Judgment Prafulla C. Pant, C.J. This appeal preferred under Section- 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 31.07.12 passed by the Reference Court/Special Judicial Officer, Shillong under the Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 5(J) 2006 by which the said Court has dismissed the claim referred to it by the Collector under Section- 18 of the Act. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, in the year 2001 two plots of land measuring 7632.32 sq.m. and 4624.42 Sq.m. situated at Dawki, Darrang Doloiship, Jaintia Hills District owned by the appellants Shri. M.S. Ryngksai and Smti. Shilla Ryngksai respectively were acquired for the purpose of construction of a permanent bridge over river Umngot (NH-40). After issuance of necessary notifications under Section- 4and Section- 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) made an award on 28.05.03 in respect of the acquired land and assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,44,535/- payable to Shri. M.S. Ryngksai and Rs. 1,45,994/- payable to Smti. Shilla Ryngksai (both appellants). The two appellants filed objections protesting the quantum of compensation assessed on which reference was made by the authorities concerned under Section- 18 of the Act. It is alleged by the appellants/claimants that the market value of the land acquired was Rs. 150 per sq. meter, and for the fruit bearing trees, the value was Rs. 500/- per tree. 3. On receiving the reference, the Reference Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed the following issues. i) Whether the award was made after the inspections/enquiries and after taking into consideration the location, type and potentialities of the acquired land? ii) Whether the award made for the trees were according to the market value at the relevant time? iii) Whether the award for the land was according to the market value of the land at the relevant time? iv) Whether the claimants are entitled to any enhancement? 4. The appellants/claimants adduced as many as six witnesses in support of their cases before the Reference Court namely-Shri. M.S. Ryngksai-CW-1, Smti. Shilla Ryngksai, CW-2, Shri. Jobin Ryngksai, CW-3, Shri. Brang Khyriem-CW-4, Shri. Raja Khonsit-CW-5 and Shri Beringson Khongwang-CW-6. In reply to these on behalf of the State, witness OPW-1, Smti. Victoria Phawa, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Amlarem was examined. 5. 4. The appellants/claimants adduced as many as six witnesses in support of their cases before the Reference Court namely-Shri. M.S. Ryngksai-CW-1, Smti. Shilla Ryngksai, CW-2, Shri. Jobin Ryngksai, CW-3, Shri. Brang Khyriem-CW-4, Shri. Raja Khonsit-CW-5 and Shri Beringson Khongwang-CW-6. In reply to these on behalf of the State, witness OPW-1, Smti. Victoria Phawa, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Amlarem was examined. 5. Reference Court gave findings that the claim for enhanced market value of the land and trees has not been proved on record, as such the claim was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 6. It is admitted by the parties that the land in question owned by the appellants was acquired by the State Government for construction of a permanent bridge over river Umngot (NH-40) at Dawki. It is also not disputed that notification under Section- 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Meghalaya Gazette in March, 2001 and the possession of the land was taken by the Government vide letter dated 12.07.05. The only dispute is as to whether the market value of the land and trees was correctly assessed or not by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court. 7. We have re-examined the evidence on record. Shri. M.S. Ryngksai, CW-1 has stated that the land in question was inherited by him. It is further stated by this witness that the actual market value of the land acquired is between 150/- and Rs. 200/- per sq. meter. He further told that trees like jackfruit, mango, betel nut etc. cannot be valued at the rate less than Rs. 500/- per tree. CW-1, Shri. M.S. Ryngksai further told that the land acquired is adjacent to Dawki (town). In the cross-examination, CW-1 M.S. Ryngksai has admitted that the Officers of the Public Works Department had gone for inspections/enquiries in respect of the acquired land before assessment was made. 8. CW-2, Smti. Shilla Ryngksai has also stated that the land acquired belonging to her lies at Dawki which falls under Doloi Elaka, Darrang. She further told that her land is adjacent to the land of CW-1, Shri. M.S. Ryngksai and its area is 4624.42 sq. meter. This witness has not stated anything in her examine-in-chief that the market value assessed was low but in her cross-examination she has stated that the land compensation awarded was less than the market value. 