Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. All these appeals have been preferred against the judgment and award dated 23rd March, 1993, passed by Smt. Rajendra Kumari, the then Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Tribunal, Ranchi, constituted under Sec. 14(2) of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (Act No. 20 of 1957) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) in Reference Case Nos. 143 of 1988 to 187 of 1988 enhancing the compensation granted on acquisition of lands by the Central Government under Sec. 9 of the Act vide Notification No. 51 (E), dated 24th January, 1975. Smt. Rajendra Kumari was appointed as Tribunal as contemplated under Sec. 14(2) of the Act and the references were made by the appellant on behalf of the Central Government for determination regarding the sufficiency of the amount of compensation offered by the Central Government for the lands and houses, trees i.e. zirats acquired under these reference cases. The tribunal passed a consolidated judgment although beneficiaries are different as the points involved were the same. In all these appeals, the respondents are different being in the beneficiaries as per the abovementioned individual reference cases. 2. The lands involved in all the reference cases situated at village Urimani in Urimani block (Balrampur) within Barkakana Area under Police Station Barkakana in the district of Hazaribagh. The acquisition was made under the Act as mentioned above and notice of acquisition under Sec. 4(i) of the Act was published on 24.8.1968 and the notice under Sec. 7 of the Act was published on 24.8.1971 and declaration under Sec. 9 of the Act was made on 24.1.1975. The declaration under Sec. 9 was made after the expiry of three years from the date of notification under Sec. 7 of the Act. 3. In the reference, the first question was raised as to the validity of the declaration under Sec. 9 when admittedly the same was made after the expiry of the period of three years from the date of notification under Sec. 7 of the Act. The contention of the respondents-beneficiaries was that the said declaration being not made within the period of two years after publication of the notification under Sec. 7 and not also within the grace period of one year more being the initial notification issued under Sec. 4(1) of the Act was ceased to have any effect on the expiry of three years from the date thereof. Therefore, when the initial notification becomes void in the eye of law then the latter notification under Sec. 7 shall have also no legal effect and it should be construed that there was no acquisition of land and the determination of the amount of compensation under Sec. 13(5)(a) of the Act on the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act shall be totally inapplicable. The other points raised are that the compensation assessed on the market value as contemplated under the Act was not at all proper having no basis at all. The classification of lands for which separate assessments were made class-wise and category-wise on the basis of cadestral survey of records was totally bad as under the Act itself as contemplated under Sec. 13(5). the assessment should be made on the basis of the market value on the date of notification of assessment. Class of lands and category of lands were to be determined on the date of notification. Cadestral Survey was made long back and until and unless it could be shown that such category or class of lands were maintained on the date of notification itself then there cannot be any categorisation and assessment of value thereof. In that view of the matter, the whole assessment of compensation made by the Chief of Revenue of the Central Coalfields Limited has been challenged to be totally perverse and only to make aboriginal persons deprived of their legitimate claims values of the land had been deminished to such an extent that the same cannot be said to be proper and just. The compensation assessed by the appellants were not fully paid but payments were made which were taken/received by the claimants-respondents on protest. The reference petitions made by the claimants had not been sent before the tribunal immediately but delay was made from the side of the Central Coalfields Limited and ultimately it was referred to. 4. The compensation assessed by the appellants were not fully paid but payments were made which were taken/received by the claimants-respondents on protest. The reference petitions made by the claimants had not been sent before the tribunal immediately but delay was made from the side of the Central Coalfields Limited and ultimately it was referred to. 4. Before the tribunal, both the parties adduced evidence and it was the case of the appellant-Central Coalfields Limited that the compensation has been assessed on the basis of the surveys being made by the authorities concerned i.e., the revenue authorities and on the basis of the assessment made in the Hazaribagh District in Land Acquisition amounts analogies were taken and then as per the classification made in the cadestral survey, rates were fixed per acre or per decimal on ratio basis, although such ratios have not been clarified in the assessment made. It was the further contention of the Central Coalfields Limited that no sale statement could be prepared as is usually done in respect of the land acquisition cases as from the Registry Office, no sale-deed could be found to have been registered in respect of Urimani area and practically that was not available on the ground that the said area is inhabited by the aboriginals and tribals wherein transfer of land to outsiders could be barred under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. In that view of the matter, the assessment arrived at was on the consent of the claimants and the same cannot now be questioned. As regards zirats, namely, the trees, houses, wells etc., over the land prices have been fixed as per the statements made by the claimants. 