Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Instant special has been filed by non-claimants against order dated 31.07.1998 passed by learned Single Judge in misc. appeal, whereby compensation awarded to claimant (respondent) to a sum of Rs. One Lac per bigha has been enhanced to Rs. 1.5 lacs per bigha alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till actual payment. 2. Facts relevant to examine the controversy, in brief , are that in pursuance to Notification issued Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act"), acquisition proceedings were initiated by State Government to acquire approx. 500 bighas of land in village Sitapura, Sukhpura and Mharajpura alias Chatarwala in Sanganer Tehsil Jaipur district for Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation (appellant). 3. The land of claimant (respondent) was in village Maharajpura, that to the extent of his half share out of total 18 bighas 1 biswa of Khasra Nos. 136, 137; 139 to 148, 150, 242, 143/401, which was also a part of acquisition under aforesaid Notification dated 04.02.1991. 4. The land was finally acquired by State Government for the appellant and for the purposes of grant of compensation, a Committee was constituted to examine market value of acquired land after taking all other incidental factors into consideration, which are relevant for determination of compensation to be awarded under the Act. The Committee called upon concerned Government authorities and land holders (claimants) and after deliberations, determined compensation at Rs. 1.5 Lacs per bigha for land acquired in villages Sitapura and Sukhpura as one time offer without any interest, while Rs. One lac per bigha for village Maharajpura. 5. After considering all factors as proved under Section 23 of the Act and after amicable settlement arrived between the parties so far it relates to grant of compensation, Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award on 26.08.1991, and determined the compensation (Supra) to which all land holders (claimants) extent respondent, had agreed and accepted. 6. It is to be mentioned at this stage that respondent herein purchased his half share of land measuring 9 bighas of land in village Maharajpura @ Rs. 11,000/-per bigha in January, 1991, itself and notification for acquisition of land in question under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 04.02.1991. It has come on record that he paid total sale consideration of Rs. 11,000/-per bigha in January, 1991, itself and notification for acquisition of land in question under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 04.02.1991. It has come on record that he paid total sale consideration of Rs. One lac towards 9 bighas of land purchased in village Maharajpura, which was acquired pursuant to Notification dated 04.02.1991. 7. However, claimant respondent being dissatisfied with Award dated 26.08.1991 moved an application for making a Reference under Section 18 of the Act, which was rejected by Reference Court (Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur) vide order dated 29.09.1995, against which respondent (claimant) preferred Misc. Appeal before learned Single Judge under Section 54 of the Act. Learned Single Judge allowed the appeal vide Judgment dated 31.07.1998 holding claimant (respondent) being entitled to the compensation of his share of land @ Rs. 1.5 Lacs per bigha on the same terms and conditions as awarded to other claimants of his adjoining land having common boundary of village Sitapura and Sukhpura and thus enhanced compensation awarded together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of award till actual payment. 8. Learned Single Judge allowed the appeal primarily on the ground after holding that he was not party to the settlement and no written document has been placed on record, which shows that claimant (respondent) ever agreed to the compensation awarded under settlement @ Rs. one lac per bigha. After recording such finding, learned Single Judge proceeded to hold that claimant (respondent) is entitled to equal treatment towards payment of compensation as awarded to land holders of adjoining villages Sitapura and Sukhpura, which was based on market value determined by the Committee and carried out by Land Acquisition Officer, in its Award dated 26.08.1991. 9. Shri Ajeet Sharma, Counsel for appellant, has urged that not even the appellant but all land holders were called upon and after taking their suggestions and all other ancillary factors into consideration, with consensus determined value of acquired land and except respondent claimant, all have accepted their compensation in terms of Award dated 26.08.1991, and merely because there was no written consent obtained from respondent, it cannot rule out value of the land determined after amicable settlement among the parties, and, therefore, a finding recorded by learned Single Judge in this regard is not legally sustainable. 10. 10. Shri Sharma has further urged that there cannot be a best prudent purchaser than that of claimant (respondent) in respect of land in question, for which he has paid a sum of Rs. 11,000/-per bigha and a total sum of Rs. One lac in January, 1991 whereas the Committee arrived at settlement for same land in question after a period of less than a month on a value at Rs. One lac per bigha, which is almost ten times more then what he had actually paid towards purchase price of the land in question in January, 1991. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon decision of Apex Court in Basant Kumar vs. Union of India, 1996 (11) SCC 542 . 11. Shri Sharma further urged that the land situated in villages Sitapura and Sukpura are at a distance of 20-30 mtr. far from Nation Highway, whereas land of village Maharajpura is abutting railway line, which causes disturbance and nuisance to the inhabitants; and all such factors with regard to nature and quality of land pertaining to its fertility, irrigation and potentiality were also considered by the Committee in arriving at amicable settlement for determining compensation, which was accepted by all the claimants except respondent claimant which indeed share a value of the land assessed by the Committee and merely in the absence of any written consent, the settlement which has arrived at for the adjoining land of villages Sitapura and Sukhpura value of which was assessed at Rs. 1.5 Lacs, cannot be made binding upon appellant to give the same treatment who had not given their consent and it is otherwise not tenable because, what has been determined by Committee on amicable settlement made by parties can not be considered as a true market value of land and the finding recorded by learned Single Judge is not legally sustainable. 