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. 154/1997, 163/1997, 160/1997, 146/1997, 168/1997, 150/1997, 152/1997, 164/1997, 147/1997, 159/1997 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 5.9.1994 of the Deputy Secretary Industries (Group-1), Government of Rajasthan, (conveyed?) 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. 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 w Eder section 6 of the Act and published the same in the Raj Gazette dated 7.11.95 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 6.2.96 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 19.8.96. 4. The Land Acquisition Officer notified 6.2.96 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 19.8.96. 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 Bighas and 10 Biswas land in village Roopwas. 5. Aggrieved against the award dated 19.8.96 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 27.3.98. 6. The DJ framed 9 issues In the reference applications. The appellants and the respondent RIICO produced, evidence and documents In support of their case. 7. After hearing the arguments, the DJ, 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 claimining 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 may 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, 1894-1he Act", 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, 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 rot 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 deeds 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 19.8.96. 11. In the Instant appeals the land Acquisition officer on the basis of the report of the sub Registrar Niwai passed the award dated 19.8.96. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 19.8.96 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 1984 esa ( jktLFkku la'kks/ku 1987 ) ds vUrxZr xzke :iokl dh 371 ch?kk 10 fcLok Hkwfe dk vokfIr dh vf/klwpuk dh dzekad i04 ( 21 ) 3@1@93 fnukad 15-9-94 dks tkjh dh xbZ ftldk jktLFkku jkti= eas fnukad 15-9-94 dks izdk'ku gqvk rFkk nks LFkkuh; 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 lEcfU/kr i{kdkjku ij djkbZ xbZ vkifRrdRrkZvksa }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 xzqi 1 foHkkx] jktLFkku] t;iqj us dsUnzh; Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 1 dh foKkfIr dzekad i0 4 ( 21 ) m|ksx@1@93 fnukad 24-8-95 }kjk tkjh dh xbZ ftldk izdk'ku jktLFkku jkti= esa fnukad 07-11-95 dks gqvkA nks LFkkuh; nSfud lekpkj i=ksa esa Hkh bl vf/klwpuk dks izdk'ku djk;k x;kA fuEu gLrk{kjdRrkZ }kjk Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kfu;e 1894 dh /kkjk 9 ( 1 ) ds vUrxZr fgr/kkfj;ksa dks uksfVl tkjh dj fnukad 30-9-95 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 lhrkiwjk 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 6 yk[k :i;s 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 vkifR;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 10 fcLok gksrk gSA bldh 'kqf) ds fy, fy[kk x;k vkSj fnukad 15-01-96 jkT; ljdkj dh vksj ls 'kqf) i= Hkh tkjh dj fn;k x;kA Hkwfe ij gks jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z dk eki o ewY;kadu lgk;d LFky vfHk;Urk jhdks ls djk;k x;k rFkk isM+ksa ds ewY;kadu ds fy, e.My ou vf/kdkjh Vksad ls vk/kkj izkIr fd;sA bu vk/kkjksa ij isM+ksa 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 gSa%& vflafpr Hkwfe 11]385-00 :0 izfr ch?kk flafpr Hkwfe 21]780-00 :0 izfr ch?kk jksM+ ds utnhd dh Hkwfe 1]15]000-00 :0 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 dher ij vkifRr dh xbZ rFkk muds }kjk ,d jftLV~h is'k dh xbZ ftlesa 1000 oxZxt yxHkx 7 fcLok dk fodz; 75]000@& :i;s esa fd;k x;k gSA geus bl jftLV~h dk voyksdu fd;k ;g jftLV~h d`f"k ls vkcknh Hkwfe esa LFkkukUrfjr dh gS 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 gSa] 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 15-12-94 ls 29-2-96 rd 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 bldk vfHkUu vax gS] mlh ds vk/kkj ij 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 ( xzqi&1 ) foHkkx] jktLFkku] t;iqj us i= dzekad i4 ( 21 ) m|ksx@1@93 fnukad 05-08-96 ls 1]33]10]576-00 ( v{kjs ,d djksM+ rSarhl yk[k nl gtkj ikap lkS fN;Rrj :i;s ek= ) dk vokMZ vuqeksfnr gksdj izkIr gqvkA vr% layXu ifjf'k"V ds vuqlkj 1]33]10]576-00 :i, dk vokMZ vfUre :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. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 163, 164 and 168 of 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. 71/2005 (related to reference application No. 154/1997), it was stated by the appellants that the compensation was not given to them as per the market value. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that at the site the RIICO allotted plots and at some portion factories have also been constructed. The RIICO sold the said land at the rate of Rs. 250 per sq. foot. The appellants produced Ex. 3 which Is not surrounded by the roads. Ex. 4 to 7 which were the registered sale deeds of the land having roads and at some portion shops have also been constructed. The RIICO sold the said land at the rate of Rs. 250 per sq. foot. The appellants produced Ex. 3 which Is not surrounded by the roads. Ex. 4 to 7 which were the registered sale deeds of the land having roads and at some portion shops have also been constructed. The appellants stated that they have prepared the map after paying Rs. 500 to the Engineer. This map is not certified by the Engineer. The uncertified map also shows that the land is 1610 feet away from the National Highway. The Ex. 4 to 7 produced by the appellants also show that the land is surrounded by the roads. This land was taken up for constructing shops and the RIICO allotted 250 sq feet land. As per the arguments of the counsel for the appellants this was the land which has been developed by the RIICO after acquisition. These documents related to a land which is developed by the RIICO, hence the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of the market value in the instant appeals. 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 appeal No. 80/2005. (related to reference application No.160/1997, the contention of the appellants is that the Land Acquisition Officer has not determined the correct value of the land and they are entitled for market value of the land and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. The appellants have filed Ex. 9 to 12 which were the registration deeds. Map Ex. 13 has also been produced. The appellants failed to show that Ex. 9 to 12 related to which place. The appellants stated in their statement that they have not handed over the possession of the land. It Is stated by the respondent RIICO that the appellants received the award money and possession is with the RIICO. The land of the appellants Is away from the National Highway about: 20, 40, 2145, 2135, 2950, 3135, 3150, 2785, 2970, 2990, 3300, 3360, 3485, 3630, 3610, 3270, 3320, 3630, 2640, 2310, 2290, 3465, 3329, 2600 feet. It Is stated by the respondent RIICO that the appellants received the award money and possession is with the RIICO. The land of the appellants Is away from the National Highway about: 20, 40, 2145, 2135, 2950, 3135, 3150, 2785, 2970, 2990, 3300, 3360, 3485, 3630, 3610, 3270, 3320, 3630, 2640, 2310, 2290, 3465, 3329, 2600 feet. Thus the arguments raised by the appellants cannot be accepted that they have not been paid the market value of the land. The value of the land was based as per the report of the Sub Registrar, Niwai on the date of the Notification under section 4(1) of the Act. 16. In appeal No. 81/2005 (related to reference application No.146/1997) the main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation is not based as per the market value of the land and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. The appellant has stated that he has been allotted the land prior to 15 years. The appellant has also failed to point out whether he has any well and trees on the land. The appellant filed the map prepared by the Patwari. The appellant has not been able to exhibit these documents in evidence but on a perusal of the documents it shows that the land of the appellant is 2440 feet away from the National Highway. Thus the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted that he has not been given the compensation as per the market rate applicable in that area. 17. In relation to Misc. Appeal No.82/2005 (related to reference application No.168/1997), the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the market value of the land has not been given to the appellants while computing the compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer and the provisions of the Act have not been followed. The land of the appellants is near to village Niwai approximately 3 kms (one Kosh) and from the National High Way Jaipur to Kota it is 9 to 12 Kms. (3-4 Kosh) and near to village Aliyawad. The statement of the appellant is that factories are to be constructed by RIICO on the said land. As per the uncertified map produced by the appellants, the land of the appellants is away from the National Highway approximately 2640, 3135 and 1815 feet. (3-4 Kosh) and near to village Aliyawad. The statement of the appellant is that factories are to be constructed by RIICO on the said land. As per the uncertified map produced by the appellants, the land of the appellants is away from the National Highway approximately 2640, 3135 and 1815 feet. Thus the contention of the appellants that they have not been paid the compensation as per the market rate cannot be accepted. 