5. Before the tribunal very scanty evidence had been adduced by both the parties. For and on behalf of the claimants, Ram Lal Manjhi, Lakhan Manjhi, Rameshwar Sahu, Madan Sahu adduced evidence in respect of their claims as P.Ws. 1 to 4. On the other hand, for and on behalf of the appellant i.e., Revenue authorities in these appeals, adduced evidence of one witness, namely, Rajendra Lal as D.W. 1. After consideration of the evidence on record and the materials supplied, the tribunal passed the impugned judgment enhancing the compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 1 to 4. On the other hand, for and on behalf of the appellant i.e., Revenue authorities in these appeals, adduced evidence of one witness, namely, Rajendra Lal as D.W. 1. After consideration of the evidence on record and the materials supplied, the tribunal passed the impugned judgment enhancing the compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 200.00 per decimal with interest solacium and further interest in the analogy of the amended Act, 1984 of the Land Acquisition as already adopted by the Central Government as per the letter (Ext. C) to the Reference Cases. 6. On the first point regarding the illegality in the acquisition itself, although it was found by the learned Tribunal that the notification under Sections 7 and 9 of the Act were not made within the statutory time frame but as the reference was made only in respect of compensation as per Sec. 8 of the Act, she had not decided the matter of illegality in the acquisition itself. On the other points, she discussed the evidence adduced by the parties and scrutinised the records of the compensation case and found that the authorities had committed error not only in respect of calculation in some of the cases but also had not taken into consideration some of the factual aspects admitted on the record itself in grant of compensation. She relied on the two documents of sale in respect of village Patretu which was also three and half miles away from village Urimani and by considering the position and circumstances, reduced the price to a great extent as mentioned in those sale deeds and then came to the finding that Rs. 200.00 per decimal would be proper and just and she had also found that the classification and categorisation about the lands could not be proved from the side of the Central Coalfields Limiteds authorities during the relevant period of acquisition. The average rate of Rs. 200.00 as such had been granted as compensation in the whole of the acquired land without classification and categorisation of lands by the tribunal and on the said amount after calculation, grant of interest together with solacium had been allowed in conformity with the amendment of Land Acquisition Act in the year 1984 relying on the Central Governments notification as contained in Ext. C. She had further granted interest at the rate of 12 per cent of the market value from the date of Sec. 4s notification till the date of possession or the date of award whichever is earlier. 7. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the respondents-claiments has contended that this 12 per cent interest on the market value is not proper and the some may be deleted but about the reaching of the market value of the acquired land, it has been submitted by the respondents-claimants that the sum is meagre and the claimants must have got more but as no appeal has been preferred, nor any cross-objection has been filed, it should be construed that they are satisfied the compensation which has been awarded by the tribunal. 8. Mr. S. Prasad, appearing for and on behalf of the appellant in all the cases has conceded that the whole notion of the tribunal and the approach towards assessment of compensation was invalid and improper in the eye of law. His submission is that the learned tribunal committed error of law in putting the burden of proof on the appellant regarding di parity of the compensation. It has strenuously been submitted by Mr. Prasad that compensation has been assessed and as per Sec. 8 of the Act with consent of the claimants and in that view of the matter, there was practically no scope of the reference and even if it is construed that the compensation was assessed by the appellant without consent of the claimants than also when the reference has been made at the initiation of the claimants-beneficiaries, the whole burden rests on them to prove that they are entitled to more compensation then what has been assessed. Only because the appellant could not have provided the sale statement for non-availability of any sale-deeds in the area, it cannot be said that the compensation assessed by the authorities was improper rather the same was done on the basis of the statements made by the Collector, Hazaribagh with reference to land acquisition case within the district of Hazaribagh. If the amount of compensation was construed to be improper then it lies on the claimants-beneficiaries to prove as to how much compensation they are entitled to. On this point I find some force in the submission of Mr. Prasad. There are two fold burdens on the referencers. If the amount of compensation was construed to be improper then it lies on the claimants-beneficiaries to prove as to how much compensation they are entitled to. On this point I find some force in the submission of Mr. Prasad. There are two fold burdens on the referencers. First of all they are to show that the compensation assessed by the authorities were not proper and on the second fold, they are to prove how much they are really entitled to "just compensation" as contemplated under Sec. 8 of the Act. 9. On the first point, the references could be able to prove that the authorities had assessed compensation arbitrarily and purely on surmises and conjunctures without any basis. Although it has been stated that the basis was in respect of a land acquisition case within the district of Hazaribagh but such land acquisition case records were not there before the tribunal nor there is even number of that land acquisition case being given any where and not even in the memorandum of appeal. Even if the basis was in respect of another land acquisition case then it was the duty of the authorities to show that the lands were of similar nature and as such the assessment of compensation was proper and justified. In that view of the matter, on the first point, referencers could be able to prove that the assessment of compensation was definitely improper, unjust and discriminatory. 