JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Rama Raman Mishra Advocate holding brief of Sri J.B. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri U.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the record. 2. Facts, in brief, of the present case are that a scheme has been launched by the respondent known as Bastauli Ghazipur Bhumi Vikas Evam Grah Sansthan yojna, Lucknow (herein after referred as ‘scheme’). 3. In order to implement the said scheme, lands of the villages Ismailganj, Ghazipur, Bastauli and others villages have been acquired vide notification published under Section 28 and 32 of the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam (herein after referred to as ‘Adhiniyam’) 4. On 20.12.1969 and 8.7.1970 the claimants, whose lands have been acquired claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. fit and some of them also claimed compensation for trees etc, standing on the land acquired before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The said authority by means of award dated 23.3.1976 awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1.19 per sq. yard also awarded compensation in respect to the trees standing on the land acquired to some of the claimants. 5. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded to the claimants by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, appellant/claimant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act registered as Misc Case No. 105 of 1977 (Kalidin v. State of U.P.) before the Presiding Officer, Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Tribunal, Lucknow. The said authority alongwith other connected references arising out the same dispute under Section 18 of the Act has connected them in order to decide the controversy. 6. After exchange of pleadings, the Court below/Presiding Officer, Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Tribunal, Lucknow has framed the following issues : (1) Whether the rate at which the compensation is awarded is inadequate and unjust? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation ? If so, at what rate? (3) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled? 7. Thereafter, on the basis of the material on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, by means of judgment and award dated 18.7.1983, the Presiding Officer, Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Tribunal, Lucknow enhanced the compensation for the land acquired under Scheme at the rate of 1.25 per sq. 7. Thereafter, on the basis of the material on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, by means of judgment and award dated 18.7.1983, the Presiding Officer, Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Tribunal, Lucknow enhanced the compensation for the land acquired under Scheme at the rate of 1.25 per sq. ft and also awarded 15% solatium and 6% interest on the enhanced compensation from the date of possession till payment. 8. Aggrieved by the said award dated 18.7.1983 passed by Presiding Officer, Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc Case No. 105 of 1977 (Kalidini v. State of U.P.), the appellant/claimant has approached this Court by filing present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9. While pressing the said appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the action on the part of the Tribunal thereby enhancing the compensation to Rs. 1.25 paisa per sq. ft from Rs. 1.19 paisa per sq. yard awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, is totally contrary to the material on record and while passing the award, the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the exemplars cited by the appellant/claimant in order to claim Rs. 2/- per sq.ft as compensation for his land which has been acquired, so the appellant/claimant may be awarded Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. as compensation. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Tribunal on the basis of material on record, has rightly awarded Rs. 1.25 paisa per sq. ft as compensation to the claimant thus there no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award under challenge in the present writ petition, so the present writ petition filed by the appellant liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 12. Thus the point which is to be determined in the present case is to the effect that whether the action on the part of the Tribunal thereby granting Rs. 1.25/- per sq. ft as compensation instead of Rs. 2/- as claimed by the claimant is justified or not? 13. 12. Thus the point which is to be determined in the present case is to the effect that whether the action on the part of the Tribunal thereby granting Rs. 1.25/- per sq. ft as compensation instead of Rs. 2/- as claimed by the claimant is justified or not? 13. In order to decide the said controversy, it will be appropriate to go through the provisions of Section 15 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1884 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) mandates that in determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. 