12. Per contra, Shri R.K. Agrawal, Counsel for respondent claimant has supported order of learned Single Judge and urged that there was not written consent ever submitted by respondent and amount of compensation was accepted under protest and once market value of land adjoining to land in question has been assessed at Rs. 12. Per contra, Shri R.K. Agrawal, Counsel for respondent claimant has supported order of learned Single Judge and urged that there was not written consent ever submitted by respondent and amount of compensation was accepted under protest and once market value of land adjoining to land in question has been assessed at Rs. 1.5 Lacs per bigha, no different treatment could be extended or adopted so far as it relates to land in question by Land Acquisition Officer and the learned Single Judge has rightly considered this aspect of matter in details and arrived at a finding which does not require any interference by this Court. 13. Shri Agrawal further urged that the land acquired pursuant to Notification dated 04.02.1991 is falling in Tehsil Sanganer and is within jurisdiction of Jaipur Development Authority and merely because land of Maharajpura was abutting to Railway line and interior side of main road/Highway being 100 ft. and while land of Sitapura & Sukhpura are at a distance of 20-30 meters away from National Highway, two different standards could not have been adopted while determining market value particularly in circumstance, when land has been acquired under the same Notification under Section 4 of the Act. 14. It was further contended by Shri Agrawal that mere purchase of land by respondent a month before date (04.02.1991) of acquisition notification in no manner can be considered to be significant to determine true market value of prudent and willing purchaser. 15. In support of his contention, Shri Agrawal has placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Land Acquisition Officer, Revene Divisional Officer vs. L. Kamalamma, 1998 (2) SCC 385 ; Chander Bhan vs. Union of India, 1998 (8) SCC 179 and Mahavir Prasad Santuka vs. Collector, Cuttack, 1987 (1) SCC 587 . 16. We have considered rival contentions of the parties and with their assistance, perused the material on record. 17. The facts which remained undisputed on record are that settlement. Committee was constituted by State Government for assessing market value of acquired land pursuant to Notification dated 04.02.1991 under Section 4 of the Act; and the Committee, after calling upon the State authorities as well as land holders and after taking all other ancillary factors into consideration so also upon consensus of land holders, determined compensation @ Rs. 1.5 lacs per bigha for the land in villages Sitapura and Sukhpura while Rs. 1.5 lacs per bigha for the land in villages Sitapura and Sukhpura while Rs. one lac for land in village Maharajpura. No doubt, there was no written consent of respondent on record - in the absence of which, value of the land assessed by the Committee cannot be held binding upon respondent (claimant), even if he has accepted compensation awarded either under protest or not, which in no manner will deprive him of his right of making Reference under Section 18 of the Act. Be that as it may, amicable settlement arrived at by the Committee, is of binding effect inter se among the parties, and if the respondent was not a party to settlement in regard to value of land assessed, in our considered opinion, the same cannot be held binding upon him and as a consequence whereof, he is not entitled to claim the value of land determined for village Sitapura and Sukhpura acquired by the State Government, and it was not a case of adopting two different standards with respect to land in dispute acquired by the State Government and the respondent, who was not party to the settlement (Supra), the standard, which has been adopted for arriving at amicable settlement with regard to land acquired of village Sitapura and Sukhpura, in no manner can be considered to be market value determined under Section 23 of the Act in respect of land acquired in village Maharajpura. 18. No material was placed by respondent claimant either before Land Acquisition Officer or at appellate stage, to independently determine market value of land, except few sale deeds and document which were with regard to the land purchased by Indian Oil Corporation or some other Government agency, but all were related to the period posterior to the date of notification issued by State Government which could not be made to be a basis for determination of market value of the land acquired and such material has rightly been rejected by learned Single Judge. 19. 19. It is well settled that holder of acquired land is entitled to compensation on the basis of market value determined under Section 23 of the Act, which in instant case was done by the Committee on the basis of amicable settlement where number of ancillary factors are to be taken into consideration and to avoid further litigation as well, and that in no manner can be construed to be a market value which is to be determined under Section 23 of the Act. While determining true market value, one has to judge as willing prudent purchaser in an open market to see, whether same amount if offered by him as purchaser is acceptable or not? 20. Considerations, which are to be taken note of to asses market value under Section 23 have been considered by Apex Court in Basant Kumar vs. Union of India (Supra). The Apex Court observed that the Judge determining the compensation under Section 23 (1) should sit in the armchair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e., land possessing all advantageous features and to the same extent; and this test should always be kept in view and answered affirmatively, taking into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. 