JUDGMENT 1. - Since all these misc. appeals relate to common judgment of District judge Tonk dated 30.9.2003 passed in Reference Applications Cases No. 151/1997, 153/1997, 148/1997, 169/1997 and 166/1997 whereby the reference applications of the applicants filed under Section 18 of the Central Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Rajasthan Amendment 1987) (in short "the Act") were dismissed against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer) Tonk dated 19.8.1996 in Case No. 2/1994, they are being disposed by this common judgment. 2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary. 3. The facts in brief are that by the Notification dated 15.9.1994 of the Deputy Secretary Industries (Group-1), Government of Rajasthan, their intention of acquiring land for the public purposes for developing industrial area for RIICO in village Roopwas, Tehsil Niwai District Tonk measuring 371 Bighas and 10 Biswas of land, was issued. The Notification was also published in two local news papers dated 15.12.1994. The appellants submitted objections before the Land Acquisition Officer (Sub Divisional Officer) Tonk but the Land Acquisition Officer without hearing the appellants sent the report under Section 5A of the Act to the State Government through the Collector Tonk. On satisfying with the report of the Land Acquisition Officer, Tonk, the Deputy Secretary Industries (Group-1) of the Government of Rajasthan issued Notification under Section 6 of the Act and published the same in the Raj Gazette dated 7.11.1995 and the same was also published in two local news papers. The Land Acquisition Officer issued notice under Section 9(1) of the Act to the khatedars/land holders. The khatedars submitted their consent to the Land Acquisition Officer that their land is surrounded by National Highway No. 12 and as per the rates applicable to Sitapura Sukhpuria land acquired for RIICO may be made applicable to them. Some of the objectors stated that the market value of the land is presently 6,00,000 per bigha. The Land Acquisition Officer notified 6.2.1996 for information to notify the award. Their objections were invited upto 13.2.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer sent its report to the Government including the objections. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai passed the award dated 19.8.1996. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer notified 6.2.1996 for information to notify the award. Their objections were invited upto 13.2.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer sent its report to the Government including the objections. The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai passed the award dated 19.8.1996. 4. The award of the Land Acquisition officer was mainly based on the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai and an award of Rs. 1,33,10,576/- was passed acquiring 371 bigha and 10 biswas land in village Roopwas. 5. Aggrieved against the award dated 19.8.1996 the appellants preferred reference applications before the District Judge Tonk under Section 18 of the Act. After receiving the notice of the reference applications, the respondents 3 to 5 filed their written statement on 27.3.1998. 6. The DJ framed 9 issues in the reference applications. The appellants and the respondent RIICO produced evidence and documents in support of its case. 7. After hearing the arguments, the District Judge, Tonk rejected the reference applications vide his order dated 30.9.2003. Aggrieved against the order of the DJ on the reference applications, the appellants filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Act claiming that they have not been given the value of the land as per the market value and the provisions of the Land Acquisition have not been followed in letter and spirit. