JUDGMENT Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—The present appeal has been filed against judgment and award dated 31st May, 1995 passed by the 10th Additional District Judge, Moradabad in Land Acquisition Reference No. 27 of 1989, whereby it had awarded compensation in respect of Plot No. 455-A at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard. 2. To redress the residential problem of the public of Moradabad, the appellant by issuing notification under Section 28 of the Uttar Pradesh Awas Ewam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, proposed to acquire Khasra No. 455-A situate at Civil Lines Chhavni, Tehsil & District Moradabad which was followed by another notification issued under Section 32 of the said Act dated 7th December, 1969. On 3rd December, 1971, the possession of land so acquired was taken. The award determining compensation was passed on 11th January, 1994 in respect of acquired land measuring 11.206 Acres, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Officer'), who awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard for first belt within 100 feet from the road and Rs. 8/- per square yard was fixed for remaining land. On application made by the respondents for making reference, the matter was referred to Civil Court for determination of market value of the land so acquired. It was registered as Land Acquisition Reference No. 27 of 1989. Before the reference Court, number of issues including area of the land so acquired was raised. The reference Court framed the following issues: 1. “What is the area of the land actually acquired by the O.P.’s. ? 2. Whether the entire land so acquired belonged to Sahu Hargulal? 3. Whether the land so acquired devolved in the present petitioners? If so its effect? 4. Whether the land so acquired includes 13 Quartors as alleged? 5. Whether the tube well existing on the land so acquired was worth Rs. 25,000/-? 6. Whether the trees standing on the land so acquired were worth Rs. 10,000/-? 7. Whether the amendments made in the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1984 are not applicable to the case in hand? 8. Whether the reference under Section 18 of L.A.Act is barred by limitation? 9. To what compensation or other relief if any are the petitioner’s entitled?” 3. Presently in the appeal, legality and validity of the findings recorded under issues No. 1 and 9 only have been challenged. 8. Whether the reference under Section 18 of L.A.Act is barred by limitation? 9. To what compensation or other relief if any are the petitioner’s entitled?” 3. Presently in the appeal, legality and validity of the findings recorded under issues No. 1 and 9 only have been challenged. Under issue No. 1, the Court below has found that 12.89 Acres of land is in possession of the appellant instead of 11.206 Acres as was found by the Officer, therefore, the respondents are entitled to receive compensation for an area of 12.89 Acres. Under issue No. 9, the evidence led by the claimants/respondents was rejected but the compensation was enhanced on the basis of sale-deed dated 24th July, 1968 executed by Chaudhary Shyam Sunder in favour of Ashfaq Hussain in respect of 30 square yard (Imaarti) for a sum of Rs. 1000/-. The trial Court has held that square yard mentioned in sale-deed is in terms of Imaarti square yard. In Immarti square yard, there are 33 inches while in standard yard, there are 36 inches. If an area is converted in standard square yard, the selling rate under the said sale-deed comes to Rs. 40/- per square yard. On that hypothesis, the Court below has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard payable to the claimants/respondents. 4. Heard Shri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Shesh Kumar and Shri Ritesh Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondents. The respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have given rise the following two questions for determination in the present appeal. (1) What is the area of land actually in possession of the appellant for which they are liable to pay compensation to the contesting-respondents herein? (2) Whether the Court below was justified in fixing market value of the land so acquired at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard? 5. Taking the first point first, it may be noted that Plot No. 455-A is a very big plot having an area 15.30 Acres out of which 14.20 Acres was proposed for the acquisition. (2) Whether the Court below was justified in fixing market value of the land so acquired at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard? 5. Taking the first point first, it may be noted that Plot No. 455-A is a very big plot having an area 15.30 Acres out of which 14.20 Acres was proposed for the acquisition. The case of the appellant is that subsequently it acquired only 11.206 Acres and rest of the area was left out of acquisition because it consisted of residence of Superintendent of Police, some part of land was in occupation of Harbhajan Singh who had filed a civil suit and got injunction and one Gopal Das Patni has constructed his house over one part of the land. The Officer has awarded compensation for 11.206 Acres which was disputed by the claimants in reference before the Court below. They came out with the case that as a matter of fact, the appellant herein is in possession and occupation of a bigger area. The reference Court issued a commission to survey Amin to find out the exact area of land, said to be in possession of the appellant with respect to plot in question. The city Amin vide paper No. 34-C submitted his report dated 20th March, 1991 and found that the appellant is in occupation of 12.89 Acres of land of plot No. 455-A. Noticeably, no objection was filed to the said report by the appellant nor any evidence to dispute or in any manner contradict the said report was led before the Court below. The Court below taking into consideration that there being no objection against the report of Court Amin and the survey which was conducted in presence of the parties has held, and in our view rightly, that the appellant is in occupation of 12.89 Acres land and as such they are liable to pay compensation for it. Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer any material or evidence to challenge the said findings of the reference Court on the said issue. The finding recorded by the reference Court on point No. 1 is, therefore, confirmed. 