18. In relation to appeal No. 70.2005 (which related to reference application No.163/1997) the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are that the compensation has not been computed as per the market value and the provisions of the Act have not been followed. The appellants have purchased the land in the year 1979. The appellants have not been able to point out the exact amount by which they have purchased the land. The RIICO stated that the portion of the land which is near the road, the appellants have been allowed the compensation applicable near the road and the land which is not near to the road and away from it about 825 feet compensation was given according to that rate. Thus the contention of the appellants that they have not been given the value of the land at the market rate cannot be accepted. 19. In Misc. Appeal No. 72/2005 (which related to reference application No.164/1997), the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants are that they have not been given the compensation at the market rate and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. This argument of the learned counsel for the appellants can not be accepted as the appellant Jagdish in his statement has not accepted that the land shown in documents Ex. 4 to 7 is near to National Highway. From the uncertified map produced by the appellants it is clear that the land of the appellants is near about 2455, 1485, 2805 feet away from their lands (sic. National Highway). The compensation was determined after receiving report from the Sub Registrar. Thus it cannot be said that the appellants have not been given the compensation as per the market rates. 20. In Misc. National Highway). The compensation was determined after receiving report from the Sub Registrar. Thus it cannot be said that the appellants have not been given the compensation as per the market rates. 20. In Misc. Appeal No. 87/2005 (related to reference application No. 152/1997), the appellants counsel argued that the appellant has not been given the compensation as per the market rate and the provisions of the Act have not been complied with. The appellant stated that he was given land by the Government and the Government has acquired it. The appellant has not been able to point out the rate at which he was allotted the land. The appellant has not been able to point out from Ex. 4 which is the registered sale deed, which is not surrounded by the-road. The blue print map produced by the appellant also did not disclose his land's khasra number. The compensation was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer after receipt of report from the Sub Registrar, Niwai. Thus in these circumstances it cannot be said that he has not been given the compensation as per the market value. 21. Misc. Appeal No. 85/2005 (related to reference application No. 150/1997), the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants 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. It is stated that the RIICO sold the plot of land in the amount of Rs. 250 per sq. foot and produced pamphlet Ex. 10 in support of their contention. Hanuman Prasad AD 2 appearing as witness stated that in 1992 he purchased a plot of land in Roopwas measuring 250 sq. feet by paying Rs. 28,000/- and the same was sold by him after one year in the amount of Rs. 35,000/-. The registration of this document was done in the name of Sashibala which is Ex. 6. He further stated that his land is away 100-150 sq. feet from Vanasthali. This evidence cannot be accepted for the purposes of land acquired by the respondent RIICO. The land of the appellants is approximately 3900, 3910, 4185, 4165, 4290, 4350, 4495, 4575, and 4125 feet away from National Highway. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the value of the land as per the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai. feet from Vanasthali. This evidence cannot be accepted for the purposes of land acquired by the respondent RIICO. The land of the appellants is approximately 3900, 3910, 4185, 4165, 4290, 4350, 4495, 4575, and 4125 feet away from National Highway. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the value of the land as per the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai. Thus it cannot be said that the market value of the land has not been given to them. 22. In Misc. Appeal No.77/2005 (related to reference application No. 159/1997) the learned counsel for the appellants Lated that the appellants 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. It is stated that map Ex. 3 is not surrounded by road. As per uncertified map the land of the appellants is away from National Highway approximately 2640, 2520, 2310, 2475, 1320 feet. The appellant has not been able to show that how his land is near to National Highway. 