Land measuring 18 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 419, 420 and 426 min situated at Reasi was acquired for construction of P.H.E. Complex Reasi pursuant to Declaration made under Section 6 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (1934 A.D.) vide Notification No.23 of 1995. On the basis of deliberations held by a Committee of Collectors, the following rates were approved by Collector (Sub Divisional Magistrate), Reasi as compensation for the acquired land. 1. Rs.22,000/- per kanal for Warhal Awal. 2. Rs. 16,000/- per kanal for Banjar. 3. Rs.2,500/- per kanal for Gairmumkin. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Collector, owners of the land requested for Reference to the Civil Court. A Reference was accordingly made to the learned Additional District Judge, Reasi. To determine market value of the acquired land, the learned Additional District Judge permitted the parties to lead evidence on the issues framed on the basis of their pleadings. The owners produced seven witnesses, besides one of the owners to substantiate their Claim to enhanced compensation. The Collector, however, did not produce any evidence despite opportunities allowed to him in this behalf. On the basis of the evidence produced by the owners, the learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the rates fixed by the Collector were irrational and arbitrary and the market value of the acquired land was Rs.40,000/-, Rs.30,000/- and Rs.15,000/- per kanal for Warhal Awal, Banjar and Gairmumkin respectively. He, accordingly, issued his Award on 28.07.2005 sanctioning enhanced compensation in favour of the owners on the basis of determined market value of the acquired land. The State of Jammu and Kashmir and Collector, Reasi have come up in Appeal against the learned Additional District Judge s Award. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. S.C.Gupta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, submitted that the evidence produced by the owners was not worthy of credence and the Civil Court had erred in relying on it to award enhanced compensation to which the respondents were not entitled on the basis of their otherwise sketchy, improbable and unrealistic evidence. Mr. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. S.C.Gupta, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, submitted that the evidence produced by the owners was not worthy of credence and the Civil Court had erred in relying on it to award enhanced compensation to which the respondents were not entitled on the basis of their otherwise sketchy, improbable and unrealistic evidence. Mr. S.S.Nanda, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the oral evidence produced by the owners was supported by documentary evidence placed on records and the facts brought on records through oral and documentary evidence having not been controverted by the appellants, the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge may not warrant interference in Appeal. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence led by the respondents before the Reference Court. While appreciating evidence of the respondents, the learned Additional District Judge found that the oral evidence of the owners was not only supported by Sale Deeds placed by them on records evidencing sales of land situated in Notified Area Committee, Reasi but also by written Report of Munshi Ram, Patwari Halqa Reasi who had stated, in unequivocal terms, that the market value of the land in the area was Rs.40,000/- per kanal when property in question was acquired. Patwari s statement was based on facts which, according to him, the documents evidencing transfer of possession and sale in the area would so demonstrate. The evidence produced by the respondents, which was supported by the Report of the concerned Patwari, who is the best person to know about sale and purchase of lands in the area at the relevant time when Notification under Section 6 was issued, looked from any angle, cannot be said to be sketchy, improbable and unrealistic, as projected by the learned State counsel. Even otherwise evidence produced by the respondents had stood the test of cross-examination and was supported by other documentary evidence including Patwari s Report. This evidence has been rightly relied upon by the Additional District Judge, in that, nothing was brought on records by the appellants to rebut the owners evidence. The findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Reasi on the issues framed in the case are well merited which do not warrant interference in Appeal. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge on Issue Nos. 1 to 3 are, therefore, affirmed. The findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Reasi on the issues framed in the case are well merited which do not warrant interference in Appeal. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge on Issue Nos. 1 to 3 are, therefore, affirmed. For all what has been said above, the State s Appeal is found without merit, hence dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-. Registrar to draw Decree.