14. Section 23 contains the list of positive factors and Section 24 has a list of negatives, vis-a-vis the land under acquisition, to be taken into consideration while determining the amount of compensation, the first step being the determination of the market value of the land on the date of publication of Notification for the purpose of acquisition of the land. 15. One of the principles for determination of the market value of the acquired land would be the price an interested buyer would be willing to pay if it is sold in the open market at the time of issue of Notification. But finding a direct evidence in this behalf is not an easy exercise and, therefore, the Court has to take recourse to other known methods for arriving at the market value of the land acquired. One of the preferred and well accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the comparable sales method. The comparable sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale-deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guess work is involved in the entire exercise. 16. In Shaji Kuriakose and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Undoubtedly, an element of some guess work is involved in the entire exercise. 16. In Shaji Kuriakose and another v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others, AIR 2001 SC 3341 , Hon’ble the Apex Court had observed as under: “While fixing the market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitalisation of Net Income Method or Expert Opinion Method. Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land, (sic) which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it has been sold in open market at the time of issue of Notification under Section 5 of the Act. However, Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfillment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale-deed must have been executed at the time proximate of the date of issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to Court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land”. 17. Yet again in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. 17. Yet again in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (D) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 2214 , Hon’ble the Supreme Court making reference to a number of cases on the point, observed as follows: “One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of Notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-Ã -vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under: 18. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighborhood at or about the date of Notification on which the land has been acquired are the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a land owner. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it. 19. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it. 19. The next question is as to the scope of interference by this Court in an award granting compensation, Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Mohammad Raofuddin v. The Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 367 , after placing reliance on earlier judgment of Thakur Kamta Prasad Singh(dead) by Lrs. v. State of Bihar, 1963, AIR 1976 SC 2219 , has held that there was an element of guesswork inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land. If the judgment of the High Court revealed that it had taken into consideration the relevant factors prescribed by the Act, in appeal under Article 133 of the Constitution of India, assessment of market value thus made should not be disturbed. 20. The following observations of the Hon’ble the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India through its District Manager, Faridkot, Punjab and others v. Makhan Singh and another, 1992 (2) SCR, are quite apposite: “This Court as the last Court of appeal, will ordinarily not interfere in an award granting compensation unless there is something to show not merely that on the balance of evidence it is possible to reach a different conclusion, but that the judgment cannot be supported by reason of a wrong application of principle or because some important point affecting valuation has been overlooked or misapplied. Besides, generally speaking, the appellate Court interferes not when the judgment under appeal is not right but only when it is shown to be wrong. See in this connection, The Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras, (1975) 2 SCC 730 . Added thereto are other rules of prudence that the Courts do not treat at par land situated on the frontage having special advantage and the land situated in the interior undeveloped area, or to compare smaller plots fetching better price with large tracts of land. See in this connection Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 : AIR 1990 SC 2192 .” 21. See in this connection Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195 : AIR 1990 SC 2192 .” 21. Therefore, the scope of interference in such matters is very limited and it is only in cases where it is found that the authorities below have either applied wrong principles or have omitted to take into consideration some important point affecting valuation, that this Court can interfere. 22. In the instant matter as per the record, the position which emerge out that one of the claimants Sri Nattha Lal whose land was acquired, in his statement, has categorically stated that the market value of the land in question is Rs. 2/- per Sq. ft. The claimant has cited some of the sale-deeds as exemplars in respect to the lands which were situated in nearby area on the basis of which enhancement has been claimed by the claimant before the Tribunal. 