JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Goel, J. Briefly stated, facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : 2. Government of Himachal Pradesh, Education Department, intended to acquire land measuring 8355.66 square yards, situated in Station Ward, Bara Shimla, for a public purpose namely, for the construction of Government Girls College, Shimla. For this purpose, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act'), was issued on 13.9.1985. It was published in the Himachal Pradesh Government Gazette on 26.10.1985. This notification was also published in two newspapers, the Dainik Tribune and Hindi Milap, subsequent to the publication in the Government gazette. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was followed by declaration dated 19.7.1986, under Sections 6 and 7 thereof. 3. After having taken note of the material produced before him by the parties, Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation qua 3571 square yards only in favour of the appellant, as also for the trees and buildings standing on it with statutory solatium and interest as per provisions of the Act, vide Award No. 5/1986, dated 25.11.1987. Total compensation awarded in favour of the appellant was Rs. 18,09,758/-. Compensation for land was assessed at Rs. 189/- per square yard and value of structure/buildings was assessed at Rs. 4,92,667/-. So far rest of the land out of 8355.6 square yards is concerned, its claim was declined as it was held that the appellant was not its owner. 4. Having felt dissatisfied with the said award, reference was claimed under sections 18 and 30 of the Act for determining the market value of the land under acquisition, as well as for grant of compensation in respect of the entire land, instead of 3571 square yards. 5. After reference was forwarded to the District Court, parties joined issue there and compensation in respect of land was enhanced from Rs. 189/- per square yard to Rs. 250/- per square yard. In addition to this, compensation in respect of the built up area was also enhanced. Thus, in all for land and buildings compensation was enhanced to the extent of Rs. 7,09,264/-, besides solatium and interest on this enhanced amount under the Act. However, appellant's claim for grant of compensation in respect of the entire land was not accepted. Hence this appeal under Section 54 of the Act. 6. Thus, in all for land and buildings compensation was enhanced to the extent of Rs. 7,09,264/-, besides solatium and interest on this enhanced amount under the Act. However, appellant's claim for grant of compensation in respect of the entire land was not accepted. Hence this appeal under Section 54 of the Act. 6. In the aforesaid background, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the findings of the Court below upholding the grant of compensation in respect of only 3571 square yards of land is patently not only illegal, but is also contrary to the proved facts on record. According to him, vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/A, property was conveyed. It was evacuee property and with a view to separate the interest of the evacuee from those of the claimants, the entire estate known as Ellysium Hotel, Shimla butted and bounded as under, was conveyed : "On the North, by public road, On the South, by Municipal land, On the East, by Auckland House Estate, and On the West, by, another public road." 7. According to Mr. Sharma, whatever property fell within these boundaries, stood conveyed in favour of the appellant, therefore, findings to the contrary are not sustainable in law. While advancing the case of the appellants, he also submitted that mutation based on this sale deed was effected in favour of the appellant on 19.1.1987 vide Ex. RW-7/A. To the utter surprise of his client and behind its back, to its disadvantage, this was reviewed on 16.11.1993, whereby area transferred vide sale deed Ex.PW-1/A was reduced from 8355.6 square yards to 3571. This order of reviewing mutation of 19.1.1987 on 16.11.1993 is not only arbitrary and illegal, but is also contrary to all canons of law, fair play, equity and good conscience. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the findings recorded by the Court below, and consequently awarding compensation for entire area of 8355.6 square yards in favour of his client while allowing this appeal. Further per Shri Sharma the compensation assessed by the Court below is wholly inadequate and was thus liable to be enhanced, keeping in view the location, future potential of development of the entire land under acquisition and other relevant factors attached to the same. Besides enhancement in the price of land, Mr. Sharma also prayed for enhancing the compensation in respect of the built up area in terms of the statement of P.W-4, Dr. Besides enhancement in the price of land, Mr. Sharma also prayed for enhancing the compensation in respect of the built up area in terms of the statement of P.W-4, Dr. M.L. Bansal, Retired Chief Engineer, HP PWD. 8. Mr. Sharma further submitted that while allowing this appeal and enhancing compensation, solatium and interest may also be awarded as-permissible under law. 9. All these pleas have been controverted by Mr. Pathik, learned Additional Advocate General. Per him, findings recorded by the Court below while granting compensation in respect of 3571 square yards only by the Court below needs to be upheld as no exception can be taken to this finding. Great emphasis was laid by him on Ex. RW-1/A, a photo stat copy of the valuation in Form-A of the building in question stated to have been prepared before putting Ellysium Hotel Estate to auction, whereafter it was conveyed in favour of the appellant vide Ex. P.W.1/A. According to him, this document clearly supports not only the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, but also the findings in that behalf affirmed by the Reference Court below. So far claim of enhancement of compensation qua price of land is concerned, Mr. Pathik submitted that the same has been assessed by the Court below accepting evidence of the appellant to be correct. Thus, under both these heads, findings do not call for any interference. Similarly, compensation qua the structures standing on the land under acquisition has been rightly awarded by the Court below which also called for no interference. On the basis of the evidence on record, Shri Pathik prayed that while dismissing this appeal, impugned award needs to be upheld. 10. The first and foremost question that needs consideration in this appeal is as to what in fact was conveyed in favour of the appellant vide Ex.PW-1/A ? 11. It is by now well settled principal of law that where there is discrepancy between the area and boundaries, which is more clear, certain and decipherable shall prevail to clear the doubt, if any. With a view to resolve the controversy, when there is uncertainty in both boundary and area, the Pourts are bound to ascertain the intention of the parties with reference to material on record and then see what is more certain. A reference to Ex.PW-1/A, shows that there is no mention of area in it. With a view to resolve the controversy, when there is uncertainty in both boundary and area, the Pourts are bound to ascertain the intention of the parties with reference to material on record and then see what is more certain. A reference to Ex.PW-1/A, shows that there is no mention of area in it. Property conveyed through this sale deed is given in its schedule to which a reference is made in the main body. And as already noted, boundaries are specifically mentioned wherein property stood conveyed in favour of the appellant. This question has been coming up for consideration before different Courts. To some such decisions, reference is being made hereinafter : 12. In The Palesatine Kupat Am Bank Co-operative Society Ltd. Appellants v. Government of Palestine and others - Respondents AIR 1948(35) Privy Council 207, what was held and is relevant for purpose of the present case, is extracted hereinbelow : "...Their Lordships find it unnecessary to resolve this difference as, even if Article 47 does not in terms govern the grant of 1882, the principle of preferring a description by fixed boundaries to a conflicting description by area cannot be so restricted. In the view of the Board that principle is applicable to the construction of the grant in question. In English law the statement as to area therein would be rejected as falsa demonstration and their Lordships' attention has not been called to, nor are they aware of, any provision of Ottoman law to the contrary effect. On these grounds they hold that what was granted in 1882 was what was contained by the boundaries as now determined." 13. In M/S Roy and Co. and another v. Smt. Nani Bala Dey and others, AIR 1979 Calcutta 50, while dealing with such a situation, it was held as under : "6. Reference may be made to the cases of Gossain Das in 1913(18) Cal LJ 541 : 59 Cal LJ 532 at p.534 : AIR 1934 Calcutta 851 at p.852 and 52 Cal WN 719 at p.722 : AIR 1948 PC 207 at p.209 to show that in case of conflict between the area and the boundary, the description of the boundary will prevail. It will be pertinent to point out that the Bench decision of our Court in 1909 (10) Cal LJ 570 was set aside by the Judicial Committee in the case in 1913(40) Ind App 223 (PC) on a different point and not on the question of conflict between the area and the boundary. So this branch of the appellant's arguments is not accepted." 14. In P. Udayani Devi v. V.V. Rajeshwara Prasad Rao and another, 1995 (3) Supreme Court Cases 252, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with somewhat similar situation. 