JUDGMENT By the Court.—The abovementioned first appeals are connected matter and since common question of facts and law are involved in all the appeals, therefore they are being dealt with together and decided by the common order. First Appeal No. 565 of 1999 is taken up as leading case. 2. By means of present first appeal, the appellant-defendant (U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad) has challenged the judgment and decree dated 5th March, 1999, passed by the District Judge, Muzaffarnagar, whereby the District Judge has allowed the reference filed by the petitioners of the reference case (respondents in the present appeal). 3. The brief facts of the present case as pleaded are that the land belonging to various petitioners-land owners of district Muzaffar Nagar was acquired by the State Government for U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad, Lucknow after issuing notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 1st March, 1975. The petitioners filed their objections before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who after hearing the parties awarded the compensation to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 20.92 per sq.yard. Being aggrieved by the said award, the petitioners have preferred the reference before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, wherein they have submitted that while awarding the compensation to the petitioners, the Land Acquisition Officer has not considered the objection filed by the petitioners and has also not considered the market value of the land acquired. It is further submitted that the prevalent rate and the market value of the land acquired falls from Rs. 150/- to Rs. 500/- per sq. yard and even the circle rate as fixed by the State Government was Rs. 80/- per sq. yard. The acquired land is a land of potential for industrial area as well as for residential area and is situated near the city and township of the district and in fact U.P. Avas Evam Vikash Parishad has acquired the land in question for raising residential colonies on the acquired land, which has surrounding of schools, guest houses, libraries and other various residential colonies and government offices. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that no doubt the land in question was acquired for raising residential colonies, yet the prevalent rate was not as submitted by the petitioners and the District Judge while awarding the compensation has not applied its mind and has incorrectly enhanced the compensation to the petitioners, whereas the value of the land in dispute has rightly been assessed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It is further contended that there was no Abadi land near the land in dispute at the time of initiation of acquisition proceeding. The District Judge has not given any heed to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Court that compensation for big chunk of acquired land cannot be determined on the basis of sale deeds for small piece of land or nearby land, as the market value of the acquired land has to be determined on the quality and use of land at the time of notification and any other value after aforesaid notification is not relevant in determining the market value for the purposes of compensation. 5. It is further contended that The District Judge enhanced the compensation on the basis of sale deed paper No. 30-C dated 18th July, 1977, which has not been proved by the executant of said sale deed and partly on the basis of spot inspection conducted by the Court ignoring the documentary evidence adduced by the appellant and the State of U.P. The further contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the District Judge has failed to take into account the backwardness of the area and proceeded to enhance the compensation without ascertaining the agricultural yield per acre/per year and further has not considered the development expenditure which the appellant has to incur in developing and levelling of land. The reference made before the District Judge under Section 18 of the Act itself is time-barred and the system of belting ought to have been adopted as universally, all lands cannot be clubbed for same rate of compensation. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 7. The District Judge while allowing the reference preferred by the petitioners-land owners has given finding that the land in dispute is adjacent to the industrial area of Muzaffar Nagar district, where a large number of factories, including Sugar Institute exist. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 7. The District Judge while allowing the reference preferred by the petitioners-land owners has given finding that the land in dispute is adjacent to the industrial area of Muzaffar Nagar district, where a large number of factories, including Sugar Institute exist. The evidence on record further indicates that even though the land was being used for agricultural purposes, but it was also fit for non-agricultural purposes and it has potentiality for future use, such as raising factories and residential blocks. 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. The market value of the land in question must be determined as on crucial date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the Court has to see the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential and the location of the acquired land. It is further submitted that the law on the point is quite clear that where there are various sale deeds in respect of the land of the same utility and potential, the sale deed which is of higher amount and higher rate, should be accepted as the best standard and ideal sale deed for determining the market value of the disputed acquired land. The District Judge further recorded that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the potential of the acquired land and other surrounding circumstances, I find that the land owners are entitled to be given compensation in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard and out of the total amount of compensation, 25% shall be deducted as development expenses and charges which U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad had been incurring and the remaining amount the petitioners-land owners shall be entitled to solatium and interest thereon as admissible under law. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and going through the judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and going through the judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. The Court below while passing the impugned order has discussed each and every aspect of the matter and dealt with the relevant case laws, which according to us do not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has also failed to show any illegality committed by the Court below in the impugned order. 9. With the aforesaid observation, all these first appeals fail and are dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. The order passed by the Court below impugned in these appeals is affirmed. Order accordingly. ————