JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. : Heard the Standing Counsel for the State and Shri Sarvesh Agrawal, counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present appeal field under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24.5.1985 passed by the Special Judge, (A.D.J.), Nainital. 3. Briefly stated, a reference was made by the claimants stating therein that the Government of U.P. acquired 3.39 acres of land situate at village Ujjain, Kasipur, District Nainital for the Central Warehousing Corporation. Notifications under Section 4(1) and 6(1) of the Act were issued on 22.4.1975 and• 20.7.1976 respectively and the possession of the land was taken 0n 14.8.1976. The acquired land included the following land belonging to the claimants: (a) Khasra no. 448 area 1.93 acres. (b) Khasra no. 449 area 0.20 acres and (c) Khasra no. 450 area 0.20 acres. It has also been submitted that at the time of acquisition, 120 chabutras, each measuring 30' x 20' and 9" high, boundary wall, two office rooms, one hand pipe, latrine, bathroom, one culvert and roads having a total value of about Rs.1,00,000/- were in existence and all these constructions were in the tenancy of the Food Corporation of India on a monthly rental of Rs. 5,400/-. It has been alleged that the Land Acquisition Officer has erred in not allowing Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the existing constructions and the value of the land was under assessed. 4. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Collector, Nainital and the claim of the applicant was contested on the grounds that the constructions were not worth Rs. 1,00,000/- and they were old and damaged. The Chabutras were 73 in numbers and after due consideration of all the points adequate compensation has been awarded. 5. The Special Judge (A.D.J.), Nainital has framed two issues for consideration, which are quoted below 1. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is inadequate? If so, to what amount of compensation are the claimants entitled? 2. To what relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled? 6. While deciding the issue no. 1, a finding has been recorded to the following effect : "the compensation awarded to the applicant; is inadequate and they are entitled to recover Rs. 1,50,723/- as compensation for the land acquired and Rs. 2. To what relief, if any, are the petitioners entitled? 6. While deciding the issue no. 1, a finding has been recorded to the following effect : "the compensation awarded to the applicant; is inadequate and they are entitled to recover Rs. 1,50,723/- as compensation for the land acquired and Rs. 3,672/- as compensation for the constructions, chabutras, handpump and the boring existing on this land. Thus, they are entitled to a total amount of Rs. 1,54,395/from the Opp. Party. They are also entitled to recover interest on this amount @ 6% per annum from the date of their dispossession and also the cost of the reference." 7. While deciding issue no. 2, the Special Judge (A.D.J.), Nainital has recorded a finding that the reference of the applicants deserves to be partly allowed and the award was modified, as mentioned above, in respect of the amount of compensation. While modifying the award, he has taken into account the statement of Sri Keshav Saran (P.W. 2) who has stated that though this land is agricultural but it was being used for commercial purposes and had been let out to the Food Corporation of India at a monthly rent of Rs.5,400/- since two years prior to the acquisition. The annual rent of this property was Rs.64,800/- and Sri Uttam Kumar (P.W.1) has also corroborated his statement. It has also been stated by Sri Keshav Saran on oath that the disputed land adjoins the Municipal boundary of Kashipur and is situate on the main Kashipur-Bazar road. Towards West of this land is the Match Factory and towards East there is Gauraiya Gatta Factory and Chaumunda Rice Mill. There is a road on the other side of this land also. The main road is towards South and towards further South residential houses are under construction. Industries are being set up in the neighbourhood and there is also a petrol pump. The existence of the Gatta Factory and the Match Factory is even admitted to Sri D. V. Singh (D.W.2), Asstt. Engineer, P.W.D., Kashipur. Thus, this land has a potential value as a commercial or industrial site. It is in proximity of the residential houses and industrial units and there are very possibility of future expansion. The existence of the Gatta Factory and the Match Factory is even admitted to Sri D. V. Singh (D.W.2), Asstt. Engineer, P.W.D., Kashipur. Thus, this land has a potential value as a commercial or industrial site. It is in proximity of the residential houses and industrial units and there are very possibility of future expansion. These facts are relevant for the purposes of determining the valuation of the land in suit and it can safely be said that the valuation of disputed land as assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer is grossly low and the value could not have been less than Rs. 75,000/- per acre. 8. The reference court has also taken into consideration the 13 sale deeds as per list 44 C out of which sale deeds at serial nos. 47 C, Ext. 2, 48 C, Ext. 3, 49 C., Ext. 4 and 50 C, Ext. 5 dated 15.1.1973, 28.10.1974, 10.2.1975,3.10.1975 and 23.12.1975 respectively relate to the disputed land. The remaining sale deeds relate to the adjoining village Maheshpura. All these sale deeds pertain to the years 1973, 1974 and 1975. The relevant date for the purpose of determination of compensation is 2.4.1975. In view of the above, the reference court has come to the conclusion that at the time of the acquisition of the land in suit, the market value of small plots of land in that area was not less than Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. 9. In view of the above, I find no illegality in the order. Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.