JUDGMENT Honble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals are directed against judgment, award and decree dated 16.5.1984 given by IIIrd A.D.J. Jaunpur in Land Acquisition Reference No. 9 to 14 all of 1994 (total 6 in number). 3. Six acres of land was acquired for establishing Krishi Utpadan Mandi in Sahaganj, district Jaunpur. 4. The land belonged to the respondents in these appeals. Notification under Section 4 Land Acquisition Act was published in Gazette on 6.10.1982, award was given on 23.5.1987. S.L.A.O., determined the market value of the acquired land on the following rates upon the quality of the soil. Rs. 41,394.94 per acre Rs. 30,998.01 per acre Rs. 24,375.30 per acre Rs. 19,753.08 per acre 5. Dissatisfied with the valuation/compensation respondents applied for making references which were accordingly, made and decided by impugned judgment. Through the impugned judgment learned A.D.J. determined the market value of the land on the following rates depending upon its distance from the road: “Rs. 2,25,000 per acre, Rs. 1,65,190 per acre, Rs. 1,25,000 per acre”. 6. Before the Court below an application was given for consolidating all the references and treating L.A. Reference No. 9 of 1994 (subject matter of First Appeal No. 693 of 1994) as leading case. The application was allowed. 7. Lower Court records of L.A. Reference No. 9 of 1994 are available. In the said records certified copy of only one sale deed is on record i.e. paper No. 11 Ga. Sale deed dated 8.1.1981 executed by Kripa Nath in respect of 0.0275 acres land (60 feet/by 20 feet = 133 sq. yd). Through the said sale deed the land was sold for Rs. 22,000/-. However, in the said sale deed it is mentioned that the sold land was on the road side. Learned A.D.J. in the impugned judgment did not place reliance on the said sale-deed. 8. Learned District Judge placed reliance upon certain sale deeds which were mentioned in the schedule attached to the award given by S.L.A.O. 9. Even copy of award by S.L.A.O. is not available in the lower Court records. Learned A.D.J. in the impugned judgment did not place reliance on the said sale-deed. 8. Learned District Judge placed reliance upon certain sale deeds which were mentioned in the schedule attached to the award given by S.L.A.O. 9. Even copy of award by S.L.A.O. is not available in the lower Court records. May be original file was returned by the office of learned A.D.J. to the office of S.L.A.O. Placing reliance upon the sale deeds which were mentioned in the award of S.L.A.O. learned Additional District Judge determined the market value as above (The said sale deeds related to very small pieces of land). 10. Learned A.D.J. also referred to map (the same might be available on the file of S.L.A.O.) for comparing the position of acquired plots with the plots sold through the sale deeds discussed by S.L.A.O. It may be mentioned that normally copies of sale deeds are not filed before S.L.A.O. S.L.A.O. only obtains necessary information regarding sale deeds from the office of Sub Registrar executed in the area during 3 years immediately before the date of Section 4 Notification. The particulars only contain area, sale consideration, plot number and names of vendors and vendees. 11. Claimant in a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act is in the position of plaintiff and he has to prove through evidence that the compensation offered by S.L.A.O. is inadequate. Anything considered by the S.L.A.O. is not evidence for the reference Court. Even if State places reliance upon the sale deed relied by S.L.A.O., it has to file its certified copy before the reference Court. In this regard reference may be made to the first four factors enumerated in Para-4 of the Supreme Court authority reported in AIR 1988 SC 1652 , Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona,” which are quoted below: “4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen : (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.” 12. Accordingly, learned A.D.J. reference Court was not at all justified in placing reliance upon the sale deeds which were mentioned in the award as their certified copies had not been filed before it. 13. There is one more disturbing aspect of the matter. In this case application for making reference in the form of objections was given to the District Judge by the respondents on 12.7.1990. It was addressed to S.L.A.O. Jaunpur through District Judge Jaunpur. It is available in the file of the lower Court record. On the last page i.e. page No. 2 of the said application Govt. Counsel noted his objections to the effect that applicants were aware of the award, hence application filed after 3 years was time barred. It was also mentioned that applicants had filed some appeal (or