1. This appeal has been preferred by Principal Secretary to Government, Industries and Commerce Department, J&K State and two others aggrieved by judgment of the learned Single Judge upholding the findings returned by the Reference Court in file no. 22-Reference. 2. The department (Industries and Commerce Department of J&K) had made requisition for acquiring land for establishment of Industrial Estate. Industries and Commerce Department vide letter dated December 4, 1989 placed an indent for acquisition of land measuring 1000 Kanals at Ompora village for establishment of an Industrial Estate. Tehsildar Budgam furnished Shajrah Khasra of the land measuring 999 Kanals and 136 sqft. comprising different Khasra numbers of village Khanpora, Ompora and Zarigund respectively. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Collector Land Acquisition Budgam on December 12, 1991 calling upon the interested parties to file their objections which was also published in local newspaper. Notices under Section 9 & 9-A were also issued on April 7, 1992 calling upon the interested parties to file their objections. After completing the basic formalities, the Collector proposed rates for the land at Rs. 75,000 per kanal for Baghi Khushki and Rs. 65, 000 per kanal for Maidani land and the total amount of compensation was worked out as Rs. 8,28,26,306.25. Later, the case was submitted to Deputy Commissioner (District Collector, Budgam) for getting approval of the rates. In the meanwhile, Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir called for the original record and the record was submitted to the Commissioner. Later, the Revenue Department through under Secretary to Government, Revenue Department returned the case fixing the compensation of Rs. 40,000 per kanal for Baghi Khushki and Rs. 35,000 per kanal for Maidani land. The District Collector, accordingly, passed an award on July 7, 1997 fixing the amount fixed by the department as rate for the land. 3. The claimants were not satisfied with the award passed by the Collector and, therefore, sought a reference to the District Judge. The matter was referred to District Judge, Budgam under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the District Collector following issues were framed: - "1. Whether adequate and proper compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, if so, what is the correct market value of land in question per kanal ? 2. The matter was referred to District Judge, Budgam under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Before the District Collector following issues were framed: - "1. Whether adequate and proper compensation has not been paid to the petitioners, if so, what is the correct market value of land in question per kanal ? 2. Whether the interested persons have not filed objections to the award well in time, if so, what is its effect ? 3. Relief 4. Before the District Judge, Budgam, PW Mohd. Bashir, who was the Land Acquisition Clerk in the office of Deputy Commissioner, was examined who has deposed that the rates of Rs. 75,000 and Rs. 65,000 was fixed by the District Collector after perusing the sale deeds and other relevant records. In cross examination he has deposed that the land in question is adjacent to the road-side and also to a housing colony. Gh. Hassan Alai, Patwari, in his deposition has stated that a well developed housing colony has come up there and every kind of facilities and amenities are available near the acquired land. Syed Haq Nawaz, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner has also deposed to that effect. Few other witnesses were also examined by the State so also the claimants. 5. After examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 75,000 and Rs 65,000 per kanal for Baghi Khushki and Maidani lands respectively. It was also held that they are also entitled to 6% interest at the enhanced amount from the date of order till its final realization. The learned Single Judge has also affirmed the judgment of the Reference Court. Aggrieved by the same, the State and two others have come up with this appeal. 6. Mr. N. H. Shah appearing for the State submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in enhancing the amount of compensation without hearing the State of J&K. Learned counsel submitted that the claimants should have taken steps to implead State as party as the State is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned District Judge has not properly appraised the facts of the case and, consequently, committed a mistake in enhancing the amount of compensation for both the pieces of land acquired. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned District Judge has not properly appraised the facts of the case and, consequently, committed a mistake in enhancing the amount of compensation for both the pieces of land acquired. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned District Collector had also committed a mistake in giving enhanced rates as if small parcels of land were being acquired and the District Judge has also not appreciated that a big chunk of land measuring 999 Kanals was acquired and that the yardstick which would apply to small parcels of land should not have been the criteria for fixing or enhancing the compensation per kanal in respect of big chunk of land. 7. Mr. S. T. Hussain, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that the Reference Court considered all aspects of the matter and properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and correctly fixed the rate of compensation for the land acquired. Learned counsel also submitted that the State was represented by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Budgam, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Budgam and the Director, Industries and Commerce Department, J&K State. Learned counsel submitted that they have not raised any contention before the Reference Court that the claimants should have impleaded State also as party. Learned counsel also placed reliance on a judgment of Bombay High Court in In re Jerbai Framji Mehta, AIR 1950 Bombay 243 and submitted that the only person who is entitled to enter into reference is the Collector as defined under Section 3 (c) of the Land Acquisition Act and, hence, Government has no locus standi and in case relating to apportionment, neither the Collector nor the Government have any locus standi whatsoever. Learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Apex Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat, AIR 2001 SC 2424 and submitted that the largeness of land cannot be determined by clubbing together area of each land holder. Learned counsel submitted that the total land acquired is 1000 kanals. Before this Court itself, there are about 361 claimants and, therefore, it was submitted, that the contention of the learned counsel that the land acquired is a big chunk of land and, therefore, the yardstick applied by the District Court as well as by the Reference Court was incorrect, cannot be sustainable. 8. Before this Court itself, there are about 361 claimants and, therefore, it was submitted, that the contention of the learned counsel that the land acquired is a big chunk of land and, therefore, the yardstick applied by the District Court as well as by the Reference Court was incorrect, cannot be sustainable. 8. We have heard learned counsel for either side at length. We have also perused the tentative award given by the District Collector as also the findings returned by Reference Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court and the evidence on record. We are of the view that the evidence adduced was properly appreciated by the Reference Court as well as the Reference Judge. Facts would indicate that the property acquired is near road-side and also there is a developed housing colony. Oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Clerk attached to the office of Deputy Commissioner and Gh. Hassan Alai, Patwari, Syed Haq Nawaz, the then Additional Deputy Commissioner would support the above factual findings. Evidence adduced by Mohd. Akram Dar on the side of claimants would indicate that the minimum rate per kanal of the area is not less than Rs. 2.00 lacs. Taking into consideration all aspects, we find no reason to disturb the findings recorded by the Reference Court and upheld by the learned Single Judge. 9. We have considered the argument raised by the learned counsel for the State that the State interest was not safeguarded by the Collector, Land Acquisition, Budgam, General Manager, District Industries Centre, Budgam and Director, Industries and Commerce Department, J&K State. Ample opportunity was given to the Government officials to effectively represent the interest of the State. Nobody has raised any contention before the Reference Court that the State Government should have been made party to the proceedings or they are not in a position to effectively represent the interest of the State. We are, therefore, of the view that non-impleadment of J&K State before the Reference Court is not an illegality so to upset the award passed by the Reference Court. 10. We have noticed that the land acquired is around 1000 kanals but claimants are many. In the present appeal itself there are about 361 claimants. We are, therefore, of the view that non-impleadment of J&K State before the Reference Court is not an illegality so to upset the award passed by the Reference Court. 10. We have noticed that the land acquired is around 1000 kanals but claimants are many. In the present appeal itself there are about 361 claimants. The mere fact that the total area acquired is large in extent does not mean that the claimants holding small areas would meet a contention of the State that since area acquired was large the compensation to be paid be less. Apex Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai (supra) has considered the same contention and held as follows:- "With reference to question of acquisition being of a large area, the error is, when we scan we find for the acquisition of each land owner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large. Each landowners holdings are of small area." 11. In the present case, the land acquired is around 1000 kanals, but claimants are many over 360 are before us. Largeness in area is only when each land owners is clubbed together, though individual is holding small area. Therefore, the largeness in area is of no consequence. Principle given by the Apex Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case and the contention raised by the State on that count is unsustainable. 12. In view of the above facts and legal position, we find no error in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. CMP nos. 123/2008 & 124/2008 In view of the judgment passed in the LPA no further orders are required to be passed in these CMPs.