6. So far as point No. 2 is concerned, this is a vital issue between the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant could not refer any material or evidence to challenge the said findings of the reference Court on the said issue. The finding recorded by the reference Court on point No. 1 is, therefore, confirmed. 6. So far as point No. 2 is concerned, this is a vital issue between the parties. The determination of market value of a land with potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria. At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at any rate, determination of compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard on the basis of an exemplar which is sale-deed in respect of almost insignificant area of 30 square yard (Imarti, which is even less than standard square yard) is arbitrary, illegal and without basis. Submission is that the reference Court having rejected evidence led by the claimants was not justified in enhancing compensation to a such magnitude ignoring the fact that the said sale-deed cannot be treated as exemplar for such vast parcel of land measuring approximately 54,237 square yards (treating the area of land as 11.206 Acres) and it would be much more if the area of land is treated as 12.89 Acres. No deduction whatsoever towards development of plot such as for road, drainage, etc. was taken into account. Elaborating the argument, it was submitted that the award by the Officer determining the compensation by belting system was perfectly justified and the claimants on whom the burden lay to prove that adequate compensation has not been given under the award, was not discharged. 7. In reply, Shri Shesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the land in dispute lie in the heart of city Moradabad in posh locality i.e. Civil Lines surrounded by roads on all the four sides, the amount of compensation was rightly determined. The plot in question was fully developed and as such no deduction was called for and was rightly so done by the Court below. The sale-deed which has been treated as exemplar being the appellant’s own document was rightly relied upon. The plot in question was fully developed and as such no deduction was called for and was rightly so done by the Court below. The sale-deed which has been treated as exemplar being the appellant’s own document was rightly relied upon. It was further submitted that there being an admission in written argument made by the counsel for the appellant that the market value of the land is to be taken at 31.06 square yard and after deduction the claimants are entitled to compensation as 23.30 square yard, the compensation amount may be determined, at least, at that rate. 8. Considered the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Before proceeding further, we may place on record that the present appeal was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 10th March, 2004 but the said judgment was set aside and the matter was restored back to this Court by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1111 of 2006 with the following observations: “We are of the view that considering that it was a first appeal, the matter has been dealt with too peremptorily. At the very least, the reasoning given by the civil Court should have been referred to an if the High Court disagreed with the reasoning, set aside with reference to those reasons” 10. Before the reference Court, the claimants who were in position of plaintiffs filed evidence oral and documentary and claimed compensation at the rate of 100/- square yard. The Officer determined compensation on belting system at the rate of Rs. 12/- and Rs. 8/- per square yard, noticing salient future and potentiality of the land in dispute. The said portion has been reproduced by the reference Court in its judgment. The land in dispute is situate in Civil Lines and on a portion of it, house of Superintendent of Police is there. D.I.G. Police Training Centre, good bungalows, colleges and clubs etc. are nearby the plot in question. Railway Station is at short distance. District Court and Post Office are within periphery of one mile from the said plot and it has great potential value for residential purposes. It is surrounded by metal streets on all sides. There appears to be no dispute with regard to the facts. are nearby the plot in question. Railway Station is at short distance. District Court and Post Office are within periphery of one mile from the said plot and it has great potential value for residential purposes. It is surrounded by metal streets on all sides. There appears to be no dispute with regard to the facts. However, the reference Court has proceeded to determine the market value on the basis of copies of sale-deed filed by the claimants and rejected all of them after discussing them individually. Ultimately, it reached to conclusion that compensation at the rate of Rs. 100 per square yard as claimed under the circumstance cannot be granted. Reference Court then proceeded to consider the following five sale-deeds: (a) Paper No. 90-C- Executed on 12.8.1968 by Chaudhary Shyam Sundar in favour of Asfaq Hussain whereby 30 square yard land was sold for Rs. 1000/- @ Rs. 33-33/- per square yards. (b) Paper No. 91-C- Executed on 19.11.1971 by Van Narain S/o of Ram Narain in favour of Krishna Kumar whereby 924 square yard land was sold for Rs. 36,960/- @ Rs. 40/- per square yards. (c) Paper No. 92-C- Executed on 17.8.1968 by Brajendra Nath Chaturvedi in favour of Lajpat Rao Agarwal whereby 785 square yard land was sold for Rs. 22,000/- @ Rs. 28-02/- per square yards. (d) Paper No. 97-C- Executed on 19.2.1970 by Sahu Swaroop Jain in favour of Subhash Chandra Jain whereby 195 square yard land was sold for Rs. 5876/- @ Rs. 30/- per square yards. (e) Paper No. 98-C- Executed on 2.2.1970 by Om Prakash in favour of Krishna Lal Duttamal whereby 778 square yard land was sold for Rs. 23,340/- @ Rs. 30/- per square yards. 