JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Ahmed and Mr. P.C. Deka, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S.K. Medhi and Mr. M.K. Deka, learned Counsel for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. S.R. Sen. learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Smti. P.D.B. Baruah and Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. Since these appeals carry common question of law based on exactly similar and identical facts, they are taken up together for analogous hearing and by this common judgment and order all of them are being disposed of accordingly. 3. The matters pertain to assessment of compensation to be paid to the land owners for their land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act'). The only point involved in the cluster of appeals is whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing and determining the rate of compensation in respect of paddy land at Rs. 25/- per sq. metre and in inspect of till land at Rs. 15/- per sq. metre against Rs. 9/- per sq. metre and Rs. 3/- per sq. metre respectively awarded by the Collector. 4. The instant case has a chequered history. The facts relate back to 1987. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission (for short "the ONGC") having located a spot for drilling for estimating oil reserve at village Khasimara in the southern part of the East Khasi Hills District situated at a distance of about 130 Kms from Shillong adjacent to the border of Bangladesh, wanted to go ahead with the exploration of drilling of oil and for which purpose, a strip of land was required for drilling. And also for making it accessible for the said purpose, it was felt necessary that the motorable road had to be constructed to reach the particular site. Accordingly in 1987 the ONGC approached the District Authority of East Khasi Hills, Govt. of Meghalaya through Revenue Deptt. for the purpose of construction of such approach road to the area namely Khasimara Location No. 1 with the hope that by the drilling they would get oil. There was urgency for making approach road to the drill site so that construction of bridges, culverts and crossings by cutting the hills could be undertaken. On such request the Collector of Shillong proceeded to acquire an area of 1,56,040 sq. metre of land from village Khasimara. There was urgency for making approach road to the drill site so that construction of bridges, culverts and crossings by cutting the hills could be undertaken. On such request the Collector of Shillong proceeded to acquire an area of 1,56,040 sq. metre of land from village Khasimara. A joint verification of the land was made on 21.12.87 by the people of whom the land belonged represented by their Sardars (tribal head), the Collector and the ONGC. Finally an agreement was arrived at and signed by them on 5.4.1988 whereby the land owners agreed to handover the possession of the land from the day the ONGC deposited cash compensation with the Collector. An amount of Rs. 25,26,703.76 paise was fixed by the collector as the approximate compensation for acquisition of land. The ONGC deposited Rs. 10,33,347.00 on 13.6.88 out of the above mentioned fixed amount by way of bank draft and on the same day i.e., 13.6.88, the land was formally handed over to the ONGC who began its construction work. Thereafter the Govt. of Meghalaya, through its Revenue Deptt. on behalf of the ONGC issued a notification of acquisition of the land in question for public purpose under Section 4 of the Act on 22.2.89 vide Notification No. RDA 81/85/39. Also a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.10.89 vide notification No. RDA 81/85/42 declaring that an area of land for about 1,56,040 sq. metre situated at Khasimara was to be acquired for the said purpose. On 21.8.89, by a corrigendum, the total area of land as notified, was reduced to 1,50,163 sq. metres, from 1,56,040 sq. metres as originally fixed. The Collector drew up an award under Section 11 of the Act and the estimated compensation as determined by the Collector was Rs. 25,47,587.89 at the rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. metre for tilla land, Rs. 9./- per sq. metre for paddy land and Rs. 10/- per sq. metre for fishery land as per prevailing market rate; added to it, was additional compensation of Rs. 4,18,551.90 under Section23(2) of the Act being 30% of the value of land and trees Additional compensation was also awarded at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum for three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and accordingly the Collector informed the claimants/Respondents to receive the said award. 4,18,551.90 under Section23(2) of the Act being 30% of the value of land and trees Additional compensation was also awarded at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum for three years from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and accordingly the Collector informed the claimants/Respondents to receive the said award. But the claimants were dissatisfied with the said amount of compensation awarded for the land and trees being fixed at a very low rate. All the claimants having put their objection to such order of compensation, received the said compensation as fixed by the collector under protest. 