1. Through medium of this appeal, the appellant impugns an order of District Judge, Jammudated 20.03.1995, whereunder the learned Judge while confirming award of compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per kanal plus 4% simple interest in favour of appellant for the land measuring 20 kanals and 14 marlas acquired by Government, rejected the reference made at her behest. 2. It appears that on indent of Revenue Department, land measuring 20 kanals and 14 marlas under survey nos. 100, 122 and 123 situate at village Satwari Jammu was acquired by Government in 1987 from appellant against which a total amount of 11,90,250/- was awarded @ Rs.50,000/- per kanal under Collectors award dated 15th of December, 1990 alongwith simple interest at the rate of 4% p.a. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner while disputing the adequacy of compensation, had the matter referred to learned District Judge Jammu under Section-18, of Land Acquisition Act for determination of due compensation. On notice, concerned Collector adhered to correctness of the rate allowed, and specifically maintained that per kanal rate of the land acquired at the re levant point of time was not more than Rs.50,000/-, nor had the appellant brought anything on record to the contrary. For adjudication, the learned District Judge on 21.10.1991 reduced the controversy into following issues: - "1. Whether the Collector has not correctly assessed the compensation of the land acquired according to the market rate at the time of issuance of notice under Section-6 of the Land Acquisition Act, if so what was the market rate at that time 7O.P.P. 2. Whether the collector has not awarded compensation regarding the crops etc. standing in the land, if so, what is the cost of the procedure ? O.P.P. 3. Relief. O.P.Parties." After recording evidence, the learned District Judge, while, answering the issues, found that there was no evidence to justify any further enhancement in the compensation awarded by Collector, and that, being out of possession the petitioner couldnt claim loss of crops etc. decided both the issues against her, and agreeing with Collector in toto, rejected the Reference. It is this order of reference court that is assailed in this appeal. 3. decided both the issues against her, and agreeing with Collector in toto, rejected the Reference. It is this order of reference court that is assailed in this appeal. 3. Grounds pleaded are that the Land inquestion being situate at Satwari, Jammu, in vicinity of Air Port, and located in a very highly developed area, was not properly assessed by concerned Collector and a lesser rate of compensation was awarded, and that, learned District Judge too, on Reference totally ignored the evidence and materials brought on record by appellant to establish the actual value of acquired land, higher than the one awarded. 4. During course of arguments, appellants counsel, besides reiterating grounds of appeal, has also referred to certain portions of evidence from subordinate file to canvass that land adjoining the acquired land has been purchased/acquired at higher price, and as such, learned District Judge was wrong in agreeing with the quantum of compensation awarded. In rebuttal, learned Additional Advocate General has contended that under facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of compensation allowed in appellants favour for the acquired land is on higher side, and thus, she has no cause to agitate. 5. I have heard learned counsel, gone through the records and considered the matter.Before proceeding ahead, it may be mentioned that the acquired land had admittedly been earlier declared as evacuee property and later restored to the appellant in 1986, meanwhile having been occupied by displaced persons of 1947 for agricultural/residential purposes. Under section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, for determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for acquired land the Reference Court, after receiving a statement of case from Collector, has to consider the market value of the land as on date of publication of the declaration under section-6 of the Act, etc. While doing so, it has to avoid consideration of the degree of urgency involved in acquisitipn or the disinclination of person interested to part with the land, as also any increase in the value thereof, that may occur due to its use to which it is to be put after acquisition etc. Within these parameters only, the actual market value of the acquired land on the relevant date is to be assessed, because instantly increase in compensation has not been claimed on any other ground. 6. Within these parameters only, the actual market value of the acquired land on the relevant date is to be assessed, because instantly increase in compensation has not been claimed on any other ground. 6. Records of acquisition reveal that proceedings started with a letter purporting to have been written by under Secretary of Rev. Department to District Development Commissioner Jammu asking him to process appellants case for assessment of compensation in respect of the land restored to her, and under occupation of displaced persons of 1947, whereafter, the requisite notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued as Notification no.1 dated 10th of August 1987, followed by declaration under Sections 6 thereof under Revenue Departments number 141 of 2nd November, 1987. After that, notices under sections-9 and 9-A of the Act were issued to appellant, who on basis of certain materials including certified copy of a registered sale-deed, copy of Government order no.UV-139/GR/86 dated29.08.1986 as modified by order number 219-UD dated 19.12.1986 and copy of an award purported to have been passed by Additional District Judge, Jammu, on 31.07.1986, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2.50 lacs per kanal. 7. Copy of the sale-deed, aforesaid, purports to witness sale of around a marla of land from under survey no. 184-min situate at Satwari by one Indu Kumari in favour of Chaman Lal on 6.5.1987 for Rs.6,000/- which roughly means Rs. 1.80 lacs per kanal. Under Government order no. 139/GR of 1986 above mentioned, an amount of Rs.50,000/- per kanal appears to have been fixed as premium for a forty year lease of 10 kanals land situate at Roop Nagar, Jammu and, allotted to Telecommunications Department, later enhanced to Rs. Two lac per kanal by the subsequent order no. 219-UD of 1986. The third document, purports to be an award passed by Additional District Judge, Jammu in a reference under section-18 of Land Acquisition Act in respect of land measuring 21 kanals and 14 marlas under survey number 40 of Narwal Payeen reportedly located adjacent to the land under reference, whereunder, compensation has been assessed @ Rs.80,000/- per kanal, as in 1983. These documents, however, do not appear to have impressed the Collector, who finally awarded compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per kanal, despite concerned Tehsildars report that per kanal value of land was Rs.1/-lac. 8. These documents, however, do not appear to have impressed the Collector, who finally awarded compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per kanal, despite concerned Tehsildars report that per kanal value of land was Rs.1/-lac. 8. The aforesaid materials are also part of materials brought on reference file in addition to oral evidence of concerned patwari and other revenue officials. While considering import of the sale deed above mentioned, the reference court ignored it on the ground that area sold thereunder being very small, perhaps purchased for commercial purpose, the value given could not determine the sale value for larger chunks of land like the one acquired. Similarly not impressed by Additional District Judges assessment of market value of the land similar to the land presently acquired, at Rs.80,000/- per kanal, the reference court refused to accept that, and not convinced by depositions of concerned patwari and other revenue officials who testified before him and put the market value of acquired land at Rs. One lac per kanal, the learned District Judge observed that they could not furnish any cogent ground for saying so, and assuming that the sale-price stated by them referred to the time of their depositions i.e 1994, opined that it could not be taken to be sale value in the year 1987, when the land was actually acquired. 