11. The claimants took a somersault before the reference Court and submitted that the copies of sale-deeds filed in evidence by the appellants may be considered as exemplar, notwithstanding the fact that the evidence led by them has been rejected. Then the Court treated paper No. 90-C i.e. sale-deed dated 12th August, 1968 executed by Chaudhary Shyam Sunder in favour of Ashfaq Hussain in respect of 30 square yard (Imarti) land that was sold for Rs. 1000/-, as exemplar. Through the said sale-deed, a small parcel of land measuring 30 square yard (Imaarti) after carving out of plots was sold. According to sale-deed, the selling rate comes to Rs. 1000/-, as exemplar. Through the said sale-deed, a small parcel of land measuring 30 square yard (Imaarti) after carving out of plots was sold. According to sale-deed, the selling rate comes to Rs. 33.33 per square yard while reference Court has treated the rate as Rs. 40/- per square yard by converting Imaarti yard into regular yard i.e. 36 square inches. There being no dispute that the said sale-deed is proximate to the notification and has similar potentiality. It is also in respect of civil lines area. 12. The main point, thus, mooted in the appeal is whether the said sale-deed has been rightly treated as exemplar for the purposes of determination of market value of the land so acquired. At this stage, we may notice the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimants having failed to lead any evidence to prove that compensation determined by the Officer was not adequate; reference application ought to have been rejected. 13. The Apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC 1652 , has laid down that the following factors which must be taken by the reference Court into consideration : “(1) A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) 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. (3) 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. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.” 14. The same principle has been reiterated subsequently in Special Land Acquisition Officer and another etc. v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others etc., AIR 1995 SC 840 . 15. Viewed as above, it is firmly established that proceeding before reference Court is not in the nature of appeal but in the nature of a suit. The position of a claimant in a reference before the Court, is considered to be that of the plaintiff in a suit requiring him to discharge the initial burden of proving that the amount of compensation determined in the award under section 11 is inadequate. It follows that if the claimant fails to discharge the said burden, the award of the Collector is final and conclusive evidence under section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act. The rate of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer becomes final. 16. The burden as laid down in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and another etc. v. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others etc. (supra), will shift upon the respondent only when claimant succeeds in proving that the amount determined under award of Collector was inadequate. 17. We therefore find sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the present case, the claimants-respondents herein have failed to discharge the burden, the reference Court should not have proceeded any further. It found that the evidence led by claimants is not sufficient to prove the compensation awarded by the Officer, was inadequate. Learned counsel for the respondents could not place any material before us to take a different view of the matter. 18. The other aspect of the case is whether Paper No. 90-C at all can be treated validly as exemplar for the purposes of determining compensation for the land in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondents could not place any material before us to take a different view of the matter. 18. The other aspect of the case is whether Paper No. 90-C at all can be treated validly as exemplar for the purposes of determining compensation for the land in dispute. The said sale-deed is in respect of small piece of land namely 30 square yard (Imaarti). The land acquired is 12.89 Acres. We were informed that there are 1 acre consists 4840 square yard and thus, 12.89 Acres will consist of 58,560 approximately square yard. It follows that the area of said sale-deed is only a tip of iceberg. A sale-deed can be considered as exemplar only when besides other things its area is comparable with that parcel land. The sale-deed in question being in respect of nano part of total area of land in dispute, cannot by any imagination, be treated as an exemplar and the reference Court was not right in placing reliance upon Paper No. 90-C or treating it as an exemplar. 19. Learned counsel for the parties cited certain decisions laying down the principle when small plots can or cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land. Learned counsel for the respondents laid emphasis on (1) Bhagwathula Samanna and others v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, AIR 1992 SC 2298 ; and (2) Atma Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another, AIR 2008 SC 709 . In the first case, the Apex Court has held that the Court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant Notification. The deduction of value for the purposes of comparison is not warranted when it is already developed and has roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. in the vicinity. In para-13, it has been stated that the proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. in the vicinity. In para-13, it has been stated that the proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. The Apex Court has laid down time and again that a sale-deed in respect of small piece of land can be treated as exemplar for vast tract of land and provided that the Court should deduct a reasonable percentage from the valuation shown in the exemplar land and on the basis thereof to arrive at a just and fair valuation. 20. In Rishi Pal Singh and others v. Meerut Development Authority and another, (2006) 3 SCC 205 , Supreme Court while dealing with the issue relating to a large tract of land held as follows: “5......................With respect to the first reason, that is, exemplars of small plots have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court, in the first instance our attention was invited to some judgments of this Court to urge that there is no absolute bar to exemplars of small plots being considered provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. Thus there is no bar in law to exemplars of small plots being considered. In an appropriate case, specially when other relevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplars can be considered after making adequate discount. This is a case in which appropriate exemplars are not available. The Reference Court has made adequate discount for taking the exemplars of smaller plots into consideration.................................. 