpet area have not been shown therein. Ext.2 is an inspection report containing 125 pages, appears to be prepared by the said Engineer, Anil Kumar Sinha. In the said report, the estimated cost of the building has been shown and prepared on the basis of prevalent rates of construction as in November, 1981. Therein (Ext.2), the cost of materials and construction cost have been shown against different heads in cubic feet or sft. of measurement but no details of plinth area or carpet area have been shown. The other documents marked as Exts. 'X', 'Y' and 'T/;' while show dimensions/sizes of walls, rooms, doors etc. but the plinth area or carpet area have not been shown therein. Similar is the position with respect to rest of the exhibits including Exts. 'B', 'B/1' and 'C' etc. 14. In all, three witnesses were produced on behalf of the applicants-Respondents. A.W.I, Anil Kumar Sinha accepted that the measurement was taken by him without intimation to the State Government Department and completed within three days. He also accepted that the house was built some times in between 1940-1950. In his statement, he has not given the details of plinth area or carpet area of the building. On the other hand, I find that he has stated that the cost of the building is about Rs. 4-5 lacs, which will be evident from Para. He also accepted that the house was built some times in between 1940-1950. In his statement, he has not given the details of plinth area or carpet area of the building. On the other hand, I find that he has stated that the cost of the building is about Rs. 4-5 lacs, which will be evident from Para. 14 of his statement, as set out hereunder : "AISI BAAT NAHI HAI KI JO MAI RATE DIA HOO WOH JYADA HAL MAI SARKARI RATE DIA HOO OR IS MAKAN KA KIMAT 4-5 LAKH HAL" A.W.2, Shashi Bhushan Prasad Singh is father of applicant, namely, Sanjay Kumar Singh. In his statement, while he has given the total number of rooms, he has not given the total plinth area or carpet area of the house in question. He simply stated that the cost of the whole house would be about Rs. 90 to 92 lacs. A.W.3, Dr. Nizamuddin, without giving any details, said that the land in the area is being sold at a very high cost, so the cost of the house should be about 60-70 lacs. No other details including plinth or carpet area of the house have been given by him. 15. Similarly, D.W.I, Raj Nandan Prasad, the Land Acquisition Officer, D.W.2, Indrasen Poddar, Junior Engineer; and D.W.3, Narendra Kumar Sinha, an Engineer, though made statement relating to valuation and one of them has also given the measurement of some of the area of building, but none of them have given the details of plinth or carpet area of the house, in question. 16. Section 23(1) of L.A. Act deals with the criterias and factors to be taken in determining the compensation. While market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under section 4 is the first criteria fixed therein, the other factors like damages sustained by the persons interested by the reason of taking of standing crops or trees, by reason of severing such lands from other lands, by the reason of affecting other properties, movable or immovable, if any, etc. are also to be taken into note. 17. are also to be taken into note. 17. In the case of Ratan Kumar Tandon and others vs. State of U.P., reported in (1997)2 S.C.C. 161 , the Supreme Court held that when land and building are acquired by a notification, the claimant is not entitled to separate valuation of the building and the land, but is entitled to compensation on either of the two and not both. If building is assessed, the measures of assessment is to be based on either the rent received from the properties with suitable multiplier or the value of the building in the proper method of valuation. 18. The witnesses appeared either on behalf of the applicants-Respondents (A.Ws.) and/ or on behalf of the appellants State of Bihar (D.Ws.), though made oral statements with regard to valuation of the house, but from the exhibits on the record, it appears that such valuation was not made on the basis of rent received from the properties with suitable multiplier, nor in the proper method of valuation after measurement of area in presence of both the parties. Even the author of the exhibits, whoever made some sort of valuation, made no statement as to how they made the valuation and there is a marked variations relating to the exact measurement of walls. For example, in Ext. 1, the house site plan, while eastern boundary wall has been shown with the measurements of 72' x l' 6'x 7’, but below the same the measurement of 10'x 3'x 13' has been mentioned. The thickness of the boundary walls have not been shown therein. Thus there is a confusion relating to thickness of the walls, which requires for the purpose of determination of plinth area, but can be explained only by the concerned Engineers in the proper manner. 19. From plain reading of the statements of A.Ws. and/or D.Ws. I find that none of them have explained the aforesaid facts relating to measurement and court below without giving any detailed facts relating to plinth or carpet area, has fixed the valuation of the building. 20. From the impugned judgment, I find that the court below has not even mentioned whether there was any vacant piece of land existing apart from building, in question, nor it has determined the market value of the land. 21. 20. From the impugned judgment, I find that the court below has not even mentioned whether there was any vacant piece of land existing apart from building, in question, nor it has determined the market value of the land. 21. While different valuations were shown and/or claimed by different persons, no reason has been shown by the court below as to why he accepted one or other valuation with respect to the house in question. While, A.W.I, author of Ext. 2 made statement that the cost of the house is 4-5 lacs, no such total calculation of cost of building has been shown in the said Ext.2. In fact, the court below misread, misconstrued and misinterpreted the oral and documentary evidences and failed to discuss the relevant facts, as stated above. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment dated 2nd December, 1990, passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Nawadah in L.A. Case No. 662/86/1/89 cannot be upheld. 32. So far as the question relating to maintainability of petition under section 18 is concerned, that is to say, whether it was barred by limitation or not, it is mixed question of fact and law. 33. From the L.C.R., while it is clear that the Award No. 131 was prepared on 18th July, 1984, admittedly the application under section 18 was filed much after one year on 9th August, 1985. Prima facie, it appears that it was barred by limitation. But, in absence of date of knowledge of the applicants-Respondents, I am not in a position to decide this issue at this appellate stage. 24. For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 2nd December, 1990 passed by the learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Nawadah in L.A. Case No. 662/86,1/89 and remit the matter to the court below to decide the application under section 18 afresh after hearing the parties. 25. Before deciding the petition on merit, the court below will decide and determine the preliminary issue as to whether the application was time barred or not. If it was time barred, it should be rejected out-right. But, on the other hand, if it is found to be within time, the court below will decide the application on merit, taking into note the relevant oral and documentary evidences already produced before it and/or the evidences the parties may produce with the leave of the Court. If it was time barred, it should be rejected out-right. But, on the other hand, if it is found to be within time, the court below will decide the application on merit, taking into note the relevant oral and documentary evidences already produced before it and/or the evidences the parties may produce with the leave of the Court. 26. In the result, this appeal is allowed with the aforesaid observations and the matter stands remitted to the court below. However, in the facts and circumstances, there will be no order, as to costs.