5. Being aggrieved by the award of the Collector, as mentioned above, all the claimants/Respondents filed separate petitions before the Collector praying for reference under Section 18 to the Reference Court for re-determination of the rate of compensation as awarded by him and for enhancement. Accordingly, the Collector referred the matter to the Special Judicial Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong, being the Reference Court and the Reference Court after conclusion of the proceeding, by its order dated 17.6.92 awarded the enhancement of compensation fixed by the Collector, as already noticed above, allowing the claim petitions and the Collector's award of compensation of Rs. 25,26,703.76 was thereby enhanced to Rs. 84,43,652.18 paise. The said order of enhancement was challenged by ONGC before the High Court in Civil Revision No. 12(SH)/93 alleging inter alia that the said enhancement of compensation was made behind their back as the ONGC, being a necessary party, was not made a party in the said proceeding and there was no reference by the Collector to the Reference Court as per Section 18 of the Act. 6. The High Court by its order dated 5.10.93 allowed the revision so preferred by the ONGC holding that since there was no reference from the Collector, the learned Special Judicial Officer acted not only without jurisdiction but his judgment was vitiated for non compliance with the requirement of Section 20 of the Act which provides for service of notice and for violation of principles of natural justice and accordingly, the judgment of the Reference Court was set aside and the claim for enhancement made by the claimants/Respondents was dismissed. 7. 7. Being aggrieved by the said order of this High Court, the claimants preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 4238/96 arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 18167/94 and the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 1.3.96 set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 5.10.93 and remanded back the case for deciding afresh in accordance with law on all points raised therein except the one concluded by the Apex Court, i.e. the question of making a reference under Section 18 of the Act which stood concluded by order of the Supreme Court. 8. After remand of the case by the Supreme Court, the High Court reheard the Civil Revision No. 317/96(G) arising out of Civil Revision No. 12(SH)/96 and by its judgment and order dated 21.1.97 finally set aside the judgment and award passed by the Special Judicial Officer, Shillong in L.A. Case No. 37(K) to 105(K) and the ONGC was impleaded as a necessary party and remanded back the case to Special Judicial Officer, Shillong with a direction to proceed expeditiously with the reference case and dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving all reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. 9. On receipt of the case on such remand, the learned Special Judicial Officer, Shillong acting as the Reference Court in addition to 6 (six) issues already framed earlier, framed 3 (three) additional issues for proper adjudication of the entire matter and all those issues are reflected as under: ISSUES 1. Whether the petition is barred by law of Limitation? 2. Whether the basis of calculation by the Opp. Party and the rate fixed for the land, trees are correct on acquisition of land for construction of Khasimara Location No. 1? 3. Whether the claim of the Petitioner is exaggerated, unfair and unreasonable and without any basis? 4. Whether the award was made after all the facts according to law including the market value of the land prevailing in the area at the relevant period? 5. Whether the award made by the Opp. Party was just, fair, adequate and reasonable and made judiciously according to law and that the Petitioner does not deserve any enhancement and interest in the claim petition? 6. Whether the parties are entitled to any relief or reliefs? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. 5. Whether the award made by the Opp. Party was just, fair, adequate and reasonable and made judiciously according to law and that the Petitioner does not deserve any enhancement and interest in the claim petition? 6. Whether the parties are entitled to any relief or reliefs? ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1. Whether the claimants at the time of Joint Survey by the Collector and O.P.ONGC have initially come to an agreement that compensation for acquisition of their land be assessed and determined at an agreed sum of Rs. 25,47,585,89P. only and that there is no clause, terms or stipulation for enhancement ? 2. Whether in the land acquired there was neither pine tree growers, orchid or orange or other fruit trees nor the fishery? 3. Whether the lower Court's Judgment/Decree dated 17.6.92 which was partly executed and four (four) Decree Holders in L.A. Case No. 46(K), 39(K), 42(K) and 41(K) which were paid with the decretal amount can be reopened when the decree has been satisfied? Thereafter, the Civil Court after consideration of all the materials available on record including the evidences adduced by the respective parties and upon hearing the arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the parties passed the impugned judgment and order on 13.11.1997 enhancing the compensation from Rs. 3/- per sq. metre to Rs. 15/- per sq. metre for tilla land and from Rs. 9/- per sq. metre to Rs. 25/- per sq. metre as regards paddy field considering the same to be just and proper compensation to which the claimants/Respondents were entitled to receive. 10. Challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 13.11.97, Mr. PC Deka, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellant has vehemently argued that the Reference Court committed grave illegality in enhancing and determining the compensation in respect of the paddy land from Rs. 9/- per sq. metre as awarded by the Collector to Rs. 25/- per sq. metre and in respect of tilla land from Rs. 3/- per sq. metre as fixed by the collector in Rs. 15 per Sq. metre without any cogent and overwhelming evidence on record. According to him the award of Rs. 9/- per sq. metre and Rs. 3/- per sq. metre as awarded by the Collector to Rs. 25/- per sq. metre and in respect of tilla land from Rs. 3/- per sq. metre as fixed by the collector in Rs. 15 per Sq. metre without any cogent and overwhelming evidence on record. According to him the award of Rs. 9/- per sq. metre and Rs. 3/- per sq. metre as regards the paddy field and tilla field respectively made by the collector was justified and correct as the same was based on the local investigation and as per market rate and also in compliance of the provisions of law laid down under the Act for the purpose of payment of such compensation. His submission is that under no circumstances the acquired land can fetch such amount as enhanced by the Reference Court and the same was absolutely on a higher side and not tenable in law. It has been contended by Mr. Deka, learned Sr. Counsel that the learned Special Judicial Officer totally failed to determine the market value of the land in accordance with law and as such enhancement of compensation was contrary to the provision of law laid down under Section 23of the Act. Mr. Deka has drawn attention of this Court to the factors prescribed in Section 23 which are essentially required to be considered in determining the compensation of the acquired land. Section 23 of the Act which may be quoted as under: 23 Matters to be considered in determining compensation: (1)- In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration. Section 23 of the Act which may be quoted as under: 23 Matters to be considered in determining compensation: (1)- In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration. First, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1); secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing, crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof; thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting, his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings, fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the collector, the person interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and the time of the collector's taking possession of the land. (IA) In addition to the market value of the land above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum peer annum on such market - value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4, Sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation-In computing the period referred to in this Sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded. Explanation-In computing the period referred to in this Sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded. (2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case a ward a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition. 11. Relying on the above section itself, Mr. Deka has contended that the non compliance of the above provisions of law is apparent on the face of the judgment itself. It is contended that the learned special judicial officer in arriving at the findings of the enhancement referred above, did not even make a whisper to show what was the market value of the land in question prevailing at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 so as to enable him to enhance the compensation in question at such a higher rate. Further, the Reference Court unreasonably and without application of mind enhanced the award in respect of the paddy field and tilla land because the impugned enhancement was rendered without determining the existence of any standing crops, trees etc. The learned Judicial Officer also lost sight of the fact that the acquired land was situated in the interior place without any road and each claimant was possessing a small area of the land in the entire acquired land. It is argued that the impugned judgment does ex-facie reflect that the Reference Court could not satisfy itself as regards the basis on which the amount of compensation was enhanced. 12. Mr. Deka has further contended that it is settled law that the burden of proving the entitlement of higher compensation is upon the claimants but in the instant case, the claimants having failed to discharge their burden by adducing sufficient and cogent material evidences, are not entitled to such enhancement. 