JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. This appeal filed by the State through the Special Land Acquisition Officer is directed against the order dated 31.7.1998 and its corresponding award dated 15.9.1998 passed in 24 Land Acquisition Cases commencing from Case No. 3 of 1994 to 26 of 1994 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Special Judge, whereby the Court below had enhanced the compensation amount assessed by the Collector payable for the lands of the appellants acquired by the State Government. 2. The case relates to the acquisition of land in different plots, each comprising of different areas, total measuring 19.53 acres under Khata No. 142 situated within. Village Tisra Pokhara in the district of Palamau belonging to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The Notification No. 4 under the Land Acquisition Act was published on 15.12.1992. Almost four years prior to the date of Notification, the possession of the land was taken by the Land Acquisition Officer on 5.9.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer on 13.6.1993 made spot inspection of the lands. It was observed that the entire area acquired, measuring 19.53 acres was a compact block of land though fragments thereof were recorded under different plot numbers and* the entire land was found levelled reportedly by the Rehabilitation Department of the Government by the use of Bulldozers in the year 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer classified the entire lands under five different categories, namely, Dhani I lands, Dhani H lands, Dhani III lands and Tanr II lands and Tanr III lands and nala. Notices under Section 6 of the Act followed by notices under Section 9 of the Act was issued. The Land Acquisition Officer obtained rate chart and sale rate report from the local Sub-Registry Office and on the basis of such chart, he fixed the payable compensation for each category of the lands classified by him and recorded his award assessing a total sum of Rs. 25,09785/-as payable compensation. However, though the entire area of land acquired, was a compact piece of land belonging to one and the same person yet the Land Acquisition Officer had prepared 24 different awards (bleach of the classified categories on 11.3.1994 Le. After more than six years of the dispossession of the claimant. 25,09785/-as payable compensation. However, though the entire area of land acquired, was a compact piece of land belonging to one and the same person yet the Land Acquisition Officer had prepared 24 different awards (bleach of the classified categories on 11.3.1994 Le. After more than six years of the dispossession of the claimant. The claimant filed his objection stating that the amount of compensation awarded was too low and not commensurate with the market value of the acquired lands and had sought reference of his case to the District Judge for adjudication. On receipt of the objection, the Land Acquisition Officer referred the case for adjudication to the District Judge, which was eventually received in the Court of the Special Judge, Land Acquisition. In course of the proceedings before the Special Judge, both parties had adduced, their respective evidences in support of their claims of the market value of the land. 3. The Land Acquisition Judge after hearing the parties and considering the evidences on record, enhanced the market value of the lands to Rs. 37,087/- per acre taking into consideration the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the Dhani III lands. The respondents had earlier received the amount of compensation of Rs. 25, 38, 519.20 Paise under protest which v/as the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer but the amount of interest accrued thereon was not paid to them nor the amount of solitium. The further amount calculated at the enhanced rate, was made payable to the claimant by the order passed by the learned Court below. Aggrieved at the enhancement of the amount of compensation made by the learned Special Judge, the instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the State Government. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. The appellant has assailed the impugned award of compensation of the learned Special Judge on the ground that the enhancement of the amount of compensation as made by the learned Court below was illegal, arbitrary and without any basis and without considering the proper and correct market value of the acquired lands. 5. The appellant has assailed the impugned award of compensation of the learned Special Judge on the ground that the enhancement of the amount of compensation as made by the learned Court below was illegal, arbitrary and without any basis and without considering the proper and correct market value of the acquired lands. Learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Court below has erred in categorising the lands as Dhani II lands without any basis for such categorisation and has also erred in awarding 30 per cent of the solitium on the value and interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the assessed amount besides the award of interest @ 15 per cent per annum under Section 34 of the Act. In addition, a further plea was taken that the reference under Section 18 of the Act was barred by limitation and that since the acquisition was made for the purposes of the Water Resources Development Department, the said Department ought to have been made necessary party in the proceedings. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand in support of the impugned award of the learned Court below submitted that the learned Court below has assigned adequate reasons for assessing the market value of the acquired lands by reference to the rates assessed even by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned Counsel adds further that in view of the admitted fact that more than four years prior to the date of issue of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Government had already taken possession of the lands and, therefore, the claimants was certainly entitled to interest @ 12 per cent per annum market value of the land from the date of taking possession of the land. Learned Counsel explains further that the entire lands were class I agricultural lands situated by the side of the National Highway and, as such, the market value of the lands as it stood on the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act should have been assessed by taking into consideration the nature of the lands as the Class I Agricultural lands. The claimants in their evidence had adduced two sale deeds (Exhibits 2 and 2/A), which were registered prior to the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and the lands transferred by the sale deeds were adjacent to and comparable to the acquired lands, the price obtained for the said lands in the aforesaid two sale deeds by the respective vendors was @ Rs. 2,500/- per decimal and this was the price, which could have accrued to the claimant as value for the acquired lands. 