23. In addition to above said facts, it was also submitted on behalf of the appellant/claimant that the lands belong to Kishori Lal, Prithivi Nath and S.P.Gupta situate in village Ghazipur were acquired under the notification dated 2.4.1970 for construction of H.A.L. The said persons were awarded compensation by the Civil Court on the consideration that their lands had building potentiality. After taking into consideration the said facts and other material on record, the Tribunal has given the findings in respect to award of compensation, relevant portions are quoted as under : “The Special Land Acquisition Officer has also held that the land in question had building potentiality. “Arjan hone wali bhume Hindustan Aeronautic Limited karkhane ke seema se lagi hui hai. Lucknow se Faizad ko jane wali puqei sarak se uttar ki oar 8 8-1/2 furlong ke andar isthit hai. Iske sameep main hi Government Polytechnic hai. Kukrail nala road purav main is bhumi se sati hui jati hai, jisse wahan awagaman ki suvidha uplabdh hai. Shahar se nikat hone ke karan is oar abadi ka vistar bhi ho raha hai. Atah bhumi bhavnik chhamta rakhne wali hai aur avas yojna hetu uttam asthan per isthit hai. Iske sameep main hi Government Polytechnic hai. Kukrail nala road purav main is bhumi se sati hui jati hai, jisse wahan awagaman ki suvidha uplabdh hai. Shahar se nikat hone ke karan is oar abadi ka vistar bhi ho raha hai. Atah bhumi bhavnik chhamta rakhne wali hai aur avas yojna hetu uttam asthan per isthit hai. Upyogita ki drishtikon se adhik mahatvapurna hai aur uske liya saman dar per he pratikar dena uchit hai” Thus, it is fully proved that the lands in question had building potentiality on the relevant dated and the determination of the market value is to be done on that consideration.” 24. Lastly, the Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1,whether the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is just and adequate, on the basis of material on record had given the following findings : “In this view of the matter is is held that the compensation awarded by the S.L.A.O. for the lands acquired is inadequate and that all the claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 1.25 per sq.ft.” 25. Keeping in view the above said facts as well as the facts on record that one Sri Kishori Lal and G.L. Luthra whose lands were situated in same vicinity (Ahibaranpur) they have been awarded compensation at higher rate instead of Rs. 1.25 paisa per sq. ft. granted by the Tribunal in the present case when on the basis of material on record, it is established that the land of the claimants as well as the lands of the said persons are situated in the same area. However, without any reason or justification, the Tribunal had not awarded the compensation in the present case, as claimed by the claimant/appellant on the basis of said exemplars at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft 26. Further, in the present case from the perusal of the record, the position which also emerge out that in addition to the acquisition of the lands which acquired in the present case by the answering respondent, certain other lands which where situated on both side of the land and was also acquired in the same scheme belongs to Sri G.L. Luthra and others in which compensation has been granted at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. 2/- per sq. ft. In addition to the said facts, the lands of Kishore Lal, Sri Prithivi Nath, Sri S.P. Gupta which were also situated in the same vicinity, acquired have been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.50/- Rs. 2.00/- and Rs. 3/- per sq. ft. In spite of the said facts, the compensation to the claimant/appellant has not been awarded at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. and Rs. 1.25 paisa per sq ft has been awarded as compensation by the Tribunal only on the ground that the said land is near national highway. 27. However while deciding the compensation in the present case the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the said facts while deciding the issue No. 1 had stated the facts that land so acquired/in dispute situate in village Ismailganj is not far from the National Highway Lucknow - Faizabad and abadi of village Bastauli Ghazipur were from the distance of one farlong and one mile respectively which are near the Mahanagar House Colony, Nishatganj Market and Badsahnagar Colony in which at that point of time persons were residing and is developed locality. 28. Thus, keeping in view the said facts as well as the taking into consideration that the land of the claimant acquired under the Scheme has a future potential value because at the nearby place/at a short distance the Awas Vikas Parishad is also acquired the land for construction of H.A.L. and in this regard findings have already been given by the Tribunal, hence the action on the part of the Tribunal thereby not giving compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq. ft. as claimed by the appellant and only enhancing a sum of Rs. 1.25 paisa per sq. ft, is an action which is contrary to principle of natural justice and fair play a well as the law as laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another, 2001 (43) ALR 17. 29. For the foregoing reason, the appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 18.7.1983 passed by Presiding Officer, Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc Case No. 105 of 1977 (Kalidini v. State of U.P.) awarding Rs. 1.25 paisa per sq. ft. 29. For the foregoing reason, the appeal is partly allowed and the judgment and award dated 18.7.1983 passed by Presiding Officer, Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc Case No. 105 of 1977 (Kalidini v. State of U.P.) awarding Rs. 1.25 paisa per sq. ft. as compensation to the appellant/claimant is modified to the extent that the appellant/claimant be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2/- per sq ft in respect of his land acquired under the scheme known as Bastauli Ghazipur Bhumi Vikas Evam Grah Sansthan yojna, Lucknow. —————