Judgment B.S. Verma, J. Since all these appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2011 passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Land Acquisition Cases No.103/09, No.104/09, No.105/09, No.106/09, No.107/09, No.108/09, No.109/09, No.110/09, No.111/09, No.112/09, No.113/09, No.114/09, No.115/09, No.116/09, No.117/09, No.118/09, No.119/09, No.120/09, No.121/09, No.122/09 and No.123/09, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order. 2. All these appeals, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), are directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2011 passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in aforementioned land acquisition cases, whereby the reference court has allowed the references thereby awarding compensation of land under acquisition @ Rs.5,950/- per sq.mt. and also directed to pay additional amount of 12% on the enhanced amount, as per Section 23(1-A), 30% solatium thereon and interest @ 9% till one year from the date of possession and thereafter @ 15% till actual payment. 3. Since all the references were arisen out of same notification therefore the reference court treated the L.A. Case No.103/2009 as a leading case and all the evidences have been led by the parties in that reference case. Plot no.355-A situated in Niranjanpur Dehradun was acquired by the State Government for Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Dehradun. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official Gazette on 3.7.2006 followed by notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, which was published on 17.7.2006. Publication was made in two Hindi newspapers, namely, Doon Darpan and Amar Ujala, regarding notifications to that effect. Consequently, the total area of plot no.355-A measuring 16980 sq.mt. was acquired and possession thereof was taken on 2.6.2008. After completing other formalities, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, SLAO) passed Award on 31.12.2008 whereby compensation @ Rs.833.55 per sq.mt. was awarded to the claimants with all other statutory benefits, including 30% solatium, 12% additional amount and interest under Section 28 of the Act, after making 20% deduction. 4. The claimants were not satisfied by the Award made by the SLAO hence they filed applications under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector Dehradun to make reference to the court, for adjudication of market value of the compensation, upon which different reference cases were registered before the reference court. 4. The claimants were not satisfied by the Award made by the SLAO hence they filed applications under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector Dehradun to make reference to the court, for adjudication of market value of the compensation, upon which different reference cases were registered before the reference court. The reference cases were subsequently transferred to III Additional District Judge for hearing and disposal. The references have been made mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded by the SLAO is inadequate, while the claimants have claimed that they are entitled to compensation @ 7000/- per sq.mt. as per circle rate. It was also asserted that the land under acquisition is having commercial potentiality and the land is situated in prime location, in the heart of city, within the limits of Nagar Nigam, Dehradun on the Main Saharanpur Road and is at a distance of 4 Kms. from Bindal Chowk. 5. On behalf of the appellants, it was alleged that the compensation paid by the SLAO is just and proper and that has been awarded on the basis of selected sale deed dated 23.12.2005. On behalf of the claimants, it was asserted that the SLAO was bound to award compensation for the land under acquisition on the basis of circle rate as well as on the basis of highest exemplar sale deed executed within one year from the date of notification under Section 4. The claimants alleged that the SLAO has not considered the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the period 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2007. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Reference Court:- i) Whether the amount of compensation determined by the SLAO is inadequate? ii) At what rate, the claimants are entitled to get the compensation? 7. The claimants in reference case no.103 of 2009, which was made the leading case, has examined P.W.1 Pramod Chandra Kukreti, P.W.2 Om Prakash Gupta, and in documentary evidence, filed 15 documents by list 15C, 2 documents by list 35C, and also filed copy of circle rate determined by the Collector for the relevant period. On behalf of the appellants, D.W.1 Sunil Kumar Kashyap and D.W.2 Vijay Thapliyal were got examined. 8. On behalf of the appellants, D.W.1 Sunil Kumar Kashyap and D.W.2 Vijay Thapliyal were got examined. 8. The learned reference court, after hearing the parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the exemplar i.e. the selected sale deed on the basis of which compensation has been awarded by the SLAO is not a proper exemplar. On the basis of statement of D.W.1 Sunil Kumar Kashyap, the reference court held that the land acquired is situated on the main road whereas the land in selected sale deed is at a distance of about 500 mt. from the main road and is situated in a lane and accordingly held that the selected sale deed relied upon by the SLAO was incorrect to determine the compensation of the land acquired. The reference court, after considering the evidence on record and on the basis of judgment of this Court “Bhopendra Singh and others v. Awas Vikas Parishad and others”, 2005 (2) U.D. 295 , has awarded compensation @ Rs.7000/- per sq. mt. after deducting 20% towards development charges. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2011 has been passed by the learned reference court. 9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Dehradun has filed the instant first appeals. 10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently urged that the learned reference court has committed manifest error of law by awarding compensation on the basis of circle rate when the claimants themselves are relying upon the exemplar sale deed i.e. @ Rs.5050/- per sq.mt. It is contended that land in the selected sale deed, which was taken into consideration by the SLAO, is also situated in the close proximity of the acquired land. 11. In support of their case, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court passed in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun v. Bipin Kumar and anther, reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 283, wherein it has been held that if the claimants’ claim is based on exemplar filed by them before the court, in any case, that would be a just and proper compensation for the purpose of determination under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. On the basis of aforesaid judgment, learned senior counsel has contended that the reference court has committed error in not considering this fact and awarding compensation on the basis of circle rate. 12. The second contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant is that the rate determined by the reference court, i.e. Rs.7,000/- per sq.mt., is applicable for only upto 50 mts. from the road and thereafter the rate is Rs.6,000/- per sq.mt. Therefore, on this count also, the finding of the reference court is perverse. 13. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the claimants/respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in Bhopendra Singh and others v. Awas Vikas Parishad and others”, 2005 (2) U.D. 295 , and has contended that the Division Bench of this Court while parting with Bhopendra Singh’s case had also considered Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer Aidalabad Andhra Pradesh (1994 Vol.4 S.C.C. 595) and has accordingly held that since in the State of U.P. to determine the market value statutory rules have been framed and the rules are having statutory force and as held in Jawajee’s case there was a valuation register only and it was held that the compensation has to be paid not less than the circle rate of the area of which the land was acquired. Learned senior counsel has thus contended that judgment relied upon by the appellant is based on Jawajee’s case and therefore it is of no help to the appellant. 14. So far as the second contention is concerned, the reference court in paragraph 32 of the judgment has dealt with this issue in detail and has held on the basis of statement of DW2 Vijay Thapliyal that the acquired land is adjoining commercial establishment and that there is nearby Hotel “Viceroy Inn”. It was also admitted in cross-examination that the land was acquired for commercial activities. However, the land acquired is recorded as agricultural land in the revenue record. It is contended that the reference court after considering the judgment passed in Bhopendra’s case (supra) and other documents has rightly fixed the rate as Rs.7,000/- per sq.mt. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 16. From perusal of record, it emerges out that the reference court has framed issue no.1 on inadequacy of compensation. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 16. From perusal of record, it emerges out that the reference court has framed issue no.1 on inadequacy of compensation. Now, this Court has to examine whether the finding given on this issue is perverse or is based on cogent evidence, and whether the compensation awarded by the reference court is based on the fair market value of the land under acquisition as envisaged by Section 23 of the Act or not? 17. On behalf of the claimants, one sale deed, referred above, was filed to indicate the market value of the land. The appellants/defendants has also admitted this fact in their evidence that the exemplar sale deed which was taken for determination of the market value for the purpose of payment of compensation is situated in a lane at a distance of about 500 mts. on eastern side whereas the sale deed which was filed by the claimants is the land situated just across the road of acquired land. Therefore, in my opinion, the reference court has rightly not accepted the selected sale deed for the purpose of calculating compensation, which was taken into consideration by the SLAO. In the land acquisition cases, the proximity and the potential value of the land is to be seen as to whether the acquired land is situated in a developed area, and whether it is being used for residential purpose or commercial activities. In the case at hand, this fact is not disputed that the land is situated at Main Saharanpur Road and is at a distance of about 4 Kms. from Clock Tower, which is fully developed commercial area and it is also within the master plan. On the basis of evidence, the reference court, has also given categorical finding to this effect that the land is situated on Saharanpur Road and which lies between Bindal Bridge and Turner Road. 18. So far as the judgment relied upon by the appellant is concerned, in paragraph 7 of the case Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has made reference of the case Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and has held as under”:- “7. 18. So far as the judgment relied upon by the appellant is concerned, in paragraph 7 of the case Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has made reference of the case Jawajee Nagnatham (supra) and has held as under”:- “7. It has been held by this Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham vs. Revenue Divisional Officer that market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 cannot be fixed on the basis of a basic valuation register maintained by the registering authority for collection of stamp duty. Therefore, the reliance by the Reference Court on the values of land fixed by the District Magistrate for stamp duty purposes is clearly erroneous. For the purposes of Land Acquisition Act the market value must be determined on the basis of sale deeds of comparable lands. In this case the Land Acquisition Officer had taken note of one such sale deed where the price was Rs.15.37 per sq. yard. The Reference Court also had before it the sale deed by which the respondent purchased a portion of the acquired land. As stated above the sale deed was for Rs.15.40 per sq. yard. Section 92 of the Evidence Act precludes a party from leading evidence contrary to the terms of a written document. It was, therefore, not open to the respondent to urge that, even though his sale deed showed a price Rs. 15.40 per sq. yard the real market value was Rs.120 per sq. yard. To permit a party to so urge would be to give a premium to dishonesty. Parties who undervalue their documents, for purpose of payment of stamp duty, cannot be allowed to then claim that their own documents does not reflect the correct market value. Therefore as per sale instances of the comparable lands the market value, on dates of sales, were in the region of Rs.15.37 to Rs.15.40 per sq. yard.” 19. The ratio of the judgment cannot be disputed. In the case before the Apex Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), the claimant-respondent filed his own sale deed in evidence by which land at the rate of Rs.15.40 per sq. yard was purchased. The Apex Court held that it was not open for the respondent to lead evidence contrary to the terms of a written document. 20. In the case before the Apex Court in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (supra), the claimant-respondent filed his own sale deed in evidence by which land at the rate of Rs.15.40 per sq. yard was purchased. The Apex Court held that it was not open for the respondent to lead evidence contrary to the terms of a written document. 20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation has rightly been awarded keeping in mind Bhopendra Singh’s case (supra). I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the reference court. 21. Accordingly, all these appeals lack merit and are hereby dismissed. Impugned judgment and award dated 28.5.2011 passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, is upheld. 22. Let the judgment be placed in each connected first appeal. Lower court record be sent back.