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the RIICO. 9. Before proceeding further it would be necessary to have a look at the judgment of the Apex Court in Karnataka Housing Board v. LAO, (2011) 2 SCC 246 wherein it has been held as under : "5. We mail deal with the last submission first. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation [publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - "the Ace', for short] notification, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value. A "willing seller" refers to a person who is not acting under any pressure to sell the property, that is, where the sale is not a distress sale. A willing seller is a person who knowing the advantages and disadvantages of his property, sells the property after ascertaining the prevailing market prices at the fair and reasonable value. Similarly, a willing purchaser refers to a person who is not under any pressure or compulsion to purchase the property, and who, having the choice of different properties, voluntarily decides to buy a particular property by assessing its advantages and disadvantages and the prevailing market value thereof. Of course, unless there are indications to hold otherwise, all sale transactions under registered sale deed will be assumed to be normal sales by willing sellers to willing purchasers. Where however there is evidence or indications that the sale was not at prevailing fair market value, it has to be ignored." 10. The crux of the judgment of the Apex Court is that the standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 11. In the instant appeals the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai passed the award dated 19.8.1996. 11. In the instant appeals the Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai passed the award dated 19.8.1996. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 19.8.1996 reads as under : i=koyh is'k gqbZA rglhy fuokbZ ftyk Vksad esa f}rh; vkS|ksfxd {ks= :iokl gsrq Hkwfe vokfIr ds lEcU/k esa 'kklu mi lfpo] m|ksx ( xzqi 1 ) foHkkx jktLFkku t;iqj }kjk dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e] 1894 esa ( jktLFkku la'kks/ku 1987 ) ds vUrxZr xzke :iokl dh 371 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe dk vokfIr dh vf/klwpuk dzekad i0 4 ( 21 ) m@1@93 fnukad 15-9-1994 dks izdk'ku gqvk rFkk nks LFkuh; nSfud lekpkj i=ksa nSfud rkt Hkkjrh esa fnukad 15-12-1994 dks izdkf'kr dh xbZA bl vf/klwpuk dk izdk'ku o fof/kor rkehy lacaf/kr i{kdkjku ij djkbZ xbZ vkifRrdrkZvksa }kjk izLrqr vkifRr;ksa ij lquokbZ dh tkdj bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 101&102 fnukad 29-6-1995 }kjk /kkjk 5 ( , ) ds vUrxZr oLrqfLFkfr dh fjiksVZ jkT; ljdkj dks ftyk dysDVj] Vksad ds ek/;e ls fHktokbZ xbZA Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh ( mi[k.M vf/kdkjh ) Vksad dh fjiksVZ ls lUrq"V gksdj jkT; ljdkj 'kklu mi lfpo m|ksx ( xqzi 1 ) foHkkx jktLFkku t;iqj us dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 6 dh foKkfIr dzekad i0 4 ( 21 ) m|ksx@1@93 fnukad 24-8-1995 }kjk tkjh dh xbZ ftldk izdk'ku jktLFkku jkti= esa fnukad 7-11-1995 dks gqvkA nks LFkkuh; nSfud lekpkj i=ksa esa Hkh bl vf/klwpuk dks izdk'ku djk;k x;kA fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e] 1894 dh /kkjk 9 ( 1 ) ds vUrxZr fgr/kkfj;ksa dks uksfVl tkjh dj fnukad 30-9-1995 rd vkifRr;ka vkeaf=r dh xbZA leLr fgr/kkfj;ksa dh vksj ls ,d izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlesa jk"V~h; jktekxZ 12 ij xzke lhrkiqjk lq[kiqfj;k esa fjdks }kjk Hkwfe vokIr dh xbZ FkhA ogh jsV fnykus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA bl vkosnu i= esa ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k fd xzke :iokl esa :0 6 yk[k izfr ch?kk dh nj ls jftLV~h gqbZ gS rFkk Ms<+ yk[k :i;s izfr ch?kk dh Hkh jftLV~h gks pqdh gSA i{kdkjku dh vksj ls vius bl dFku dh iqf"V esa dksbZ izek.k vkfn izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k] ftlls mldk foospu dj dksbZ fu.kZ; fy;k tkrkA vkifRr;ksa dh lquokbZ ds nkSjku ;g rF; izdk'k esa vk;k fd [kljk ua0 133 dk jdck =qfVo'k 11 fcLok fy[k fn;k x;k gS tcfd okLro esa fjdkMZ ds vuqlkj bldk jdck 16 fcLok gS] bl izdkj dqy ;ksx 371 ch?kk fcLok gksrk gSA bldh 'kqf) i= Hkh tkjh dj fn;k x;kA Hkwfe ij gks jgs fuek.kZ dk;Z dk eki o ewY;kadu lgk;d LFky vfHk;Urk jhdks ls djk;k x;k rFkk isM+ks ds ewY;kadu ds fy, e.My ou vf/kdkjh Vksad ls vk/kkj izkIr fd;sA bu vk/kkjksa ij isM+ks dh uki vkfn djk;k tkdj mudk ewY;kadu djk;k x;kA mi iath;d ( rglhynkj ) fuokbZ ls /kkjk 4 dh vf/klwpuk ds izdk'ku ds le; Hkwfe dh njksa ds lEcU/k esa tkudkjh izkIr dh xbZA mi iath;d ds vuqlkj Hkwfe dh njsa fuEu izdkj j[kh gS% vflafpr Hkwfe :0 11]385-00 izfr ch?kk flafpr Hkwfe :0 21]780-00 izfr ch?kk jksM ds utnhd dh Hkwfe :0 1]15]000-00 izfr ch?kk jksM ds utnhd dh Hkwfe eq[; jksM ls ,d tjhc dh nwjh ekurs gq, jksM ds utnhd dh Hkwfe dk ewY;kadu djk;k x;kA /kkjk 12 dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e ds uksfVl ij dqN fgr/kkfj;ksa }kjk Hkwfe dh dhey ij vkifRr dh xbZ rFkk muds }kjk ,d jftLV~h is'k dh xbZ ftlesa 1000 oxZxt yxHkx 7 fcLok dk fodz; :0 75]000@& esa fd;k x;k gSA gesa bl jftLV~h dk voyksdu fd;k ;g jftLV~h d`f"k Hkwfe ls vkcknh Hkwfe esa LfkkukUrfjr dh gSA ftldks lkekU; nj ugha dgk tk ldrkA bl izdkj fo'ks"k {ks=Qy dk fodz; fo'ks"k egRo o fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;fn vf/kd ewY; ij gks tkrk gS rks mldks lkekU; ewY; ugha ekuk tk ldrkA lkekU; ewY; ogka gS ftl ij lk/kkj.k dz; fodz; fd;k tkrk gSA bl izdkj ge mi iath;d fuokbZ ds dk;kZy; ls izkIr lwpuk dks gh mfpr vk/kkj le>rs gq, mlh nj ls Hkwfe vokMZ fuf'pr djuk mfpr le>rs gS] vkSj blh vk/kkj ij vokMZ dk fu'p; fuEu izdkj fd;k x;k & Hkwfe ,oa isM+ksa dk ewY; ,oa Hkwfe ij gks jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z dk ewY; 92]11]696-00 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls 15-12-1994 ls 29-2-1996rd dk C;kt 13]35]372-00 /kkjk 23@11 ds vuqlkj 30 izfr'kr lksfyf'k;e jkf'k 7]63]508-00 dqy ;ksx 1]33]10]576-00 i=koyh esa izR;sd [kkrsnkj@fgr/kkjh dk iw.kZ fooj.k ifjf'k"V cuk;k tkdj layXu fd;k x;k gS] tks mldk vfHkUu vax gS] mlh ds vk/kkj i= vokMZ dk Hkqxrku dk fu'p; fd;k tk,xkA i=koyh vuqeksnu gsrq ftyk dysDVj Vksad ds ek/;e ls 'kklu mi lfpo m|ksx ( xzqi 1 ) foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj dks vuqeksnukFkZ izsf"kr dh tkus ij 'kklu mi lfpo m|ksx xqzi 1 foHkkx] jktLFkku t;iqj us i= dzekad i0 4 ( 21 ) m|ksx@1@93 fnukad 5-8- 1996 ls 1 ]33]10]576-00 ( v{kjs ,d djksM rSarhl yk[k nl gtkj ikap lkS fNgRrj :i;s ek= ) dk vokMZ vuqeksfnr gksdj izkIr gqvkA vr% layXu ifjf'k"V ds vuqlkj :0 1]33]10]576-00 dk vokMZ vafre :i ls ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA 12. It is clear from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, that it is based on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai as per the Index maintained by him on the date of issue of the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 13. The DJ Tonk vide its order dated 30.9.2003 decided the Reference Applications Nos. 147/1997 to 169/1997 (in all 23 reference applications) and rejected the same. The appellants in these misc. appeals only have challenged the order of the DJ dated 30.9.2003 passed in Reference Applications Nos. 151/1997, 153/1997, 148/1997, 169/1997 and 166/1997 on the ground that they have not been paid the sufficient amount of compensation as per the market value and the provisions of the Act have not been followed in letter and spirit. 14. In Misc. Appeal No. 88/2005 (related to Reference Application No. 148/1997), it was stated by Harnath, who is now represented by the appellants that the compensation was not given to him as per the market value. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the RIICO acquired the land at the cost of Rs. 16,000/- per bigha. It was stated that now the land is Rs. 5-6 lac per bigha. Their land is surrounded by shops, schools and connected by roads having telephone facility. Harnath stated in his statement that now the cost of land is Rs. 16 lac per bigha and he be given the compensation accordingly. He produced Ex.3 to 6 but stated that he does not know where about of the people and the land. No record was produced in relation to this land. As per the blue print provided his land is situated about 2990, 3300, 3340, 3305, 3650, 3630, 2215, 2460, 4365, 370, 330, 145, 165 and 555 feet away from the National High Way. Hence the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted as the value of the land was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar, Niwai and the determined compensation have also been paid to the appellants. 15. In Misc. Appeal No. 86/2005 (related to Reference Application No. 151/1997), it was stated that the compensation was not given as per the market value. it has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the RIICO gave compensation at the rate of Rs. 15. In Misc. Appeal No. 86/2005 (related to Reference Application No. 151/1997), it was stated that the compensation was not given as per the market value. it has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the RIICO gave compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000/- per bigha. From Niwai Railway Station his land is 1-2 kms. away. He accepted in the cross-examination that in the Daily News paper Bharti two notifications were published. The land of the appellant is three and half kilometers away from the urban area. The land was near to National High Way and hence he was given compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000/- per bigha, which has also been accepted by the appellant in his statement. Hence the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted as the value of the land was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar, Niwai and the determined compensation have also been paid to the appellant. 16. In Misc. Appeal No. 90/2005 (related to Reference Application No. 153/1997) the learned counsel for the appellant stated that he has not been paid ,the compensation as per the market value of the land and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. It is stated that trace map Ex.1 produced is not surrounded by road. As per uncertified map, the land of the appellant is away from National Highway approximately 1175, 545, 1345, 1360, 1795 and 1650 feet. The appellant has not been able to show that how his land is near to National High Way. The compensation was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar. Thus it cannot be said that the appellant has not been paid the compensation as per the market rate. 17. In Misc. Appeal No. 89/2005 (related to Reference Application No. 166/1997) the learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant has not been paid the compensation as per the market value of the land and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. He stated in his statement that the RIICO before acquiring the land has issued any Notification or not is not in his knowledge. It is stated in the Reference Ex.D-1 that information about the acquisition was issued but he stated that since he was illiterate it was not known to him. He stated in his statement that the RIICO before acquiring the land has issued any Notification or not is not in his knowledge. It is stated in the Reference Ex.D-1 that information about the acquisition was issued but he stated that since he was illiterate it was not known to him. According to him his land is 1-2 Miles away from Niwai. He submitted his objection Ex.D-1 to the Land Acquisition Officer. As per uncertified