1. The appellant through the present appeal seeks setting aside of judgment and decree dated 30.03.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, Udhampur by which he has enhanced the compensation of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The facts in detail are that on the requisition of Deputy Chief Engineer Construction Northern Railways, Jammu proceedings under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act were initiated for acquisition of land measuring 71 kanals 6 marlas for construction of Jammu-Udhampur Railway Link Line. A notice under section 49 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Collector on 23.11.1983 followed by various corrigendum dated 14.01.1984, 16.01.1984, 15.02.1985, 19.02.1985, 15.12.1988 and dated 01.10.1992 whereby the owners/interested persons were asked to file objections if any in respect of the acquisition of land. The interested persons appeared and expressed no objection for acquisition of land for construction of Railway Line but prayer for payment of compensation of acquired land on market rate was made. When the owners/interested persons did not raise any objection for acquisition of the land, a declaration was issued under sections 6 and 7 of the Act and notices were again issued under sections 9 and 9A of the Land Acquisition Act on 21.06.1984 calling upon the owners/interested persons to file their objections if any in respect of compensation and measurement of the land. The intending department was also asked to file objections. The interested persons were heard who sought compensation at the rate of Rs.80,000/- per kanal for abadi land and reasonable compensation for other lands. After considering all the evidence, oral and documentary the final award was passed on 09.06.1999 whereby compensation of one kanal of culturable land was assessed @ Rs.30,000/- and rate for unculturable land was assessed @ Rs.20,000/- per kanal. Some of the owners received the compensation and petitioner/respondent herewith was not satisfied with the rate of compensation assessed, therefore, approached the Collector with application praying that since the compensation was not paid as per market rate as such reference be made to the civil court for determination of the proper rate of land for the construction of Jammu-Udhampur Railway Link line. 3. 3. On receipt of petition by the reference court, the respondent/appellant was summoned and appeared through his counsel and filed objections on 01.06.2000 in the case alleging therein that since the petitioner/respondent had not raised any objection at the time of acquisition of land and did not object to the acquisition proceedings as such reference was liable to be rejected. It was further alleged that the land was acquired for public purposes and compensation had rightly been assessed and paid to the owners/interested persons of the land according to the prevalent rates, as such, there was no ground for enhancement of the compensation amount. 4. In view of the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the reference court vide order dated 05.09.2000 :- (i) Whether the petitioner Balak Ram whose land measuring about 8 kanals has been acquired for construction of Railway Line has not been paid compensation at the market rate, prevalent at the time of acquisition of the land, if so what is the proper rate of compensation to be paid ? OPP. (ii) Relief. 5. The learned District Judge, Udhampur (Reference Court) after recording evidence of the parties held that in view of the decision on issue No.1, the petitioner/respondent is entitled to the compensation of land situated at Cheri Sail measuring 7 kanals 7 marlas bearing survey Nos. 44 min and 45 min acquired by Collector for construction of Railway Line from Jammu to Udhampur at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per kanal for culturable land and Rs.40,000/- per kanal for non culturable land. He has also held entitled to Jabrana @ 15% p.a. on the compensation amount and also held entitled to receive compensation at the rates fixed above for the land owned by him and acquired for construction of railway line minus the compensation already received. The balance amount shall be paid to the petitioner-Balak Ram along with interest at the 8% p.a. with effect from the date of taking over of possession of land. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Balak Ram died and vide order dated 15.03.2006, his legal representative were brought on record which are being represented by Mr. M.L.Gupta, Advocate. 7. Mr. A.H.Qazi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned District Judge, has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. 6. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent Balak Ram died and vide order dated 15.03.2006, his legal representative were brought on record which are being represented by Mr. M.L.Gupta, Advocate. 7. Mr. A.H.Qazi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned District Judge, has not appreciated the evidence led by the parties in right perspective. He further submitted that the reference court i.e. District Judge, Udhampur without even issuing the notice to the intending department i.e. Indian Railways enhanced the compensation which according to him could not have been done as ultimately the compensation has got to be paid by the Railways and no award can be passed for increasing the compensation without the intending department intervention. He submitted that the District Judge has increased the compensation by Rs.20,000/- per kanal and has failed to drawn any distinction between non-culturable land and gair mumkin land. He also submitted that there are various kinds of non-cultural land and every class is assessed differently for the compensation. This attempt of the learned district judge by clubbing all the classes of the land in a single bracket cannot be permitted to justify the hike in the rate of compensation. 