15. Submission of Mr. Pathik in the context of Ex.PW-1/A with reference to the valuation Ex. RW-1/A now needs to be noted and dealt with. According to him, before putting the property to sale in accordance with the provisions of the law dealing with the sale of the provisions of the law dealing with the sale of the evacuee properties, Custodian had got the valuation prepared and on its basis the sale of the property was effected. When specifically questioned by the Court as to whether this document forms part of Ex. PW-1/A, he fairly stated in the negative. In addition to this, there is no mention of it is this sale deed. In this view of the matter, no benefit can be derived by the respondents by placing reliance on Ex. RW-1 /A. 16. It may be a document on the file of the respondents without any consequence for being utilised against the appellant. Reason being, it is also not the case of the respondents that when sale was effected vide Ex. PW-1/A in favour of the appellant, there was any nexus between the sale and Ex. RW-1/A. Therefore, to say that only 3571 square yards of land was conveyed vide Ex.PW-1/A as was contended by Shri Pathik, is not correct. 17. At the risk of repetition, it may be observed here that boundaries in this case are certain and the entire estate known as Ellysium Hotel, Shimla bounded between the boundaries noted hereinabove was intended to be conveyed and had been in fact conveyed by the Custodian Department, as an evacuee property, in favour of the appellant. 18. Here another fact that needs to be noted is, that execution of sale deed Ex.PW-1/A is again not disputed. 18. Here another fact that needs to be noted is, that execution of sale deed Ex.PW-1/A is again not disputed. As already noted, what was disputed is the extent of area being not 8355.6 square yards, but only 3571 square yards that was actually conveyed. 19. Another plea to support the case of the respondents urged was, that there is evidence to the effect that below the Circular Road some pillars were there. Thus according to Shri Pathik, boundaries were uncertain and ambiguous. Therefore, findings of the Court below, that the area conveyed was only 3571 square yards and no more called for no interference. As has already been observed hereinabove, what was conveyed was within the above boundaries, which are clear and unambiguous, therefore, both the submissions urged to the contrary on behalf of the respondents are without any merit and are liable to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. 20. Shri Pathik, by referring to the order of review of mutation dated 16.11.1993 whereby area in favour of the appellant was reduced from 8355.6 square yards to 3571 square yards, submitted that the amount awarded deserves to be upheld on this ground also. It is by now well known and well settled that mutation neither confers nor extinguishes and nor in law can create either of these two situations. Reason being, that purpose of mutation is to be get the revenue record up dated with a view to ascertain as to who is liable for the payment of the Government taxes, rates and cesses. Document of title will be a proper conveyance deed, which in the present case is admittedly Ex.PW-1/A. Though according to Shri Pathik, it conveyed only 3571 square yards and nothing more. On the other hand, while disputing this order dated 16.11.1993 whereby original mutation vide Ex.PW-7/A was reviewed, Mr. Sharma pointed that it is of no consequence and as such no benefit can be derived on behalf of the respondents from this document. What was observed, by the Supreme Court regarding revenue entries in jamabandi in this behalf in Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and others, 1993 (4) . Supreme Court Cases 403, is extracted hereinbelow : "The sole entry on which the appellate Court placed implicit reliance is by the Patwari in Jamabandi. It is settled law that the Jamabandi. What was observed, by the Supreme Court regarding revenue entries in jamabandi in this behalf in Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh and others, 1993 (4) . Supreme Court Cases 403, is extracted hereinbelow : "The sole entry on which the appellate Court placed implicit reliance is by the Patwari in Jamabandi. It is settled law that the Jamabandi. It is settled law that the Jamabandi entries are only for fiscal purpose and they create no title. It is not the case that the appellant had any knowledge and acquiesced to it. Therefore, it is a classic instance of fabrication of false entries made by the Patwari, contrary to the contract made by the parties, though oral. The first respondent admitted that he received no rent from the appellant. Thus it is clear that the plea of the first respondent that the appellant was his lessee at will is a false one. It is not his case that for the loss suffered by the appellant, the respondent had compensated him by paying the price of that land. It is, therefore, too credulous to believe that he let the appellant in possession of the plaint scheduled property as a tenant-at-will, and it is a deliberate, desperate and false plea set up by him. Thus the decree of the appellate Court is perverse, apart from being manifestly illegal. It and the High Court decree are accordingly set aside." 