JUDGMENT Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Stay Application No.10308 of 2012) Since the controversy involved in all these appeals is similar, the land under acquisition having been acquired under the same Notification and for the same purpose and as all of them have arisen out of a common judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd F.T.C. Nainital (for short the Reference Court), therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. All these appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 13-2-2006 passed by the learned Reference Court, whereby it was held that the appellant-landowners shall be entitled to get compensation of their land under acquisition @ Rs. 14,925-85 P. per acre along with 15% solatium thereon as well as interest @ 12% per annum as mentioned in the impugned award. 3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the land under acquisition was required by the respondent no.2 for a land development and housing scheme at Jaspur. The notification under Section 28 of the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam (for short the Act), which is similar to notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act) was published in the official Gazette of the State Government on 30-5-198 1, followed by notification under Section 32 of the Act on 10-7-1982. Subsequently, notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued and served by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital (SLAO) upon all the persons interested in respect of the land under acquisition including the appellants herein. The S.L.A.O. after completing necessary formalities and after hearing the landowners, who submitted their objections in pursuance of the notice under Section 9 of the Act, selected the exemplar sale-deed dated 30-9-1980 and thereafter determined the compensation of the land under acquisition @ 11,194-03 P. per acre by the award dated 28-9-1984. The appellants herein received the compensation under protest. 4. On the basis of the objections having been raised by the landowners before the Collector, Nainital with regard to the deficiency of compensation, reference in each case was made by the Collector to the District Judge, Nainital, for determination of compensation, on the basis of which separate Land Acquisition Cases were registered in the Reference Court. 5. 4. On the basis of the objections having been raised by the landowners before the Collector, Nainital with regard to the deficiency of compensation, reference in each case was made by the Collector to the District Judge, Nainital, for determination of compensation, on the basis of which separate Land Acquisition Cases were registered in the Reference Court. 5. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed his written statement in behalf of the State of U.P. that the compensation has been determined on the basis of the existing market value of the land. It was also asserted that in the exemplar sale deed which was considered by the SLAO, the land under the sale deed was sold on 3-9-1980 for an area of 0.67 acre at the rate of Rs. 14,925-37 P., therefore, a deduction of 25% was made considering the largeness of area and the compensation was awarded @ Rs. 11, 194.03 P. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Reference Court framed necessary issues in the case. Both the parties have led documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective claims. The learned Reference Court after perusing the evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties counsel, came to the conclusion that the compensation determined by the S.L.A.O. is inadequate. 7. The record shows that in Land Acquisition Reference No. 48 of 1985, Pratap Singh Vs. Collector, from the side of the claimant, Pratap Singh examined himself as P.W. 1 and the state of U.P. examined Veer Singh, J.E. of the respondent no.2 as D.W. 1 in the case. 8. The learned Reference Court while determining the market value of the land has considered various sale deeds produced before the reference Court, which are numbered as paper no. 21-C, paper no. 23-C and paper no. 28-C. After considering the facts and circumstances of each of the sale deeds with the promity of the land under acquisition, the learned refernce Court has come to the conclusion that the compensation @ Rs. 35000/- per acre would be a just and adequate compensation and accordingly passed the award dated 8-5-1992 by a common judgment directing that the landowners are entitled compensation @ Rs.35,000/- per acre along with 15% solatium and interest @ 12% per annum. 9. 35000/- per acre would be a just and adequate compensation and accordingly passed the award dated 8-5-1992 by a common judgment directing that the landowners are entitled compensation @ Rs.35,000/- per acre along with 15% solatium and interest @ 12% per annum. 9. It appears that the respondent no.2-herein i.e. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad having been aggrieved by the said award passed in Land Acquisiton Reference No. 48 of 1985, Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P., which was decided by common award dated 8-5-1992 by the reference Court, preferred First Appeal No. 125 of 2001, U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Pratap Singh before this Court. 10. This Court after hearing both the parties to the appeal and considering the Apex Court verdict in the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Gyan Devi [(1995) 2 S.C.C., 326] direct that the respondent no.2 U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad shall be impleaded as a party to the proceeding before the Reference Court. The appeal was accordingly allowed by order dated 26-4-2004 and it was directed that the reference shall be decided afresh after taking into account the entire evidence including the evidence led by the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. 11. After the remand of the matter, the respondent no.2 was impleaded as party to the references. Pratapa Singh Claimant again examined himself as P.W. 1 on 18-8-2004 and it appears that in the reference Court an affidavit of Sri Suresh Chandra Negi, Junior Engineer, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Kashipur, district Udham Singh Nagar was filed on behalf of the respondent no.2. This witness was cross-examined on 22-11-2004 before the Reference Court. 12. Before the reference Court on behalf of the respondent no.2, Veer Singh, Junior Engineer of the respondent no.2 was also examined as D.W. 1, besides the claimant Pratap Singh, P.W. 1. The learned Reference Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing both the parties, has relied upon the exemplar sale deed, which had already been relied by the S.L.A.O. and it has been observed by the learned Reference Court that the sale deed dated 3-9-1980 which shows the market value of the land under the sale deed at the rate of Rs. 14,925-85 would be an adequate and just compensation. Consequently, the impugned award has been passed by order dated 13-2-2006 which gave rise to the present appeal. 13. 14,925-85 would be an adequate and just compensation. Consequently, the impugned award has been passed by order dated 13-2-2006 which gave rise to the present appeal. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award passed by the S.L.A.O. as well as the award dated 13-2-2006 passed by the learned reference Court. 