S.L.P.) before Supreme Court bearing No. 5894 of 1987 hence it could not be said that they were not aware of the award. Thereafter S.L.A.O. on 18.7.1990 passed an order on the back side of page 2 of the application that he agreed with the objection of the Govt. Counsel and the application was rejected. Thereafter S.L.A.O. on 18.7.1990 passed an order on the back side of page 2 of the application that he agreed with the objection of the Govt. Counsel and the application was rejected. Thereafter S.L.A.O. on 23.12.1993 sent the reference to the District Judge (paper No. 31 on page 37 of the paper book) mentioning therein that earlier application for making reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act was rejected by the then S.L.A.O. on 18.7.1990 however on re-perusal of the file and on the basis of opinion of D.G.C. (Civil) the order dated 18.7.1990 had been set aside hence reference deserved to be made. 14. While making reference or rejecting the application, for making reference S.L.A.O. does not act as judicial authority. Executive authorities cannot review their orders. Moreover it has not been mentioned that how review was justified. Supreme Court in Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 404 has held that Civil Court can see as to whether reference is maintainable or not. 15. This appeal has been filed by Krishi Utapadan Mandi Samiti. No notice was issued to it by the reference Court. In view of Supreme Court authority reported in U.P.A.E.V.P. v. Gyan Devi, AIR 1995 SC 724 appeal on behalf of the authority for which land is required is maintainable. The very first ground of the appeal is that Court below acted illegally and without jurisdiction while entertaining the reference on merit as it was barred by law. However before the Court below no such plea was taken. 16. In view of the above the proper course would have been to remand the matter. However the matter is 20-25 years old. Section 4 Notification was issued in the year 1982 and award was given in 1987. After so much time remand is not the proper course as held by the Supreme Court in Executive Director v. S.C. Bisoi, AIR 2000 SC 2619 part of para 7 of the said judgment is quoted below : “We make it clear that we have followed the above said approach not so much by way of any principle but more by way of finding out a reasonable solution so as to give a quietus to this litigation. The lands were acquired in early eighties and by this time a period of about 20 years has elapsed. The lands were acquired in early eighties and by this time a period of about 20 years has elapsed. We are convinced of the need of avoiding a remand to record further evidence in this regard except to the extent considered unavoidable by the High Court”. 17. There is ample evidence on record oral as well as documentary to show that acquired land was having some abadi/commercial potential also, hence, S.L.A.O. was not justified in determining the market value on the basis of purely agricultural potential. The acquired land abuts the main road and is just beyond the limits of municipality/town area of Shahganj. On the other hand sale deed dated 8.1.1981 being of negligible area in comparison to the acquired land could not be taken into consideration as other sale deeds of considerable areas were available. It may be mentioned that learned Court below was not justified in refusing to consider the sale deed dated 8.1.1981 on the ground that neither vendor nor vendee was examined. However, it required to be ignored on the ground that it was of extremely negligible area and sale deeds of large area were available. 18. Supreme Court in AIR 2006 SC 447 , Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, has held that if a vast compact area is acquired normally uniform rate must be fixed. This is also the policy of legislature underlying Section 28-A of Land Acquisition Act. 19. Accordingly, in my opinion, the best course would be to determine the market value at double the maximum rate fixed by S.L.A.O. 20. It is, therefore, held that market value of acquired land at the relevant time was Rs. 83,000/- per acre (maximum rate fixed by S.L.A.O. was 41,394.94 per acre) 21. It is reiterated that no particular principle has been followed in determining the market value. Above market value has been fixed in order to end the litigation as was done by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid authority of Executive Director. 22. Accordingly, all the appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and decrees are modified and it is directed that respondents are entitled to the compensation taking the market value of their acquired land at Rs. 83,000 per acre along with solatium and interest at the rate as awarded by the Court below. ————