judgment B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.- Leave granted in the special leave petitions. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for determining the compensation payable for certain lands acquired under the provisions of the Act. 3. Villages Bhorgarh, Kureni and Mamurpur are located side by side and the lands situated in these villages were used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. Under the provisions of Sections 22 and 23 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 there were certain restrictions on land usage due to which the lands could only be used for agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and allied uses. In the master plan the lands were shown in the green belt. By a notification dated 8-12-1982, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Works and Housing, the Central Government in exercise of its power under sub-section (2) of Section ll-A modified the master plan for Delhi. The modifications made were as under: "(i) The land use of an area measuring 21.043 hectares (52 acres) located near Narela town and situated on the west of railway line to R-P-M/30289/S Ambala is changed from Agricultural Green Belt to Commercial (Warehousing and Storage Depots). (ii) The land use of an area measuring about 21.043 hectares (52 acres) located near Village Ghevra and situated on the north of railway line to Rohtak is changed from Agricultural Green Belt to Commercial (Warehousing and Storage Depots)." 4. On 2-6-1983, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, whereby the lands for certain parcels situated within the said area were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of construction of godowns for Food Corporation of India. This was followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act made on 22-7-1983. Further proceedings under the Act ensued and on 5-9-1983, the Land Acquisition Collector made an award in each of the cases. The Collector categorised the lands falling for acquisition into three blocks, namely, A, B and C. He awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 per bigha for land in Block A, Rs 8000 per bigha for land in Block B and Rs 5000 per bigha for land in Block C. He also awarded compensation for wells, trees and structures. The Collector categorised the lands falling for acquisition into three blocks, namely, A, B and C. He awarded a compensation of Rs 10,000 per bigha for land in Block A, Rs 8000 per bigha for land in Block B and Rs 5000 per bigha for land in Block C. He also awarded compensation for wells, trees and structures. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants moved for references under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court by its judgment dated d 12-3-1999 enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to a uniform rate of Rs 36,300 per bigha as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. It also granted other reliefs available under the Act. 5. The claimants filed regular first appeals under Section 54 of the Act questioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by the Reference Court. The High Court assessed the market value of the lands of the claimants at Rs 82,255 per bigha. It also directed solatium @ 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation and interest @ 9% per annum for a period of one year from the date of the Collector taking possession and thereafter @ 15% per annum till payment of compensation and on additional amount @ 12% on the market value from the date of notification till the possession. It was also directed that if interest was held payable on solatium in the case pending before the Supreme Court, such interest will be paid to the claimants. 6. In Civil Appeals Nos. 5708-09 of 2002, the appellant claimants have impugned the judgment of the High Court while the Union of India is in appeal in Civil Appeals Nos. 8591-92 of 2003 and civil appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 21335, 21342-43, 23385 of 2002, 1632 and 12968 of 2003. 7. The only question argued before us was the assessment of the market value of the acquired lands as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. No other issue was canvassed. The High Court has correctly found that the topography, potentiality and advantages attached to and available to the lands in the five adjoining villages, namely, Bhorgarh, Kureni, Mamurpur, Narela and Tikri Khurd were almost the same on the date when the notification under Section 4 was issued. No other issue was canvassed. The High Court has correctly found that the topography, potentiality and advantages attached to and available to the lands in the five adjoining villages, namely, Bhorgarh, Kureni, Mamurpur, Narela and Tikri Khurd were almost the same on the date when the notification under Section 4 was issued. It also referred to the fact that in its judgment in Dharambir v. Union of India 1 the market value of the land had been assessed at Rs 25,000 per bigha as against the assessment made by the Reference Court @ Rs 17,500 per bigha. An appeal therefrom was carried to this Court and is the subject-matter of the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Dharambir2. While allowing the appeal of the State Government, this Court held that Rs 16,750 per bigha was the fair market value of all categories of land situate at Village Mamurpur as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 30-10-1963. 