8. On the other hand, Mr. M.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the District Judge has awarded the amount after taking note of the fact that the Collector, Land Acquisition, Northern Railways has awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- per kanal of an area adjacent to the village in question namely Thaman, Baria, Dala and Kashira. In respect of the contention raised by Mr.A.H.Qazi,AAG that no notice has been issued to the Revenue Department, it is contended by Mr. Gupta that in pursuant to the award, intending department has deposited the amount in the court. The appellant has neither filed application nor the appeal in the court. Mr.Gupta states notice required to be given only where the party is not aware of the proceedings. He states that the land which was acquired by the respondents is situated on the National High way and its market value is much more than Rs.50,000/- per kanal as granted by the District Judge. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. On reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the District Judge entered into reference and heard the case. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. On reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the District Judge entered into reference and heard the case. In view of the pleadings of the parties, the following two issues were framed: (iii) Whether the petitioner Balak Ram whose land measuring about 8 kanals has been acquired for construction of Railway Line has not been paid compensation at the market rate, prevalent at the time of acquisition of the land, if so what is the proper rate of compensation to be paid ? OPP. (iv) Relief. 11. The applicant-respondent examined two witnesses in addition to recording his own statement. The witnesses examined by the respondent are Bodh Raj and Sat Pal. According to the Statement of Bodh Raj, the land of the claimant is situated near his land and the market value of the land at the time of its acquisition was Rs. 2 .00 lacs and the land is situated at a distance of one and half KMs from Udhampur Town. It is stated that the land was used for agriculture purpose and the total output of the land was 60 Qtls. paddy per crop. Sat Pal, the other witness states that he purchased land from Nek Raj in the year 1991 @ Rs. 15,000/- per marla. He states that the land of the claimant is situated on the road side and is agriculture land and the same is also used for the construction of buildings, shops and commercial establishments. He further states that banjar land has been acquired in the area for which compensation @ 50/60 thousand per kanal has been paid. The statement of the claimant was also recorded, who says that the award of compensation given by the Collector is not according to the market rate. He states that his land has been acquired in the year 1990 when the rate of the land in the area was 80,000/- per kanal. He states that the land in question is situated on the road side. 12. On the other hand, respondent- appellant examined two witnesses namely Mohd. Rafiq and Laj Ram, SDM. Mohd. Rafiq states that the compensation was assessed for the land of the petitioner prior to his positing in the Railways Department. He states that the land in question is situated on the road side. 12. On the other hand, respondent- appellant examined two witnesses namely Mohd. Rafiq and Laj Ram, SDM. Mohd. Rafiq states that the compensation was assessed for the land of the petitioner prior to his positing in the Railways Department. He further states that he does not know whether the compensation for land acquired had been paid @ Rs. 50,000/- per kanal or not. Laj Ram, SDM states that he remained posted as Collector, Land Acquisition, Udhampur in the year from June, 1997 to November, 1999. He further states that the acquisition proceedings in the present case were initiated in the year 1994 and the final award was given on 9-6-1999. He states that the compensation was given in accordance with the market rate. 13. After scrutinizing the evidence, the appellate court has awarded Rs. 50,000/- per kanal on both kinds of land. He has given the following reasons for enhancing compensation to Rs. 50,000/- : a) that the land which has been acquired and assessment made regarding price to be paid, have been made by the Collector on the average sale rate submitted by the Tehsildar in the ease. The average sale rate cannot be made only ground for assessing the market rate of the land acquired. But something more has to be taken note for assessing the rate of the land at the relevant time, which includes potential value of the land. b) That the village Cheri Sail is adjacent to village Kashira, where the Railways has acquired the land and the Collector has awarded compensation of the land situated in village Kashira @ Rs. 50,000/- per kanal. 