21. In Mahavir Prasad Santuka vs. Collector, Cuttack (Supra), the Apex Court held that owner of the acquired land is entitled to compensation on the basis of its market value and it means, what a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having regard to the advantages available to the land the development activities which may be going on in the vicinity and the potentiality of the land. 22. In the instant case, there cannot be better and prudent purchaser, other than respondent claimant, himself , who had purchased 9 bighas of land in question in January, 91 for total consideration of Rs. One lac only @ Rs. 11,000/-per bigha, which as per his own statement was the true market value assessed by him and on 04.02.1991 when acquisition notification was issued, the Committee on amicable settlement considered to asses value of same land at Rs. One lac only @ Rs. 11,000/-per bigha, which as per his own statement was the true market value assessed by him and on 04.02.1991 when acquisition notification was issued, the Committee on amicable settlement considered to asses value of same land at Rs. One lac per bigha which is almost ten times of what was paid by respondent claimant as prudent purchaser to the willing seller of the land in dispute, in our considered opinion, even if amicable settlement is ignored, what has been determined as value of the land in question, keeping in view that was paid by respondent claimant as prudent purchaser only one month prior to the date of acquisition notification, be considered to be a optimum market value of land assessed and we find no infirmity in the decision taken by the Committee. 23. Mahabir Pd. Santuka vs. Collector Cuttacks case (Supra), on which Shri Agrawal has placed reliance, is distinguishable and does not render any assistance to the respondent for the reasons that land was purchased by appellant therein in the year 1956 and Notification of acquisition whereof was issued on 02.02.1967, and the land was sold to industrialist at concessional rates, which was not considered to be a willing purchase price, and rightly so, since market price is that which a purchaser is willing to pay for the similar land to a willing seller, and an offer of sale of land to industrialists on concessional rate with a view to induce them to set up their industries in particular area do not reflect prevailing market value of the land as the industrialists are not the willing purchasers. 24. But, in instant case, the land was purchased by respondent (claimant) in January, 1991 and acquisition Notification was issued on 04.02.1991, after a month letter, therefore, there cannot be a better evidence on record that of claimant himself for the land in question has, himself , assessed market value of land in question a month before acquisition. That apart, there was no documentary evidence of a date anterior to the acquisition notification, pleased on record to independently justify market value of land acquired of respondent claimant - in the absence of which taking an over-all view of mater, the decision taken by the Committee, accepted by all claimants except respondent, can be considered to be true market value of land acquired of village Maharajpur. 25. 25. So far as the decision in L.A.O.R.D.O. Chittor vs. L. Kamalamma (Supra), is concerned, it renders no assistance to the respondent. Value of land acquired was determined by Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of market value assessed after taking into consideration evidence led on record by either of the parties under Section 23 of the Act and while taking such decision, different standards were fixed while making distinction with respect to land which was abutting main road or was on interior side. However, in present case, value of the land was determined not on the basis of market value of land but it was amicable settlement between the parties where ancillary considerations were also taken note of while determining value of the land and that apart, in instant case, land acquired was in different villages, and of village Maharajpura, it was abutting railway line, while that of Sitarampura and Sukhpura was at a distance of 20-30 ft from National Highway, it certainly makes different considerations in the context of determination. 26. In Chander Bhan vs. Union of India (Supra) finding was recorded that land of appellant therein is similarly situated and as such uniform standard should have been adopted for determination of compensation. But, in instant case, there is no finding of Courts below that the land acquired of village Maharajpura is similarly situated qua that of Sitapura and Sukhpura. Hence this cited decision does not render any assistance to the respondent. 27. Lastly Shri Agrawal made a feeble attempt to show that original khatedars of land in question were members of Scheduled Tribe and respondent claimant is also member of Scheduled Tribe and as per provisions of Section 42 of the Act, land pertaining to members of Scheduled Caste/Tribe can not be transferred, sold or alienated to other than SC/ST persons, as such what has been paid by him can not be considered to be a true market value of the land acquired. We find no substance in this contention. There is nothing on record to show in this regard and neither there is any pleading nor the same has been examined by Courts below, in the absence of which, question of fact cannot be examined by this Court at appellate stage. 28. Consequently, this special appeal is allowed. We find no substance in this contention. There is nothing on record to show in this regard and neither there is any pleading nor the same has been examined by Courts below, in the absence of which, question of fact cannot be examined by this Court at appellate stage. 28. Consequently, this special appeal is allowed. The order dated 31.07.1998 of learned Single Judge is set aside and we uphold the Judgment dated 29.09.1995 passed by Reference Court. No order as to costs.