map the land of the appellant is away from National Highway approximately 1330, 3340, 3120, 3380, 3260, 2600, 3630, 3260, 3300, 3630, 2555, 2350, 2310 and 2020 feet. The compensation was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar. Thus it cannot be said that the appellant has not been paid the compensation as per the market rate. 18. In Misc. Appeal No. 69/2005 (related to Reference Application No. 169/1997) the learned counsel for the appellants stated that they have not been paid the compensation as per the market value of the land and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. Badri, original land holder, who is now represented by the appellants, stated in his statement that his land is near the land of RIICO having clothes factories. He stated that when his land was acquired he stated before the Tehsil that his land is near to Roads. He also produced Jambandi Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 for increasing the amount of compensation, but has not submitted any application in the Court. He further produced Registered deeds Ex.P-6 to 9 in order to show that the land is situated near Highway. He stated that his land is not on Jaipur Tonk Road. He stated that the land is surrounded by roads. As per uncertified map the land of the appellants is away from National Highway approximately 2476, 2145, 2930, 3135, 2805, 2970, 3300, 3340, 3485, 3630, 3610, 3465, 3340, 2970, 3135, 2580, 3630, 3280, 3465, 3610, 2600, 2310, 2290 and 2060 feet. The compensation was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar. Thus it cannot be said that the appellants have not been paid the compensation as per the market rate. 19. The District judge in relation to issue No. I in reference applications Nos. The compensation was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar. Thus it cannot be said that the appellants have not been paid the compensation as per the market rate. 19. The District judge in relation to issue No. I in reference applications Nos. 151, 153, 148, 169, 166 of 1997 gave the following findings: " bl izdkj mij fd;s x;s foospu ls ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k dh tks Hkwfe vkokIr dh xbZ gS mldh fLFkfr mij foosfpr fd;s vuqlkj gS izkFkhZx.k ,slk fl) djus esa foQy jgs gS fd muls vokIr dh xbZ Hkwfe esa ls ckjkuh Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; : 6 yk[k izfr ch?kk vkSj pkgh Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; : 7 yk[k izfr ch?kk FkhA lqLFkkfir fof/k ds izdk'k es ;g rF; rks gekjs fy, lqlaxr gh ugh gS fd mDr Hkwfe dk vkt dk cktkj ewY; D;k gS\ D;ksafd vc ;g Hkwfe jhdks }kjk vkokfIr ds ckn fodflr dj yh xbZ gSA blds vfrfjDr Hkh izkFkhZx.k ,slk Hkh fl) djus esa iwjh rjg foQy jgs gSa fd mDr vokIr Hkwfe dk orZeku ewY; : 15 yk[k izfrch?kk gSA vr% fooknd la[;k 1 izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) rFkk foi{khx.k ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA " 20. I have gone through the findings given by the District Judge in the order dated 30.9.2003, in relation to reference applications Nos. 151, 153, 148, 169, 166 of 1997. In my opinion the findings given by the District Judge on issue No. 1 in these reference applications are just and proper. It may be mentioned that the Land Acquisition Officer in its award clearly stated that before passing the award, sent the same for approval by the State Government, a report was called from the Sub Registrar Niwai and the Sub Registrar Niwai Vide letter dated 12.10.1995 in relation to village Roopwas informed that rate of index from the record as follows: Unirrigated Land Rs. 11,385/- Per Bigha Irrigated land Rs. 21,780/- Per Bigha Near Road land Rs. 1,15,000/- Per Bigha The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar gave the award and the same cannot be said to be unjustified. The District Judge in the detailed order came to the findings that the documents produced by the appellants were not related to the land pointed out by the appellants. 