12. Mr. Deka has further contended that it is settled law that the burden of proving the entitlement of higher compensation is upon the claimants but in the instant case, the claimants having failed to discharge their burden by adducing sufficient and cogent material evidences, are not entitled to such enhancement. According to him in the case in hand, the persons so examined by the claimants before and after the remand of the entire case, as already noticed above, are not the same persons and as such a grave doubt has been cast on the veracity of evidences of those persons who claimed to be the claimants and as such the entire enhancement was based on the basis of extraneous consideration. On overall consideration of the factual situation, it is argued, this impugned award passed by the Reference Court demonstrates grave error in principle or in law in determining the enhanced valuation of the land under acquisition and as such the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 13. Defending the impugned judgment and order. Mr. Sen, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Respondents, has forcefully urged that no irregularity and/or illegality was committed by the Reference Court in as much as the Collector in awarding the compensation manifestly failed to determine the market value as required under Section 23 of the Act and the learned Special Judicial Officer having considered all the essential ingredients required for the determination of the compensation as envisaged under Section 23 of the Act, arrived at the finding of such enhancement which may be accepted as just and proper compensation of the land in question. 14. The learned Counsel of the rival parties relied upon the following judicial authorities to clinch their respective submissions: (i) AIR 1974 SC 2333 (Dilawarsab Babusab Mullasab and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer) (ii) AIR 1984 SC 774 (Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P. Veerabhadarappa etc. etc.) (iii) AIR 1988 SC 1652 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr.) (iv) 1993 (Suppl) (1) SCC 569 (Saraswati Devi (Smt.) and Ors. v. U.P. Government and Anr.) (v) 1996 (2) GLT 249 : 1996(2) GLR 314 (The Collector, Nagoan v. Lakheswar Bhattacharyya) (vi) 2001(6) SCC (State of Haryana v. Ram Singh). 15. etc.) (iii) AIR 1988 SC 1652 (Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Anr.) (iv) 1993 (Suppl) (1) SCC 569 (Saraswati Devi (Smt.) and Ors. v. U.P. Government and Anr.) (v) 1996 (2) GLT 249 : 1996(2) GLR 314 (The Collector, Nagoan v. Lakheswar Bhattacharyya) (vi) 2001(6) SCC (State of Haryana v. Ram Singh). 15. In Dilawarsab's case (Supra) the Apex Court held that the Court should not place too much reliance on the oral evidence on behalf of the claimants about the income from the lands because the best evidence would be the evidence of sales of similar lands at about the time of the notification under Section 4(1). 16. In P. Veerabhandarappa's case (Supra) the Apex Court laid down the methodology of ascertainment of the market value. It was held that the function of the Court in awarding the compensation under the Act was to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1) and the methods of such valuation might be (1) Opinion of experts (2) The prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages, and (3) A number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. 17. The Apex Court in Chimanlal's case (Supra) which has been accepted as the basic case pertaining to ascertainment of market value of the acquired land, in paragraph 4 laid down the methodology of determination of the market value of the land under acquisition. According to the Apex Court, the following factors have to be borne in mind: 4. . . . (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size 1. largeness of area 2. Proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road 3. frontage on a road 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth 4. nearness to developed area 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up 5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed locality 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchase 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (14) The exercise indicated in Clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do.... some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchase 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (14) The exercise indicated in Clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do.... (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. Yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 eq. Yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx, between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. 18. The Apex Court in Saraswati Devi's case (Supra) reiterated that the market value would be determined according to the use the land was put on the date of Section 4 notification. 19. Our High Court in Lakheswar Bhattacharyya's case (supra) in paragraph 6 also reiterated the methodology prescribed by the Apex Court in Chimanlal's case (Supra). 20. 18. The Apex Court in Saraswati Devi's case (Supra) reiterated that the market value would be determined according to the use the land was put on the date of Section 4 notification. 19. Our High Court in Lakheswar Bhattacharyya's case (supra) in paragraph 6 also reiterated the methodology prescribed by the Apex Court in Chimanlal's case (Supra). 20. In Ram Singh's case (Supra) in paragraph 11 the Apex Court held that the Court should take into consideration the market value of the land under Section 4(1) and not on the potential value over and above the market value and once market value is determined, there was no question of awarding any further amount in addition thereto by reason of any further future potential. 21. In the light of settled principles of law, as laid down in the above stated cases for determining the market value, now let us examine as to whether the enhancement of the compensation made by the impugned judgment has satisfied those principles cited above. 22. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment including the discussions on the evidence part of the parties in paras 18, 19 and 20 and also have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties. I have also meticulously inspected the paragraphs 22 to 28 of the judgment being the factors that had persuaded the learned Judicial Officer to pass the order of enhancement of the award of the Collector. 23. From a bare perusal of the discussions, observations and finding recorded in the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned Special Judicial Officer failed to pinpoint the factors which were taken into consideration for enhancing of the award of compensation, as required under Section 23. There was no whisper as regards the determination of the market value of the land at the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 on 22.2.89 and other factors laid down in the decision of Chimanlal's case (supra). Especially, the findings as recorded in paras 27 and 28 of the judgment as quoted hereinbelow do not at all reflect any consideration of such principles as ordained in the Climanlal's case (supra). Accordingly this Court is not at all impressed with the views and findings expressed by the Civil Court in enhancing the compensation. Especially, the findings as recorded in paras 27 and 28 of the judgment as quoted hereinbelow do not at all reflect any consideration of such principles as ordained in the Climanlal's case (supra). Accordingly this Court is not at all impressed with the views and findings expressed by the Civil Court in enhancing the compensation. The facts of the case clearly reveal that on the date of notification on 22.8.89 there was no motorable road in existence to reach the acquired land in question and the same was situated in remote place far from developed locality. That apart, when the learned Judicial Officer himself was reluctant to approve the documents i.e., Ext.-I rendered in evidence by the claimant in LA 37(K)/90 and 49 (K)/90 as indicated in para 24 of the judgment, then how he can rely on those documents observing that their documents would afford to give some idea as to the prevailing market value of the land in and around the acquired land at the time it was acquired. It is pertinent to note that those documents were the sale deeds of 1973 and 1974 and the land in question was acquired on 22.2.89. Further, there was no specific and clear evidence to prove what were different types of trees and fruit trees on the paddy land and tilla land to fetch such higher rate of compensation. It is necessary to refer the findings arrived at by the Civil Court in paras 27 and 28 which read as follows: 27. Since the lands of the claimants are paddy field and tilla land, it is undoubtedly that the claimants derived certain yield of products for their livelihood and earnings as such, their land possessed certain potentialities of agricultural land. It is no doubt that the rate of the land received appreciation in its value from time to time depending on the type and nature of the land and the location thereof. It is an admitted position that the claimants land before the acquisition were not accessible by motorable road, however, their land is not a barren land. Indisputedly the claimants land besides being paddy field and tilla land also contained different types of trees and fruit threes as peer exhibit-A (4) approved by OPW 1 W.C. Bank in his evidence., Not only that fisheries and nalla were also in existence. Indisputedly the claimants land besides being paddy field and tilla land also contained different types of trees and fruit threes as peer exhibit-A (4) approved by OPW 1 W.C. Bank in his evidence., Not only that fisheries and nalla were also in existence. Therefore, considering the nature of the claimants land at the time before acquisition it possessed certain potentialities for which the Collector should have considered the same while assessing and determining the rate of compensation. The rate of compensation as awarded by the collector in absence of the basis of calculation of such assessment appear to be on the lower side, hence in view thereof, the award of the collector cannot be said to be just and proper and that the same was made after taking all the facts according to law including the market value of the land prevailing in the area at the relevant period. Therefore, the claimants are found to be entitled for enhancement. 28. What then will be the rate of compensation that the claimants will be entitled for the acquired land. Majority of the claimants have preferred their claim of enhancement at the rate of Rs. 8/- per sq. ft. for the land and only few of them has preferred as rate higher than that. However, no specific evidence from the claimants side to show that at the time of acquisition, the prevailing market value of the land in the area acquired in Rs. 8/- per sq. ft. though the claimants have strongly relied on the exhibits as tendered from their side, but since the exhibits 1 and 2 tendered by C.W.2 Shri Kester Wanshong and C.W. 3 Ka Peralti Wangshong though of 1988 but were not registered, the same cannot be relied upon and though exhibit-1 of claimant in L.A. 37(K)90 and 40(K)90 are before the Registration Act was made compulsory for the entire State of Meghalaya, yet as they concerned only of a small portion of land, fall reliance cannot be placed on the said documents