14. Right to acquire and possess property is a fundamental right as guaranteed under Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. This right has not been abrogated in the State of J&K. The State in exercise of its power can acquire the land of any private individual for public purpose. Power to acquire land necessarily implies that a person is deprived of his land and invariably he is unwilling seller. States power to acquire land necessarily implies that a person is deprived of his property against his will. Being fundamental right, the same cannot be taken away without payment of compensation. Power to acquire land necessarily implies that a person is deprived of his land and invariably he is unwilling seller. States power to acquire land necessarily implies that a person is deprived of his property against his will. Being fundamental right, the same cannot be taken away without payment of compensation. The amount of compensation to be awarded for the land acquired has to be the market value as prescribed under the Land Acquisition Act. Market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to the seller for the property having the regard to its existing conditions with nil the extending advantageous and its potential possibility and when let out in a most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of any scheme for which the property sold is acquired. It is also with the growing globalization, the prices of the land are rising. The cities and the towns are saturated and the development is proceeding towards the villages. Increase in the prices of the land has grown many times. It is in the light of this observation, one has to judge the growing potential of the land and its potential value. 15. The order of the District Judge in my opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity for the following reasons : a) that the Collector has awarded Rs. 50,000/- per kanal in village Keshera, which is adjacent to village Cheri where the land of the petitioner has been acquired. Once the Collector has awarded Rs. 50,000/- per kanal in the said village, there is no hesitation in awarding the same compensation to the claimant. b) The witnesses produced by the claimants stand un rebutted. The witnesses have stated that the value of the land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal and is situated on the road side. It has also come on record that witness Bodh Raj had sold 9 marlas of land in the year 1998 @ Rs. 15000/- per marla and the land of the claimant could be utilized for construction of shops and building. In essence, this witness has stated that the land of the claimant has a potential for commercial purposes also. On the other hand, the same has not been rebutted. Reliance placed by the Collector on the report of the Tehsildar, is based upon the average sale rate of three years. In essence, this witness has stated that the land of the claimant has a potential for commercial purposes also. On the other hand, the same has not been rebutted. Reliance placed by the Collector on the report of the Tehsildar, is based upon the average sale rate of three years. The Collector has not taken into consideration the potential value of the land, which is a necessary component while determining the compensation. 16. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the intending department has not been arrayed as party before the District Judge, as such the order is bad in the eyes of law. There is no dispute with respect to this proposition of law that intending department is an interesting party. This view is settled by the various judgments of the Apex Court. The mandate of law is that they ought to be heard before any order is passed by the District Court or this court. The object of impleading the respondents as party, is to ensure that they should not go unheard. It is also true that rule of natural justice is not ritual, which is to be performed by the court. 17. The aim of the rule of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. This rule can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. Whenever a complaint is made before the court that some principle of natural justice has been violated, the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for just decision of the facts of the case. 18. It transpires from the record of the case that the District Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 50,000/- on the basis that a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the claimant of village, which, is adjacent to the village where the land in question has been acquired. The intending, department, had willingly paid the compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per kanal to the claimant of the said village. Even if the intending department was heard by the District Court, it could not escape the fact that it had willingly paid Rs. 50,000/- per kanal as compensation in the adjoining village. The determination of higher compensation from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per kanal, is not arbitrary. 50,000/- per kanal to the claimant of the said village. Even if the intending department was heard by the District Court, it could not escape the fact that it had willingly paid Rs. 50,000/- per kanal as compensation in the adjoining village. The determination of higher compensation from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per kanal, is not arbitrary. It is only in such cases, where the observance of the rule of natural justice/ hearing a party becomes necessary for just decision of the facts of the case. It is in this context, the Apex Court time and again held that die observance of the rule of natural justice is not ritual to be performed unless it is held that the observance is necessary for the just decision of the facts of the case. 19. There is second aspect of the matter, that the case is pending in this court since long and directing the impleadment of the intending department as respondent, will only delay the decision of the matter, more particularly when admittedly the intending department has not been prejudiced. It has deposited the awarded amount in the Court. It could also file an application for impleadment as party either before District Court or this court, which they have not done. 20. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not feel that the intending department is required to be impleaded as party respondent in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The awarded amount be released favour of the claimant.