21. In the context of the mutation, there is positive evidence produced by the appellant that no notice was received when the mutation was reviewed after the property had been mutated in favour of the appellant. In this behalf, when a reference is made to the cross examination of P.W-15, there is no suggestion to the contrary put to this witness. In the entire oral evidence produced by the respondents, there is nothing to suggest directly or even remotely that before reviewing mutation in question, (i.e. of 19.1.87), any notice had in fact actually been served upon the appellant. Rather RW-7 Ram Singh, Patwari, when cross examined on this aspect had stated that no notice was available on the record which may have been sent to Sanatan Dharam Sabha regarding review in question. He further stated that he cannot say if there was no representative of the Satnam Sanatan Dharam Sabha present at the time of review. Rather RW-7 Ram Singh, Patwari, when cross examined on this aspect had stated that no notice was available on the record which may have been sent to Sanatan Dharam Sabha regarding review in question. He further stated that he cannot say if there was no representative of the Satnam Sanatan Dharam Sabha present at the time of review. He admitted the suggestion to the effect that it was also correct that there are no signatures of any representative of the appellant in the review order. But hastened to add that it was not the practice. He also admitted that the review order was passed after the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and there was no application of Rehabilitation Department in that behalf. This is in addition to the fact, that mutation by itself will not confer and or extinquish title. In the face of this position, order dated 16.11.1993, reviewing the mutation No. 1604 dated 19.1.1987 is of no consequence and does not advance the case of the respondents for upholding the plea that area conveyed vide Ex.PW-1/A was only 3571 square yards and not 8355.6 square yards. 22. What falls from this is, that appellant is held entitled to payment of entire compensation in respect of the total area of 8355.6 square yards, instead of 3571 square yards as held by the Court below and to this extent, the impugned award deserves to be modified. Ordered accordingly. 23. So far question of enhancement of compensation for the acquired land is concerned, emphasis was laid by Shri Sharma on the following documents: Sr. No. Exhibit Area & Location Rate 1. Ex.PW-7/A Sale deed in respect of land measuring 295, sq-yards, situated at Fingask in the year 1981, Rs. 51625/- or say Rs. 175/- per seuare yard. 2. Ex.PW-8/A Award dated 29.6.92 by District Judge (F), shimla yard. for 72.2 yards situate in Jakhu area, of Shimla, Rs. 400/- per square yard. 3. Ex.PW- Sale deed dated 16.5.1985,whereby 224 sq. yard of area was sold Rs. 1 lakh or say Rs. 446.83 per square yard square yard. 4. Ex.PW-12/A Sale deed whereby 248 square yards of land was sold near the Ridge Shimla @ Rs. 342/74 sq.yards on 29.7.1977. 24. Thus according to Mr. 400/- per square yard. 3. Ex.PW- Sale deed dated 16.5.1985,whereby 224 sq. yard of area was sold Rs. 1 lakh or say Rs. 446.83 per square yard square yard. 4. Ex.PW-12/A Sale deed whereby 248 square yards of land was sold near the Ridge Shimla @ Rs. 342/74 sq.yards on 29.7.1977. 24. Thus according to Mr. Sharma, taking into account the topography, location, further development potential of the entire area of 8355.6 square yards, which did not require any development whatsoever, minimum price for the total area needs to be assessed at least @ Rs. 400/- per square yards. On the other hand, according to Shri Pathik, whatever was claimed by the appellant on the basis of these sale deeds, has been awarded of course after allowing reasonable deductions, Court below has rightly assessed the market value of the land while assessing compensation at Rs. 250/- per square yards, which also calls for no interference. By placing reliance on two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he urged that the impugned award needs to be upheld. 