as already discussed earlier, but they may to certain extent afford some help in arriving at a just and proper compensation of which the claimants should be entitled. What price the acquired land would fetch if saleable in open market. A demand of such a vast area of land would not be there from any individual but from Govt. What price the acquired land would fetch if saleable in open market. A demand of such a vast area of land would not be there from any individual but from Govt. agents only and requirement of individual if any would be to a small extent only and the rate would of course before for that small extent of land than the large extent of land. Hence for such vast area the rate cannot be expected to fetch at the rate as peer exhibits 1 as tendered by CWs in L.A. 37(K)90 and 40(K)90 or more, and would be less than Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. even during 1980. Hence taking into consideration the evidence of the claimants the potentiality of the land it possessed during acquisition and by such acquisition the claimants have lost of their products yield therefrom, the rate that the acquired land would fetch at the time it was acquired would not be more than Rs. 15/- for tilla land and Rs. 25/- for paddy field and this is considered to be the just and proper compensation that the claimants are entitled to receive. As for the compensation for the trees, same will be dealt with in the additional issues No. 2. Common sense simply does not permit to approve such an enhancement of award as done in the present, case. Compensation should not come to the claimants as windfall. After all, it is the public money and the compensation is to be paid from public exchequer. It is the bounden duty of the Reference Court to take care of the interest of the State Coffer in enhancing the compensation. In the instant case, the Court is of the view that the claimants had not produced any sufficient materials on record justifying impugned enhancement. Since the impugned judgment ex-facie does not reveal any legal basis for such determination of the enhanced compensation in terms of Section 23 as well as in light of the dictum of the Apex Court aforenoted, this Court is disinclined to accept such enhancement. 24. Since the impugned judgment ex-facie does not reveal any legal basis for such determination of the enhanced compensation in terms of Section 23 as well as in light of the dictum of the Apex Court aforenoted, this Court is disinclined to accept such enhancement. 24. In view of what has been observed and discussed herein above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned enhancement in compensation so fixed by the learned Special Judicial Officer appears to be on higher side in as much the learned Judicial Officer awarded 5 times and almost 3 times against the Collector's award of Rs, 3/- per sq. metre as against tilla land and Rs. 9/- per sq. metre so far as the paddy land is concerned respectively. In that view of the matter, the enhancement of the Civil Court cannot be sustained. As the matter has been pending since 1987, this Court is also disinclined to remand the case for reconsideration of the claims of the Respondent for enhancement afresh inasmuch as in Court's opinion no useful purpose would be served if the civil Court is again directed to re-hear the matter in accordance with law after such considerable lapse of time. Therefore, on overall consideration of the factual situation of the case and taking into account the available material evidence on record as well as upon hearing the learned Counsel of the rival parties, it is felt that the ends of justice would be satisfied if the Collector's award of compensation is enhanced to 2 times of the rate fixed. Accordingly, it is ordered that the rate of compensation shall be enhanced to and fixed at Rs. 6/- per sq. metre for tilla land from Rs. 3/- per sq. metre and to Rs. 18/- per sq. metre for paddy field from Rs. 9/- per sq. metre accepting the same to be the prevailing market value of the land in question of the time of acquisition. 6/- per sq. metre for tilla land from Rs. 3/- per sq. metre and to Rs. 18/- per sq. metre for paddy field from Rs. 9/- per sq. metre accepting the same to be the prevailing market value of the land in question of the time of acquisition. The claimants/Respondents are also entitled to 12% interest per annum in addition to the market value of the land for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier and also a solatium of 30% on such compensation in terms of Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act. The Respondents are also entitled for an interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of taking over possession of the land acquired and if the amount is not paid within one year, the interest shall be calculated @ 15% per annum as provided in the Statute Book. Be it mentioned herein that the possession was handed over on 13.6.88 much earlier to the date of publication of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, i.e. 22.2.89. Needless to say that the amount already deposited by the ONGC as stated by the learned Counsel of the parties, shall be adjusted against the payment of compensation so fixed hereinabove including the interest thereon and the balance amount, if any, left out on such adjustment be refunded to the appellant. 25. In the result, the batch of appeals is partly allowed to the extent as indicated above.