1,15,000/- Per Bigha The Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar gave the award and the same cannot be said to be unjustified. The District Judge in the detailed order came to the findings that the documents produced by the appellants were not related to the land pointed out by the appellants. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the District Judge and the Land Acquisition Officer and the same cannot be said to be unjustified. I have also gone through the arguments raised by the appellants the appeals and after considering the same in my opinion the order passed by the District judge in the reference applications in just and proper in the eye of law. The appellants have collected the award money and on consideration of the dispute raised by them in the reference applications and in these appeals do not survive. The award money was based as per the market value at that time based on the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai. Thus the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals are devoid of merit and hence rejected. 21. Similarly on issues Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 8, the District Judge on the reference applications Nos. Thus the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in these appeals are devoid of merit and hence rejected. 21. Similarly on issues Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 8, the District Judge on the reference applications Nos. 151, 153, 148, 169, 166 of 1997 gave the following findings- bl izdkj mij fd;s foospu rFkk mHk; i{kksa }kjk izLrqr lk{; dk voyksdu ;g n'kkZrk gS fd jsQsjsaldrkZ ,slk fl) djus esa foQy jgs gS fd mudh vkjkth;kr ds pkjksa vksj yxh gqbZ Mksy dk izfrdkj os ,d yk[k :i;s ds fglkc ls vkSj vkjkth;kr esa fLFkr jlnkj ,oa bekjrh o`{kksa dk eqvkotk Hkh ,d yk[k :i;s izfr o"kZ gs gS fd muds }kjk izLrqr oWY;qvj dh fjiksVZ ,oa r[kehuk fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij os Hkwfe ij cus iDds edku ,oa fctyh fQfVavk; ds fglkc ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSA jsQjsaldrkZ ,slk Hkh fl) djus es foQy jx] njokts] f[kM+dh vkfn ds fufer Hkh :0 10 yk[k eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA bl izdkj dh dksbZ osY;qvj dh fjiksVZ o r[kehuk fjiksVZ izLrqr dj izkFkhZx.k }kjk izekf.kr ugha dh xbZ gSA jsQjsaldrkZ ,slk fl} djus es Hkh foQy jgs gS fd vius dqa,] dqafM;k] gkSt] fctyh fQfVax] iEilsV] cksfjax vkfn ds fufeZr os :0 2]50]000@& ls :0 3 yk[k rd dh eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSA bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ osY;qvj o r[kehuk fjiksVZ izLrqr dj fl) ugh dh xbZ gSA jsQjsaldrkZvksa }kjk mDr enksa esa ftl izdkj ,d yk[k :i;s izfro"kZ :0 10 yk[k vkSj <+kbZ ls rhu yk[k :i;s dh eqvkotk jkf'k dh ftl izdkj ekax dh xbZ gS] og ekax mlds }kjk bl fLFkfr dks fl) u fd;s tkus ds dkj.k fdlh Hkh izdkj Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA ;g ekax vR;ar vLi"V rFkk leqfpr vk/kkjksa ls jfgr gSA blds foijhr foi{khx.k ,slk izekf.kr djus esa lQy jgsa gS muds vf/kdkfj;ksa us ekSds ij igqapdj izR;sd Hkwfe ij gq, fuekZ.k] cus gq, dqvksa rFkk yxs gq, isM+ks dk fujh{k.k fd;kA mPp vf/kdkjh Hkh bl gsrq ekSds ij igqWaps] fuekZ.k dks ns[kus gsrq ou foHkkx ds vf/kdkjh ekStwn Fks] mUgh ds }kjk ekSds ij ikbZ xbZ fLFkfr dk mYys[k djrs gq, ik;s x;s fuekZ.k] dqWa, ,oa isMksa dk ewY;kadu fd;k x;kA bu lcdk voyksdu djus ds ckn gh Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk vokMZ ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA ,l dgha Hkh izrhr ugha gksrk fd vokMZ dks rS;kj djus ls iwoZ vko';d tkap ,oa ewY; dk fu/kkZj.k ugha fd;k x;k gksA jktLFkku jkT; vkS|ksfxd fodkl ,oa fofu;ksx fuxe fyfeVsM jhdks us vius