10. On the second point regarding proper and just compensation, the referencers could not be able to give proper evidence in the case. They relied on two documents and the learned tribunal had no other alternative but to act on those as there was nothing else being produced from either side. The document was in respect of Homestead land and definitely the price was higher and for that reason the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that at least 2/3rd of the said price should be reduced in ratio for determining the compensation of the acquired land as the same consisted of cultivable, homestead etc., etc., but then also the lands of high quality within the acquired land must be of that assessment at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per decimal. 200.00 per decimal. But whether the whole of the acquired land should be categorised as uniform or classification is still there or not on the date of acquisition is the only question to be determined. The rate as determined by the tribunal regarding high class land under acquisition is proper and justified on the materials being provided. 11. According to Mr. Suresh Prasad, the authorities had categorised and classified the lands as per cadestral survey record of rights. The tribunal after considering the position and circumstances came to the finding that as the categorisation was done long back during the cadestral survey and by the go of day, the area being developed, such categorisation might not be there at the time of acquisition, but on scrutinising the evidence on record which 1 have already mentioned to be very scanty, I do not find that the respondents could be able to prove that the whole of the acquired land had become a uniform land without any categorisation or classification, because in some of the statements of the witnesses I could find that there were trees and Rabi crops, houses etc. So the whole of the land was definitely not of uniform category and it remains the burden on the claimants-beneficiaries to prove that the categorisation as made long back during the cadestral survey was no more there and the category of lands have been changed and the whole of the land became high class uniform land at the time of acquisition but there is no evidence to that effect, So the flat rate as made by the learned tribunal by jumping into the conclusion that the categorisation made during the cadestral survey must not be there at the time of acquisition is not proper and just. 12. Regarding solatium and interest at par with that of amended Land Acquisition Act was allowed by the tribunal on the basis of the admission made by the Central Government, as per Ext. C, the appellant is estopped from questioning the same at this stage. The judgment passed in batch cases by this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 8 to 68 of 1990 (R) has got no bearing in the present case as that was in respect of the application of the amended provisions, the applicability on a latter date on application being made under Secs. The judgment passed in batch cases by this Court in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 8 to 68 of 1990 (R) has got no bearing in the present case as that was in respect of the application of the amended provisions, the applicability on a latter date on application being made under Secs. 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure when the award was finalised long back, but, in the present case, the amended provisions came when the award was not finalised and the reference was pending before the tribunal. Whether the Coal Bearing Act can have the attraction of the Land Acquisition Act is a matter to be construed in its proper perspective. The Act is silent regarding solatium and interest. It mentions only about just compensation, but if there is delay in payment of compensation or making reference to the tribunal, then on the principle of equity and natural justice, the solatium and interest may be granted by the tribunal and practically it appears that the Central Government i.e., the appellant did not oppose that point before the tribunal rather their notification as contained in Ext, C was considered by the tribunal and them passed solatium and interest. 13. With regard to fixing of Rs. 200/per decimal in respect of high class lands cannot be said to be improper as the proper reasons and justifications have been given by the tribunal. The only defect remains regarding categorisation and classification of the land. It is true that categorisation and classification of the land was made in the original award on the basis of the cadestral survey which was done long long back and definitely the position and situation of the land must have changed but how much it has been changed, it remains to be proved by the respondents-claimants before the tribunal. In that view of the matter, there is no scope of this Court to make any proper assessment in the matter, hence the case must go to the Court below for a limited finding as to the categorisation and classification of the acquired lands and the compensation to be assessed thereof. 14. In that view of the matter, there is no scope of this Court to make any proper assessment in the matter, hence the case must go to the Court below for a limited finding as to the categorisation and classification of the acquired lands and the compensation to be assessed thereof. 14. It appears that at the time of grant of stay, several lacs of rupees have been asked to be paid and the same has also been paid, as stated at the Bar but it remains a duty of the tribunal to see that such amounts have gone to the actual claimants and not to an intermediary. This Court take judicial notice of the fact that some scams are already there regarding bungling of compensation amounts in Land Acquisition Cases in the district of Hazaribagh. The intermediaries are alleged to have received the amounts totally depriving the aboriginals and tribals whose lands had actually been acquired. 15. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals are allowed, the judgment and awards are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned tribunal again for making a fresh award in the light of the observations made above. While coming to such decisions, opportunity must be given to both the parties to adduce more evidence on record. The award which had already been made by the tribunal is kept in abeyance till fresh award is being made.