9. Ex-facie, the learned Judge of the reference court does not appear to have taken a pragmatic and positive view of the evidence summarized above, and has dis-credited witnesses and materials covering different aspects of the matter, on all the available premises some of them quite for fetched, which does not appear to be wholly in keeping with the accepted standard of proof in civil matters. For instance, while refusing to accept the sale deed aforementioned as an indicator of the value of acquired land per kanal, the learned Judge opined that value for one marla of land could not determine the rate per kanal for big areas. In that much perhaps, he was right, but then per kanal price indicated (Rs.1.80 lac) thereby could perhaps not be slashed down by nearly ¾ th for the acquired land, without any evidence to suggest that one marla of land sold thereunder was purchased under any compelling circumstance or such a special reason as would persuade the buyer to buy it at four times the genuine price. In addition to that the referral award of Additional District Judge, Jammu whereunder compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs.80,000/- per kanal for the land acquired from same vicinity in 1983, was allowed could not have been discarded so easily. No doubt, the District Judge was within his rights to disagree with the Additional District Judges findings, but their persuasive evidentiary value, especially in combination with other supporting materials on record, could not have been casually over looked. Similarly, the rate of acquired land at Rs. One lac and above per kanal as gatherable from statements of patwari and other revenue officials could not, without their saying so be assumed to have been mentioned by them as the rate in 1994, particularly when they had been specifically questioned regarding rate per kanal in 1987. Being professional revenue officials, they must have been quite conscious of what they were talking about, and against their expressed depositions such surmise was perhaps not permissible. 10. From what has been discussed above, it transpires that materials and evidence on record, though not quite uniform in suggesting the exact enhancement required, perhaps certainly indicate the insufficiency of the market value fixed for acquired land at Rs.50,000/- per kanal, because preponderance of all the combined features of evidence loudly suggest inadequacy of the award. In given facts of the matter, and all the proved circumstances, which include records showing value of adjoining lands in one case sold under aforesaid sale deed at Rs. 1.80 lac per kanal, and in the other, assessed by Additional District Judge as Rs. 80,000/- per kanal, three years before present land was acquired, the un-rebut-ted depositions of revenue officials giving value of the land as Rs.l/- lac and above, per kanal; without any contrary testimony or record , the value of the acquired land in 1987 appears to have been Rs.One lac per kanal; and the appellant would have been entitled to compensation at that rate, but for the fact that despite technical restoration of the acquired land she was out of possession throughout, as the land even though restored was under physical occupation of the displaced persons of 1947 over which she acquired the right of possession only after restoration which suggests suitable slashing of the rate, otherwise awardable, which, in over all circumstances of the case, I feel, has to be cut by one third of the total. Accordingly the rate of Rs.65,000/- per kanal appears to be the just and reasonable rate at which the compensation is required to be assessed. 11. Next comes the question of solatium and interest payable. It may be recalled that while interest in the instant case has been awarded at four percent only, no solatium has at all been ordered. Grant of 4 percent interest has been justified by respondents counsel on the count that the acquired land having been evacuee property restored to appellant, acquisition thereof was covered by Evacuee (Administration of Property) Act 2006, u/s 14-B whereof, simple interest @ 4 percent per annum only is permissible on the amount of compensation. Acquisition of the land under evacuee Property Act is admitted, even though another view that it was direct under Land Acquisition Act is possible, but that is nobodys case. However, regarding omission to allow solatium, acquisition under Evacuee Act would make no difference, for the reason, that under Sub Clause (3) of S. 14-B, certain provisions of Land Acquisition Act including S. 23 whereun-der payment of solatium is provided are applicable to acquisitions thereunder also. Both the sections may be quoted. "S.14-B(EvacueeAct) [14-B. Compensation for the land acquired under section 14-A.-(1) Whenever a notification is made under section 14-A there shall be paid to the rightful claimant compensation and simple interest thereon at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of issue of notification till the date of payment. (2) For purposes of determination of compensation and interest thereon the provisions of sections9, 9-A,l 1,12,18,23,24 and 31 of the State Land Acquisition Act, Samvat 1990, shall apply. S.23 (Land Acquisition Act)" 23.- Matters to be considered in determining compensation.-(l) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the court shall take into consideration-...... ..Sub section (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the court shall in every case award a sum of fifteen percent on such market value in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition." Thus while interest beyond 4% could not be allowed, award of solatium could not be denied; and thus the omission of reference court not to order the same appears to be bad. 12. 12. In totality therefore, for what has been discussed above, the appeal is partially allowed and the impugned order modified to the extent that appellant shall be paid compensation for acquired land at the rate of Rs.65000/-per kanal, minus the amount already received by her, with 4% interest on the excess amount, from the date it was allowed or paid by reference court; and solatium at the rate of 15% of the total amount of compensation. 13. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Registry may follow up.