8. While the appellant claimants urged that after the notification issued on 8-12-1982, the lands in question had acquired great commercial potentiality and that this fact had been lost sight of by the High Court in assessing the fair market value as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the learned counsel for the Union of India contends that, despite the change in the master plan, there was hardly any change in the land use between 8-12-1982 and 2-6-1983 when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. The land had been continued to be used for agricultural and allied purposes and there was no commercial exploitation of the land at all despite it being allowed as a result of change in the master plan. 9. Interestingly, a perusal of the appeal memorandum of the Union of India shows that, even according to the Union of India the ascertainment of the fair market value of the lands in question should have proceeded on the basis of Rs 16,750 per bighaas on 30-10-1963 with 12% escalation per year. If this method is adopted, according to the Union of India, the fair market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act would come to Rs 56,112 per bigha. If this method is adopted, according to the Union of India, the fair market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act would come to Rs 56,112 per bigha. [See ground (e) in the appeals arising out of SLPs (C) Nos. 21335, 21343, 23385 of 2002 and 12968 of 2003 and ground (d) in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1632 of 2003 and Civil Appeals Nos. 8591-92 of 2003.] 10. The High Court noticed that the Government had not filed appeals in most of the cases except a few and further, that even the appellant claimants had not produced any evidence in support of their case for increase in the amount of compensation. Apart from urging that there was increase in the potentiality of the land in question, no material was placed before the Reference Court to show as to what would have been the market value of the lands in question as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, had the property been sold for the purpose of construction of a warehouse or godown. 11. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs 16,750 per bigha as on 30-10-1963. The High Court noticed that in several judgments of this Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e. 6% per annum from 1959 1 RFA No. 554 of 1992, decided on 23-9-1996 2 CA No. 4405 of 1997 to 1965, @ 10% per annum for every year from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% per annum from 1975 had been considered to be reasonable increase to arrive at the fair market value, assuming that the pace of escalation during this period was normal for the entire period from 1959 onwards. Since no material was placed on record to show that there was any abnormality during the period, the High Court applied the same principle to the facts and circumstances before it, and accepted increase of 10% every year progressively from 1963 to 1973 and thereafter @ 12% every year progressively up to the date of acquisition. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is allowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs 1,28,889 per bigha. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is allowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs 1,28,889 per bigha. In case progressive increase is allowed @ 10% for the entire period, the amount will work out to Rs 1,08,397 per bigha. Allowing appreciation @ 12% for every year, not cumulatively, but at a flat rate of 12% per annum from 1963 to 1983, the amount would work out to Rs 56,112 per bigha. The High Court in its judgment under appeal pointed out that the market value of Rs 16,750 per bigha fixed in the case of Dharambir v. Union of Indial was not in respect of commercial land but only of agricultural land. That the market value of agricultural land is much lower than that of land suitable for commercial purposes, is trite. After having worked out the market value ofthe lands on various bases and keeping in view the fact that between 8-121982 and 2-6-1983, the lands in question had at least some commercial potentiality, the High Court decided that the fair market value of all categories of lands situated in the villages in question as on the date of acquisition should be fixed at Rs 82,255 per bigha. 12. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the judgment, we find it difficult to disagree with the exercise carried out by the High Court. We think that the High Court was justified in assessing the market value at a higher rate on account of some increased potentiality of the lands. If at all, the High Court has erred on the safer side in fixing the market value at Rs 82,255 per bigha. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention advanced by the appellant claimants and the Union of India in their respective appeals. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court requires no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 13. In the result, we dismiss all the appeals. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. highly doubtful. His conduct too seems to be unnatural in not informing anyone else in the village until he met Khyali Ram at the village square. 13. In the result, we dismiss all the appeals. However, in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. highly doubtful. His conduct too seems to be unnatural in not informing anyone else in the village until he met Khyali Ram at the village square. We also notice that there is unexplained delay in filing the complaint inasmuch as according to the prosecution the incident in question took place at about 1.30 p.m. and a complaint was lodged only at 3.15 a.m. on 5-4-1980. Though the distance is about 30 miles from the place of incident, the complainant had the facility of using the tractors available in the village and they did use the same for travelling to the police station. In such circumstances this unexplained long delay also creates a doubt in our mind as to the genuineness of the prosecution case. Once we are not convinced with the evidence of PW 6 then there is no other material to base a conviction on the appellant, hence we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, therefore, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction of the two courts below are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against him. From the records we notice that the appellant is on bail. If so, his bail bonds shall stand discharged.