14. During the course of argument, Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has pointed out that the reference Court as well as SLAO both have committed a manifest error of law in selecting the document dated 3-9-1980 taking it as a sale deed, while the document dated 3-9-1980 is a gift deed. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since on the gift deed, the stamp duty was to be paid as per conveyance mentioned in Article 23 of Schedule I-B of the Stamp Act, as has to be paid on the sale deed, therefore, the alleged gift deed ought not have been taken as exemplar sale deed because in the gift deed consideration is always love and affection and not a cash consideration. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has further contended that on account of that, the market value has been determined by the S.L.A.O. @ Rs. 14, 925-85P. per acre on the basis of the stamp duty paid on gift deed. 16. I have examined the entire material placed before this Court in the appeals. 17. It is pertinent to mention here that in the first round of litigation, the learned Reference Court while deciding as many as 11 Land Acquisition Cases, namely L.A. Case Nos. 44 of 1985, 45 of 1985, 46 of 1985, 47 of 1985, 48 of 1985 (Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.), 49 of 1985, 50 of 1985, 51 of 1985, 52 of 1985, 53 of 1985 and 54 of 1985 had already considered the evidence led before the learned Reference Court. From a perusal of the earlier award dated 8-5-1992, it is obvious that the learned Reference Court had considered different sale deeds on the basis of the evidence led before the reference Court and ultimately, the learned Reference Court held that the market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs. 35,000/- per acre would be just and adequate compensation to be awarded to the landowners. 18. 35,000/- per acre would be just and adequate compensation to be awarded to the landowners. 18. Undisputedly, this Court while allowing First Appeal No. 125 of 2001, U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parisahd Vs. Pratap Singh by order dated 26.4.2004, which has arisen out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 48 of 1985, directed the Reference Court to take into account the entire evidence including the evidence led by the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad. It finds place to mention here that the learned Reference Court while passing the impugned award has lost sight of the fact that the learned Reference Court in its earlier award had also considered the evidence, which was brought on record and on the basis of the evidence the compensation @ Rs. 35,000/- per Acre was awarded. Admittedly, the appeal was allowed by this Court on account of non-impleadment of the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, therefore, the following observations have been made in the operative portion of the order dated 26-4-2004: “Since the sole question with regard to the impleadment of U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad has been decided in favour of the appellant, therefore, I need not decide the question with regard to the adequacy or inadequacy of amount of compensation, it will be a subject matter to be decided by the Reference Court after taking into account the entire evidence including the evidence led by the U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.” 19. It was however open to the learned Reference Court to have disagreed with the earlier finding. The learned Reference Court in the impugned award dated 13-2-2006 has neither made any reference of the finding recorded by the Reference Court in its earlier order nor has discussed the evidence, which was already on record. In the case at hand, the learned Reference Court lost sight of the fact that the document dated 3-9-1980 was not a sale deed but it was a gift deed. Moreover, there was already sufficient evidence, which was discussed by the learned Reference Court in the earlier award dated 8-5-1992 to show that the just and adequate compensation for the land under acquisition would be Rs. 35,000/- per Acre. It is significant to note that in this case no new evidence as to the market value of the land under acquisition was led from the side of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. 35,000/- per Acre. It is significant to note that in this case no new evidence as to the market value of the land under acquisition was led from the side of the U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad. The learned Reference Court in the award dated 8-5-1992 has mentioned that The Executive Engineer, II Construction Branch, U.P. Jal Nigam, Haldwani, district Nainital purchased land of the same village from one Rampal Singh, who executed sale deed on 2-3-1981, whereby the land measuring 200 Sq. Mt. Was sold for a sum of Rs. 17,000/-. The copy of sale deed is paper no. 28-C on record. It was also mentioned that this price of land comes to about Rs. 50,000/-per Acre. It was also observed that the land under acquisition is adjacent to abadi of Jaspur town and the land in question is suitable for abadi. The learned Reference Court held that the market value of the land under acquisition would be Rs. 35,000/- per Acre. I also find that the learned Reference Court in the award dated 8-5-1992 has elaborately discussed the entire evidence led by the parties in the case. Moreover, the Junior Engineer of the acquiring body namely Veer Singh, had already been examined as D.W. 1, in the Reference Court in the earlier round of litigation and his evidence was also considered by the reference Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that the land of claimant Pratap Singh was acquired for setting up Government Girls Inter College and he was paid compensation @ Rs. 93,000/- per Acre in that case. The distance between two lands of Pratap Singh is about 1-1.25 km. In my view the evidence, which had already been considered in the award dated 8-5-1992 should not been thrown out by the learned Reference Court while passing the impugned award and that too without any discussion on the evidence. 20. Having considered the entire evidence available on record, I am of the view that the market value of the land under acquisition as held by the learned Reference Court in the earlier award dated 8-5-1992 is just and adequate compensation. I accordingly hold that the market value of the land under acquisition would be Rs. 35,000/- as had been earlier held by the Reference Court, therefore, appellants are entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 35,000/- per Acre. 21. I accordingly hold that the market value of the land under acquisition would be Rs. 35,000/- as had been earlier held by the Reference Court, therefore, appellants are entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 35,000/- per Acre. 21. For the reasons and discussion above, the appeals deserve to be partly allowed. The impugned award deserves to be modified to that extent. 22. The appeals are partly allowed. The appellants are entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 35,000/- per Acre. The appellants shall get solatium and interest as awarded by the learned Reference Court in the award dated 8-5-1992. The impugned award dated 13-2-2006 stands modified accordingly.