7. Though the appellants in their memorandum of appeal have claimed the point of limitation as one of the issues, but the same has not been pressed by the appellant in course of hearing and neither was the other ground relating to non- joining of the Water Resources department as necessary party, pressed by the appellant. It also appears that neither of the above two grounds was taken by the appellants before the Court below nor has this ground been demonstrated by the appellants. 8. The question for consideration in this appeal is whether the enhancement of the amount of compensation payable to the claimants as made by the learned Court below was in accordance with the guidelines provided under the law and on proper appreciation of the evidences on record as to the market value of the lands acquired, on the date of notification published under Section 4 of the Act. 9. Admittedly, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 15.12.1992 and the Land Acquisition Officer on 11.3.1994 prepared the award although the possession of the lands was taken over by the Government on 5.9.1988. The assessment of the market value of the lands acquired has to be made with reference to the date of publication of the notices under Section 4 of the Act i.e. on 15.12.1992. It is not disputed that within the period stipulated under the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Act, the claimant had filed his objection against the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The reference to the Special Judge for adjudication was made on receipt of the objection from the claimant, whereafter the proceedings before the Special Judge was initiated. The reference to the Special Judge for adjudication was made on receipt of the objection from the claimant, whereafter the proceedings before the Special Judge was initiated. There does not appear, therefore, any delay on the part of the claimant in filing his objection against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and, as such, the plea that the proceedings before the Land Acquisition officer under Section 18 of the Act was hit by limitation, is without basis. 10. It is also not disputed that the possession of the acquired lands was taken more than four years prior to the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. The claimants are, therefore, certainly entitled to the benefits under Sections 23, 28 and 24 of the Act from the date of dispossession of their acquired lands. 11. In the proceedings before the Special Judge, the claimants had adduced evidences oral as well as documentary. The oral evidences of the witnesses adduced by the claimant, declared that the lands adjoining the acquired lands was sold @ Rs. 2,500/-per decimal in the year 1988. It appears that the above assertion of the witnesses have not been challenged in their respective cross- examination by the present appellant. The claimants had adduced two sale deeds of the year 1992 but the learned Court below had not relied upon the sale deeds on the ground that the sale deeds were executed long after the date of taking possession of the acquired lands and on the further ground that the makers of the documents were not examined. The learned Court below had also taken into consideration that the lands transferred by virtue of the aforesaid two sale deeds were Tanr lands and, therefore, not comparable to the lands acquired in the instant case. 12. The appellant had also adduced oral evidences of two witnesses, namely, the Amin and the special Land Acquisition Officer itself. The appellants had also relied upon the sale rate chart and the valuation report, which were earlier obtained from the local Sub-Registry Office by the Land Acquisition Officer to show that the market value of the lands as it existed on the date of acquisition was correctly assessed and fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 13. The appellants had also relied upon the sale rate chart and the valuation report, which were earlier obtained from the local Sub-Registry Office by the Land Acquisition Officer to show that the market value of the lands as it existed on the date of acquisition was correctly assessed and fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. 13. From the evidences on record, it appears that the acquired land is situated adjacent to the National Highway and the entire area of 19.53 acres was a levelled land in one compact block. Apparently, the entire block of the land was of the same nature indisputably used as cultivable agricultural lands. The learned Court below has rightly observed that the classification of the lands under different heads as Dhani II, Dhani III, Tanr and nala lands as made by the Land Acquisition Officer was without basis. It further appears from the evidences on record that the sale rate chart and the rate reports as earlier obtained by the Land Acquisition Officer from the local Sub-Registry Office pertained to the year 1989 to 1992 containing as many as 40 rate reports. The maximum rate of Dhani II lands was shown in the rate chart at Rs. 1,63,636/- per acre, yet the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the rate of the acquired lands at Rs. 37,087/- per acre for the Dhani II lands. The learned Court below has rightly observed that the rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is without basis and arbitrary. It also appears from the evidence of the witness No. 1, examined by the appellant that the entire acquired land, comprising of 19.53 acres is in one compact block situated by the side of the road and the sale rate of the adjoining lands is Rs. 10,000/- per decimal. The learned Special Judge, on considering the entire facts and circumstances and the fact that the lands were used for agricultural purposes has treated the acquired lands under one single category of Dhani II lands and had approved the rate fixed by the Collector for such lands @ Rs. 37,087/- per acre as being the market value of the lands acquired. Though the claimants had originally claimed a compensation amount @ Rs. 3-1/2 lakhs per acre but no cross appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the amount assessed and fixed in the impugned award. 37,087/- per acre as being the market value of the lands acquired. Though the claimants had originally claimed a compensation amount @ Rs. 3-1/2 lakhs per acre but no cross appeal has been preferred by the claimants against the amount assessed and fixed in the impugned award. It appears from the impugned award that the learned Court below has taken into consideration the nature of the lands, the evidences adduced by the parties for ascertaining the market value of the entire lands on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and has relied upon the documents submitted by the appellants themselves for assessing the market value of the lands. I do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the findings recorded or in the reasons assigned by the learned Court below in enhancing the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.