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. 23. In Misc. Appeal No. 73/2005 (related to reference application No. 147/1997), it was stated by the appellants that the compensation was not given to them as per the market value and the provisions of the Act have not been followed. It was stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants have been provided compensation in the amount of Rs. 11,000/- per bigha but the actual value is Rs. 22,000/- per bigha. The land of the appellants is only 3 Kms. (one Kosh) from Niwai. The appellants produced Ex. 3 which is not surrounded by the roads. Ex. 3 to 8 which are registered sale deeds of the land having roads and as some portion shops have also been constructed. The land of the appellants is away from the National High Way 2227, 2330, 2105, 2085, 2785, 2865, 2990, 3135 feet. The compensation was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai hence it cannot be said that the compensation has not been awarded to the appellants as per the market value. 24. The DJ in relation to issue No.1, in reference applications Nos. The compensation was determined on the basis of the report of the Sub Registrar Niwai hence it cannot be said that the compensation has not been awarded to the appellants as per the market value. 24. The DJ in relation to issue No.1, in reference applications Nos. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 163, 164, and 168 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 vokIr dh xbZ gS mldh fLFkfr mij foosfpr fd;s vuqlkj gS izkFkhZx.k ,slk fl) djus esa foQy jgs gSa fd muls vokIr dh xbZ Hkwfe esa ls ckjkuh Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; 6 yk[k :i;s izfr ch?kk vkSj pkgh Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; 7 yk[k :i;s izfr ch?kk FkkA lqLFkkfir fof/k ds izdk'k esa ;g rF; rks gekjs fy;s lqlaxr gh ugha gS fd mDr Hkwfe dk vkt dk cktkj ewY; D;k gSa\ D;ksafd vc ;g Hkwfe jhdks }kjk vokfIr 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 :i;s izfrch?kk gS vr% fooknd la[;k 1 izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) rFkk foi{khx.k ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA " 25. I have gone through the findings given by the DJ in the order dated 30.9.2003, in relation to reference applications Nos. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 1d3, 164, and 168 of 1997. In my opinion the findings given by the DJ 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 12.10.95 in relation to village Roopwas informed the rate of Index from the record as follows: Unirrigated land Rs. 11,385/- per Bigha Irrigated land Rs. 21,780/- per Bigh-iNear Road land 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 DJ in the detailed order came to the finding that the documents produced by the appellants were not related to the land pointed out by the appellants. The DJ in the detailed order came to the finding 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 DJ 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 in the appeals and after considering the same in my opinion the order passed by the DJ in the reference applications is 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. 26. Similarly on issues Nos. 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. 26. Similarly on issues Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 8, the DJ on the reference applications No. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 163, 164 and 168 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 jsQsjsUldrkZ ,slk fl) djus es foQy jgs gSa fd mudh vkjkth;kr ds pkjksa vksj yxh gqbZ Mksy dk izfrdj os ,d yk[k :i ds fglkc ls vkSj vkjkth;kr esa fLFkr jlnkj ,oa bekjrh o`{kksa dk eqvkotk Hkh ,d yk[k :i;s izfr o"kZ vk; ds fglkc ls ikus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA jsQsjsaldrkZ ,slk Hkh fl) djus esa foQy jgs gSa fd muds }kjk izLrqr osY;qj dh fjiksVZ ,oa r[kehuk fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij os Hkwfe ij cus iDds edku ,oa fctyh fQfVax] njokts] f[kM+dh vkfn ds fufeZr Hkh 10 yk[k :i;s eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA bl izdkj dh dksbZ osY;qvj dh fjiksVZ o r[kehuk fjiksVZ izLrqr dj izkFkhZx.k }kjk izekf.kr ugha dh xbZ gSA jsQsjsUldrkZ ,slk fl) djus esa Hkh foQy jgs gSa fd vius dq,] dqafM;k] gkst fctyh fQfVax] iEilsV] cksfjax vkfn ds fufeZr os 2]50]000 :i;s ls 3 yk[k :i;s rd dh eqvkotk jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSaA bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ osY;qvj o r[kehuk fjiksVZ izLrqr dj fl) ugha dh xbZ gS jsQjsUldrZrkvksa }kjk mDr enksa esa ftl izdkj ,d yk[k :i;s izfro"kZ] 10 yk[k :i;s vkSj <+kbZ ls rhu yk[k :i;s dk