25. It is a fact that three sale instances and one award relied upon by the appellant are of very small areas as compared to the land under acquisition. Therefore, the question that arises is as to how to determine the market price in such a situations ? One principle for assessing compensation in such a situation can be based on the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price thereof. Market value is generally demonstrated by the fact that when a willing seller offers the same, price in open market without being influenced by special requirement of an intending purchaser. It is also by now well settled that compensation cannot generally be fixed with mathematical precision. Element guess work has always to be there. Situation of the acquired land, its potential for being developed in time to come, coupled with its location and topography, are some of the illustrative and relevant circumstances which have bearing and are also to be taken note of while determining its market value. Other relevant factors are its proximity, frontage and regular shape to road. Whereas largeness of area is its disadvantage. Purpose of acquisition is another relevant factor while assessing its market value. 26. Here the question arises whether any deductions are to be allowed after taking note of the aforesaid four documents or not ? Other relevant factors are its proximity, frontage and regular shape to road. Whereas largeness of area is its disadvantage. Purpose of acquisition is another relevant factor while assessing its market value. 26. Here the question arises whether any deductions are to be allowed after taking note of the aforesaid four documents or not ? In this behalf, Shri Pathik laid great emphasis on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi and others, 2004 (2) Cur. L.J. (H.P.) S.C.80; as also another decision in Hasanali Khanbhai and sons others v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (5) Supreme Court Cases 422 and K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer LAO, 1995 (5) Supreme Court Cases 426. Thus he urged that in fact appellant has been over paid by the Court below. State is admittedly not aggrieved from the impugned award, thus, he prayed for upholding the same. 27. As already noted that the property under acquisition had great potential of its being developed, it is. situate on the Circular Road on three sides and on one side it is butted by Auckland House Estate which is a premier institution of Shimla. Therefore, to my mind allowing deductions was not called for in the facts and circumstance of this case. By taking mean of all the four sale instances, it is felt that instead of Rs. 250/- per square yards, appellant is entitled to Rs. 360/- per square yards for the entire area of 8355.6 square yards. Consequently, award in this behalf also needs to be modified, and it is ordered accordingly. 28. So far compensation in respect of built up structure and other buildings, as well as trees etc. standing over the land in question is concerned, on the basis of the evidence on record, I find that the judgment of the Court below calls for no interference and plea to the contrary urged by Mr. Sharma, being without merit, is liable to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. 29. No other point is urged. 30. standing over the land in question is concerned, on the basis of the evidence on record, I find that the judgment of the Court below calls for no interference and plea to the contrary urged by Mr. Sharma, being without merit, is liable to be rejected. Ordered accordingly. 29. No other point is urged. 30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while partly allowing this appeal, it is held as under : (a) that the appellant is held entitled for payment of compensation in respect of the entire area of 8355.6 square yards, instead of 3571 square yards, as has been held in the impugned award of the Court below; (b) that for the entire area of 8355.6 square yards, appellant is entitled to payment of compensation @ Rs. 360/- per square yard, instead of Rs. 250/- per square yard awarded by the Court below; (c) on (a) and (b) above, appellant will be entitled to solatium @ 30%; (d) on the compensation as assessed at (a) to (c) above, appellant is further held entitled to payment of interest in accordance with the provisions of the Act; and (e) While partly modifying the award of the learned District Judge, Shimla in Land Reference Case No. 26-S/4 of 1989, dated 5.12.1996, it is further ordered that any amount paid to/received by the appellant, pursuant to the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and/or of the Court below, the same shall be deducted and Land Acquisition Collector is now directed to file calculations in terms of this judgment in the Registry of this Court by or before 31.8.2005 and within next two months, respondents are directed to deposit the amount in the Registry of this Court with up-to date interest, if any, for its being paid to the appellant. 31. Parties are left to bear their own costs.