vf/kdkfj;ksa dks bl gsrq Vksad esa dsoy ek= blh dk;Z ds fy, fu;qDr fd;k] tSlk fd ,u0,0M+a0 1 rkjkpUn [k.Msyoky us vius c;kuksa esa O;Dr fd;k gSA isM+ vkfn ds lEcU/k esa ou foHkkx ds lgk;d ou laj{kd dh lsok;sa yh xbZ ,slk Hkh ugha gS fd dsoy ek= dk;kZy; esa cSBs cSBs vokMZ ikfjr dj fn;k x;k gS] fdUrq lEcfU/kr mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa us ekSds ij igqapdj leLr dk;Zokgh dh fjiksVZ rS;kj dh gSA vokIr dh xbZ Hkwfe i;kZIr {ks=Qy dh Fkh vkSj ;g Hkwfe dbZ O;fDr;ksa dh FkhA vr% ,slk Hkh laHko ugha gS fd ;g lc dk;Zokgh djus ds ckn Hkh HkwLokfe;ksa dks ;g fLFkfr ekywe ugha iMs fd o`gn Lrj ij dk;Zokgh dj i;kZIr {ks=Qy dh Hkwfe dbZ [kkrsnkjksa ls vokIr dh tk jgh gSA bl izdkj ds ekeyksa esa okLrfod fLFkfr dh tkudkjh dk;kZy; ;k ?kj esa cSBs gq, ugha vfirq ekSds ij tkus ls gh gksuk laHko gSA gLrxr ekeys esa dbZ vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ekSdk fujh{k.k ds mijkar mudh fjiksVZ dks fopkj esa ysdj vokMZ rS;kj fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj rS;kj fd;s x;s vokMZ dks izkFkhZx.k }kjk fcuk vk/kkj ds mfYyf[kr rF;ksa rFkk euekus :i ls ekaxh xbZ jkf'k ds vk/kkj ij ifjofrZr fd;k tkuk dnkfi U;k;ksfpr ugh gksrkA foi{khx.k dk ;g i{k iwjh rjg Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS fd vokIr'kqnk Hkwfe ij ekSds ij tkdj rS;kj dh xbZ ekSdk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF; ,oa lEcfU/kr mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij jsQjsaldrkZvksa ds dCts dk'r ,oa [kkrsnkjh dh vkjkth;kr ,oa mu ij gks jgs fuekZ.k] edku dqa, yxs gq, o`{k vkfn dk eqvkotk fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, vokMZ ikfjr fd;s x;s gSA bl izdkj ;g fLFkfr Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k vkifRrdrkZx.k fooknd la[;k 2] 4 ,oa 5 dks vius i{k esa fl+) djus esa foQy jgs gS tcfd foi{khx.k fooknd la0 8 dks vius i+{k esa fl) gksuk izekf.kr dj lds gS vkSj QyLo:i fooknd la0 2] 4] o 5 izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) ,oa fooknd la[;k 8 foi{khx.k ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA 22. I have gone through the findings given by the District Judge on issues No. 2, 4, 5 and 8 in relation to reference applications Nos. 151, 153, 148, 169 and 166 of 1997 and in my opinion the findings are just and proper. The District Judge in its order discussed each and every point with reasons. The findings arrived at by the District Judge on issues No. 2, 4 and 5 against the appellants and in favour of the respondent RIICO and finding on issue No. 8 in favour of the RIICO cannot be said to be unjustified. The Forest Department officials and RIICO officials, all with detailed report calculated the amount and the same cannot be said to be unjustified. Thus the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and the findings of the district judge on issues No. 2, 4, 5 and 8 in the reference applications Nos. 151, 153, 148, 169 and 166 of 1997 stand confirmed. The arguments raised by the appellants in these appeals cannot be accepted and it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer in passing the award. 23. On issues No. 3 and 6 the District Judge gave the following findings on the Reference Applications Nos. The arguments raised by the appellants in these appeals cannot be accepted and it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act have not been complied with by the Land Acquisition Officer in passing the award. 