B. A. Khan ( 1 ) APPELLANT s land measuring 37 Bighas and 7 Biswas in village Jawala Heri was acquired pursuant to Section 4 Notification dated 13. 11. 1959. The Collector determined its compensation at Rs. 1,600. 00 - per bigha but Reference Court enhanced it to Rs. 4250. 00 and the First Appellate Court raised it to Rs. 5,250. 00. 00 per bigha in RFA. 456/77. While doing so it relied upon the awards passed in three land references involving comparable lands (LAC. No. 200/66,74/68 and 145/66 ). The Court at the same time rejected appellant s contention that the land was as good as the land in Multan Nagar Colony and required to be awarded at that rate (Rs. 10,000. 00) per bigha.- ( 2 ) APPELLANT s case is that First Appellate Court had overlooked the material evidence that the land was intended to be used for building purposes and that it fell outside the rigour of Agrarian Reforms Act which boosted its potentiality to warrant further enhancement of compensation. His Counsel also feebly suggested that the land deserved more as it abutted the Delhi-Rohtak Road. ( 3 ) WE have examined the judgments of both learned ADJs. and Fist Appellate Court and we have not come across any material evidence having been ignored by either Court. As a matter of fact learned ADJ has relied upon relevant sales and awards to enhance the compensation to Rs. 4,250. 00 per bigha and so has the First Appellate Court on awards involving land in adjacent Madipur to further raise it to Rs. 5,250. 00 per bigha. ( 4 ) APPELLANT s claim that his land deserved as much as that of Multan Nagar Colony land has been rightly rejected. Firstly there could be hardly any comparison between the two because appellant s land was an undeveloped agricultural land, though intended to be used for residential purpose and that Multan Nagar Colony was a developed one. There is nothing on record to show that the two were of similar character, nature and situation enjoying identical amenities and advantages. It is a trite that onus was on the claimant to establish by material evidence that these lands enjoyed the requisite similarity. Appellant has failed to discharge this burden and, therefore. First Appellate Court had rightly rejected his contention in this regard. It is a trite that onus was on the claimant to establish by material evidence that these lands enjoyed the requisite similarity. Appellant has failed to discharge this burden and, therefore. First Appellate Court had rightly rejected his contention in this regard. ( 5 ) THE same holds true about appellants next assertion that the disputed land fell outside the operation of ARA, acquiring for greater potentiality in the process to merit higher compensation. According to him since he had obtained Deputy Commissioner s permission dated 15. 3. 1954 under Restriction of Land User Act, that by itself exempted his land from the operation of ARA. ( 6 ) APPELLANT s contention is fallacious on the face of it. Because ARA provides its own requirement and mechanism for exemption from its operation. Such exemption operates only on satisfaction of requirements provided therein. A sanction of Deputy Commissioner under a different statute would not by itself take the land out of operation of ARA. Nor would its intended use for public purpose or utility unless such purpose was declared to be so by the Chief Commissioner under Section 1 (2) (c) of the Act. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, all told, we do not find any error of law or principle having been committed by the First Appellate Court which has awarded just and fair compen sation in the circumstances of the case. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.