Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State Government against the judgment and decree dated 25-9-1987 (decree signed on 16-11-1987) by the then Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 6 of 1987. 2. When the appeal was preferred by the State, the claimants-respondents have also filed Cross-Appeal under Order XLI, rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein they claimed more than what has been assessed as market value of the acquired land by the Reference Court and also interest and solatium on the basis of the Amended Act, as has been held by the apex Court as reported in -- . 3. About 12 acres of land was acquired vide declaration No. 4799 dated 31-5-1962 for the purpose of Bokaro Steel Project in L.A. Case No. 21 of 1962-63. The Notification under Sec. 4 and the declaration under Sec. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Gazette on 31-5-1962. The Collector made award in the name of the claimants-respondents and compensations were paid in the year 1964. The claimants grievances were that the assessment of the market value of classification of the land was made as per transaction of 1956 although the lands have been acquired in the year 1963 and as such value should be assessed as per the present market value. As such the claimants filed application under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for reference before the Civil Court in respect of their agricultural land on the ground that the valuation of the land is too low and inadequate and that the classifications were not correct. 4. It appears that before the Reference Court, practically the Government side did not contest, rather there was concession given by the then Government Pleader in respect of the claimants grievances. Several acquisition cases were ensued because of the acquisition of vast areas of land for the Bokaro Steel Project and different Reference Cases were also made by different claimants. In two of such cases, Raju Mahto and Ors. and Dhananjay Mahto and Ors. had to come up before this Court in First Appeal Nos. Several acquisition cases were ensued because of the acquisition of vast areas of land for the Bokaro Steel Project and different Reference Cases were also made by different claimants. In two of such cases, Raju Mahto and Ors. and Dhananjay Mahto and Ors. had to come up before this Court in First Appeal Nos. 91 and 91 -A of 1975 and a Division Bench of this Court held that the Classification should be in the mode that of Dhan I, II and III lands should be construed as Dhan-I and of Gora-I, II and III lands should be construed as Gora-I land and valuation has been made to the effect that Rs. 6,000.00 should be construed as Gora-l land per acre. Whereas Gora-I land should include Tanr one also including other classification of Gora and Tanr land. Similarly, Dhani lands had also been construed as Dhan-I land and value was made at the rate of Rs. 8.000.00 per acre. As conceded by the Government Pleader, Land Acquisition Judge had construed the present Reference case also to be a covered case on the basis of the judgment as referred to which was marked as Ext. 1 in the case. 5. Only one witness was examined but nowhere, it could be brought in the Court below that the present lands belonging to the claimants were same and similar to that of the lands covered by those judgments of First Appeals. The market value of the land as per the Land Acquisition Act required to be assessed on various factors and those factors had been elaborately discussed by the Supreme Court as reported in AIR 1985 SC 1652. The moot point remains that until and unless the Reference Court comes to the conclusion that the lands in the case in hand were just similar and the same as of the lands acquired with respect to First Appeal Nos. 91 and 91- A of 1975, the valuation fixed by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be made applicable. But, there is no finding to that effect in the whole of the impugned judgment. It is not necessary that in the present case market value should be assessed separately but if it could be shown that the acquired land in the First Appeal Nos. But, there is no finding to that effect in the whole of the impugned judgment. It is not necessary that in the present case market value should be assessed separately but if it could be shown that the acquired land in the First Appeal Nos. 91 and 91-A of 1975 are same on similar nature then the Reference Court could be justified in following the decision of this Court. Before coming to that finding, just following of the valuation assessed by this Court in the First Appeals mentioned in definitely improper on the face of it. I am not going to discuss much on this point as I have got no other alternative but to remand the case to the Court below for proceeding according to law after setting aside the judgment. 6. It should be mentioned here as in respect of Cross-Appeal that whatever valuation has been assessed as per the decision arrived at by the Supreme Court in -- , the interest, solatium, etc. should also be calculated as per Amended Act. 7. Thus, this appeal is hereby allowed and the Cross-Appeal is also disposed of as per discussions mentioned above. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside and the matter is sent back to the Reference Court for proceeding, according to law, as per directions made above. The parties are hereby directed to appear through their lawyer before the L.A. Judge concerned on 9th November, 1998. The office is hereby directed to despatch the lower Courts records immediately.