23. On issues No. 3 and 6 the District Judge gave the following findings on the Reference Applications Nos. 151, 153, 148, 169 and 166 of 1997: Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vokMZ fnukad 19-8-1996 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks Hkwfe ds ewY; ds vfrfjDr Hkwfe ij gks jgs fuek.kZ dk;Z ,oa yxs gq, isM+ksa vkfn dk ewY; tksMdj eqvkotk jkf'k iznku dh xbZ gS vkSj bl jkf'k ij vf/klwpuk izdk'ku dh rkjh[k fnukad 15-12-1994 ls Hkwfe dk dCtk izkfIr dh rkfj[k fnukad 29-2-1996 rd 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls C;kt fnyk;k x;k gSA bl jkf'k ij ' vf/kfu;e ' dh /kkjk 23 ( 2 ) ds vuqlkj 30 izfr'kr lksysf'k;e jkf'k Hkh fnykbZ xbZ gSA ge ;g fu/kkZfjr dj pqds gS fd Hkwfe vkokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk izkFkhZx.k@vkifRrdrkZx.k dks fnykbZ xbZ jkf'k iwjh rjg ls mfpr gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 22 ds vUrxZr dksbZ vkns'k fn;s tkus dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrh D;ksafd ;g izko/kku rks] dsoy rc gh ykxw gksrk gS] tc U;k;ky; dh ;g jk; gks dh vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk tks jkf'k vf/kfuf.kZr dh xbZ gS] og de gS vkSj blls veqd vf/kd jkf'k fnykbZ tkuh pkfg,] rc gh ml vf/kd jkf'k ij Hkwfe dk dCtk ysus dh rkjh[k ls 9 izfr'kr izfro"kZ dh nj ls C;kt dk vkns'k fn;k tkuk mfpr gSA i=koyh ij izLrqr lk{; ls ,slk Hkh le{k vk;k gS fd Hkwfe vokfIr] vf/kdkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s izfrdj dh jde fu;ekuqlkj izkFkhZx.k dks vnk dh tk pqdh gS vkSj yxHkx lHkh izkFkhZx.k bl jde dks izkIr Hkh dj pqds gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ' vf/kfu;e ' dh /kkjk 34 ds izko/kku ds vUrxZr Hkh bl ekeys esa dksbZ vkns'k fd;s tkus dh vko';drk izrhr ugha gksrhA blds vUrxZr rks vkns'k fd;k tkuk rc gh mfpr Fkk] tc dCtk ysus dh rkjh[k ls ,d o"kZ dh vof/k ds vUnj izfrdj jkf'k dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k tkrk ;k ,slh izfrdj jkf'k tek ugha djkbZ tkrhA bl izdkj izkFkhZx.k Hkwfe dk dCtk fy, tkus dh rkjh[k ls ,d lky dh vof/k rd 9 izfr'kr vkSj blds mijkar pkgk x;k 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gaSA 24. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the District Judge on issues 3 and 6. The issues No. 3 and 6 were rightly decided against the appellants. The appellants are not entitled to any compensation under Section 34 of the Act. The solatium and compensation were also granted to the appellants within one year of the date of taking possession. The appellants are also not entitled to 9 per cent interest within one year and after that 15% interest. The findings arrived at by the District judge on these issues are just and proper. The' appellants have already received the compensations as awarded in the award. The arguments raised by the appellants in the appeals are devoid of merit and thus rejected. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award after following the provisions of the Act. 25. I have also gone through the finding of the District judge on issue No. 7, which was to be proved by the respondent RIICO. It is true that the compensation awarded in the award has been received by the land owners. The RIICO has not been able to point out any provision in the Act that after receiving award money the land owners/ applicants are not entitled to challenge the award before the reference Court. Thus this issue was decided in favour of the appellants. 26. I have also gone through the findings on issue No. 3 by the District Judge. The District Judge in regard to issue No. 9 rightly observed that only issue No. 7 was decided in favour of the appellants and other issues have been decided against them and hence, the appellants are not entitled for any relief of amending the award. 27. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, the Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 86, 88, 89, 90 and 69 of 2005 deserve to be rejected and hereby rejected. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 19.8.1996 and the common order dated 30.9.2003 passed by the District Judge on Reference Application Nos. 151, 153, 148, 169, 166 of 1997 stand confirmed. The appellants are not entitled to any relief. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Appeals dismissed. *******