eqvkotk jkf'k dh ftl izdkj ekax dh xbZ gS] og ekax muds }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 jgs gSa muds vf/kdkfj;ksa uas ekSds ij igqapdj izR;sd Hkwfe ij gq, fuekZ.k] cus gq, dqvksa rFkk yxs gq, isM+ksa dk fujh{k.k fd;kA mPpkf/kdkjh Hkh bl gsrq ekSds ij igqaps] fuekZ.k dks ns[kus gsrq ou foHkkx ds vf/kdkjh ekStwn Fks] mUgha ds }kjk ekSds ij ikbZ xbZ fLFkfr dk mYys[k djrs gq, ik;s x;s fuekZ.k] dq, ,oa isM+ksa 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 ,slk dgha Hkh izrhr ugha gksrk fd vokMZ dks rS;kj djus ls iwoZ vko';d vkap ,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 ,u0,0M0 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 Fkh] vr% ,slk Hkh lEHko ugha gS fd ;g lc dk;Zokgh djus ds ckn Hkh HkwLokfe;ksa dks ;g fLFkfr ekywe ugha iM+s fd o`gn~ Lrj ij dk;Zokgh djus ds ckn Hkh HkwLokfe;ksa dks ;g fLFkfr ekywe ugha iM+s 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 lEHko gSA gLrxr ekeys esa dbZ vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk ekSdk fujh{k.k ds mijkUr 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 ugha 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 fd fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij jsQsjsUldRrkZvksa ds dCts dk'r ,oa [kkrknkjh dh vkjkth;kr ,oa mu ij gks jgs fuekZ.k] edku] dq,] yxs gq, o`{k vkfn dk eqvkotk fu/kkZfjr djrs gq, vokMZ ikfjr fd;s x;s gSaA bl izdkj ;g fLFkfr Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k vkifrZdRrkZx.k fook|d la0 2] 4 ,oa 5 dks vius i{k esa fl) djus esa foQy jgs gSaA tcfd foi{khx.k fook|d la0 8 dks vius i{k esa fl) gksuk izekf.kr dj lds gS vkSj QyLo:i fook|d la0 2] 4 o 5 izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) ,oa fook|d la0 8 foi{khx.k ds i{k esa fofuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA 27. I have gone through the findings given by the DJ on issues No. 2, 4, 5 and 8 in relation to reference applications Nos. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 163, 164 and 168 of 1997 and in my opinion the findings are just and proper. The DJ in its order discussed each and every point with reasons. The findings arrived at by the DJ 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 DJ on issues No. 2, 4 5 and 8 in the reference applications Nos. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 163, 164 and 168 of 1997 stand confirmed. The arguments raised by the appellants in these appea's 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. 28. On issues No. 3 and 6, the DJ gave the following findings on the reference applications Nos. The arguments raised by the appellants in these appea's 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. 28. On issues No. 3 and 6, the DJ gave the following findings on the reference applications Nos. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 163, 164 and 168 of 1997 : Hkwfe vokfIr vf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr vokMZ fnukad 19-8-96 ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZx.k dks Hkwfe ds ewY; ds vfrfjDr Hkwfe ij gks jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z ,oa yxs gq, isM+ksa vkfn dk ewY; tksM+dj eqvkotk jkf'k iznku dh xbZ gS vkSj bl jkf'k ij vf/klwpuk izdk'ku dh rkjh[k fnukad 15-12-94 ls Hkwfe dk dCtk izkIr dh rkjh[k 29-2-96 rd 12% okf"kZd nj ls C;kt fnyk;k x;k gS blh 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 gSa fd Hkwfe vokfIr 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 gSa] ,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 gksrk 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;s tkus dh rkjh[k ls ,d lky dh vof/k rd 9 izfr'kr vkSj blds mijkUr pkgk x;k 15 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls C;kt Hkh izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh ugha gSA 29. I have gone through the findings arrived at by the DJ 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 DJ on these issues are just and proper. The appellants have already received the compensation 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. 30. I have also gone through the finding of the DJ 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. 31. I have also gone through the findings on issue No. 9 by the DJ. The DJ 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. 32. For the reasons and the findings mentioned above, the misc. appeals Nos. 71/2005, 77/2005, 70/2005, 80/2005, 81/2005, 82/2005, 85/2005, 87/2005 and 72/2005 deserve to be rejected and are hereby rejected. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 19.8.1996 and the common order dated 30.9.2008 passed by the DJ on reference application Nos. 146, 147, 150, 152, 154, 159, 160, 163, 164 and 168 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 Rejected And Award Affirmed. *******