9. She further told that her land is adjacent to the land of CW-1, Shri. M.S. Ryngksai and its area is 4624.42 sq. meter. This witness has not stated anything in her examine-in-chief that the market value assessed was low but in her cross-examination she has stated that the land compensation awarded was less than the market value. 9. CW-3, Shri. Jobin Ryngksai has stated that he knows the above appellants/claimants who are the land owners at Dawki. This witness further told that on the National Highway for which the land was acquired has shops, bazaar on both sides in Dawki and Bakur. CW-3 further told that in the year 2002 he purchased 550 Sq.ft of land from the appellant/claimant (Smti. Shilla Ryngksai) for Rs. 50,000/-. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he belongs to the clan of Ryngksai but from a different home. 10. CW-4, Shri. Brang Khyriem is another witness has proved sale deed as Paper mark-I showing that on 24.02.07, he purchased land measuring 5231.25 Sq.ft for Rs. 6,80,000/-. In the cross-examination, has stated that the land which was acquired for the construction of a bridge is a distance of 1 km from the place of his residence. 11. Statement of CW-5 regarding the value of the land in question is not believed rightly by the Reference Court as neither certified copy nor original sale deed was produced in support of the statement given by him. 12. CW-6, Shri. Beringson Khongwang is holding the post of Doloi Elaka Darrang since 1975. He corroborated that the appellants land was acquired by the State of Meghalaya. He further stated that the market value of the claimants land was not less than Rs. 150/- per sq.ft. 13. In response to these above evidence, OPW-1, Smti. Victoria Phawa, Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Amlarem has stated that the value of the land acquired was Rs. 20/- per sq. meter, and the value of the trees was Rs. 15 per tree. However, there is no basis shown by this witness to support the above assessment. In the cross-examination, OPW-1, Smti. Victoria Phawa has admitted that the distance between Bakur Market and the acquired land is 1 km. She has further told that there are constructions on both the sides of the road between Bakur and the Bridge constructed. 15 per tree. However, there is no basis shown by this witness to support the above assessment. In the cross-examination, OPW-1, Smti. Victoria Phawa has admitted that the distance between Bakur Market and the acquired land is 1 km. She has further told that there are constructions on both the sides of the road between Bakur and the Bridge constructed. She further told in the cross-examination that Dawki is the gateway between Bangladesh and India where there two markets, one of them belonging to Ryngksai clan is known as Bakur. She also admitted that the National Highway connects Dawki and Shillong via Jowai and Tamabil. OPW-1, Smti. Victoria Phawa further admitted in her cross-examination that she did not considered any sale deed in assessing the market value of the land but she relied only on the report of the Revenue Branch Office, she denied that trees over the land in question were fruits bearing trees. 14. Having re-appreciated the entire evidence on records above and after considering the fact that the land in question is near small market place, further considering the distance between the land acquired and the exemplar sale deeds filed and also considering the period between acquisition made and the exemplar sale deed executed, we are of the considered view that the market value of the land belonged to the appellants acquired by the State Government is not less than Rs. 60/- per sq. meter and trees also cannot be said to be valued less than Rs. 50/- per tree in any case. That being so, the findings of the Reference Court are erroneous and liable to be set aside. For the reasons as discussed above, appeal deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with the direction that the market value of the land acquired belonging to the appellants (Shri. M.S. Ryngksai and Smti. Shilla Ryngksai) is assessed at Rs. 60/- per sq. meter and for the trees standing thereon is assessed at Rs. 50/- per tree. The respondents are directed to pay the compensation accordingly along with 30 percent solarium and interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The collector shall pay 9% interest per annum on the excess sum awarded by this Court. 60/- per sq. meter and for the trees standing thereon is assessed at Rs. 50/- per tree. The respondents are directed to pay the compensation accordingly along with 30 percent solarium and interest payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The collector shall pay 9% interest per annum on the excess sum awarded by this Court. It is further directed that from the expiry of one year of taking possession of the land, 15% interest per annum shall be payable on the excess sum awarded by this Court as provided in proviso of Section- 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.