21. In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 , Supreme Court held (paragraph 12) that where large tracts of land are required to be valued, valuation in transactions with regard to small plots cannot directly be adopted for valuing the compensation of large tracts of land. 21. In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 , Supreme Court held (paragraph 12) that where large tracts of land are required to be valued, valuation in transactions with regard to small plots cannot directly be adopted for valuing the compensation of large tracts of land. “It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the “retail” price of land and the latter the “wholesale” price.” 22. On the admissibility and relevance of sale-deeds, Supreme Court in Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59, held as follows: - “31. On the admissibility and relevance of sale-deeds, Supreme Court in Ranvir Singh and another v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59, held as follows: - “31. Furthermore, it is well-settled that the sale-deeds pertaining to the portion of lands which are subject to acquisition would be the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired lands.” “36. Furthermore, a judgment or award determining the amount of compensation is not conclusive. The same would merely be a piece of evidence. There cannot be any fixed criteria for determining the increase in the value of land at a fixed rate. ..................” 23. It was held in the case of Union of India and another v. Ram Phool and another, (2003) 10 SCC 167, that : - “6. ............ the sale price in respect of a small bit of transaction would not be the determinative factor for deciding the market value of a vast stretch of land. ........” 24. In the case of Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 , Supreme Court held as follows: - “7. ............. It is well-settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.” 25. Recently the Apex Court in the case of A.P. Housing Board v. K. Manohar Reddy and others, 2010(12) SCC, has laid down that in such matters, appropriate deduction ranging from 20% to 75% should be made towards development charges for developing a particular plot of land or when the relied upon exemplar is in respect of a very small piece of land. 26. 26. Taking into consideration that claimants have failed to lead any satisfactory evidence and also failed to discharge their burden to prove that the compensation awarded by the Officer was inadequate and the fact that sale-deed Paper No. 90-C is of insignificant area in comparison to the land in dispute, we are of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the Officer at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square yard in respect of first belt within specified limit is perfectly justified was not called for any interference by the reference Court. From perusal of the aforesaid sale-deed Paper No. 90-C dated 12th August, 1968, it would show that the land was sub-divided into small plots so that the purchaser may raise houses and shops. 27. So the award of reference Court awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 40/- per square yard is not sustainable and the same is, hereby, set aside. 28. Much emphasis was laid on the special feature of the land already noticed above to justify enhancement in the compensation amount by the learned counsel for the claimants before us. We are of the opinion that all those factors were admittedly accounted for and considered by the Officer. Those factors per se would not constitute any valid ground in absence of any other material for enhancement of the compensation amount by the reference Court. It was also argued that learned counsel for the respondent that before the reference Court it was admitted by the counsel for the appellant that the compensation should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 23.30 per square yard. The said fact finds mentioned in the judgment of the reference Court also. Argument may be attractive but we are not inclined to approve the judgment of reference Court merely on the basis of concession made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The concession, if any, should be read and understood in the context that the claimants were demanding compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard, which was being contested by the appellant. As a part of the arguments, the counsel in his written argument suggested that in any case, compensation can be determined at a given figure and not beyond it. Any concession made by a counsel bereft of any evidence on record and without any specific instruction in this regard, cannot form basis of a judgment. As a part of the arguments, the counsel in his written argument suggested that in any case, compensation can be determined at a given figure and not beyond it. Any concession made by a counsel bereft of any evidence on record and without any specific instruction in this regard, cannot form basis of a judgment. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant ever instructed the counsel for the above alleged concession. 29. The land so acquired was for the purposes of providing accommodation to the residents of Moradabad i.e. for housing purposes after carving out plots. The land is surrounded by roads all through and is situate in heart of the city. In this factual scenario, the compensation should be awarded at the flat rate i.e. lesser at the rate of Rs. 12 per square yard for entire parcel of land. The award of compensation by the Officer reducing market value of the land for second belt was, therefore, not justified and was rightly set aside by the reference Court. To this extent, the judgment and order of reference Court is confirmed. 30. Viewed as above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower Court is, hereby, set aside by providing that the claimants-respondents will be entitled to get compensation for entire land at uniform price i.e. at the rate of Rs. 12 per square yard. Remaining part of the award of the lower Court is confirmed being not subject-matter of appeal. No order as to costs. ——————