Judgment : Sahidullah Munshi, J. This appeal has been filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore, on September 19, 1998, enhancing the award passed by Land Acquisition Collector, South 24-Parganas on March 11, 1989 in LRA Case No.101 of 1992(V). Fact of the case in brief is as follows:- 4.50 acres of land comprised in plot No.471/887 under J.L. No.13, Mouza Osmanpur, P.S. Khardah in the district of North 24-Parganas was acquired in Case No. L.A.(R)/S-1981/82 in terms of notification No.5895/Rehab. dated December 5, 1988. The said notification was published on August 16, 1988 for the purpose of regularisation of squatters’ colony. In order to regularise the post-50 squatters’ colony in the aforesaid Mouza Osmanpur, J.L. No.13, P.S. Khardah, district North 24-Parganas, a case being No. L.A.(Rehab) 5 of 1981/82 was initiated. There was proposal for acquisition of land comprised an area of 7.449 acres, in other words, 3.0312 hectares in Mouza Osmanpur, J.L. No.13, P.S. Khardah, district North 24-Parganas was initiated by Refugee Relief and Rehabilitation Department Vide memo No.5027/3/Re/Dev. dated January 3, 1980 for regularisation of post-50 squatters by the refugees those who came to West Bengal from the then East Pakistan now Bangladesh. A notification bearing No.406-L-Dev. dated October 16, 1981 under Section 4(1) of West Bengal Land Development Planning Act, 1948(West Bengal Act XI of 1984) was published on page No.1702 part 1 of Calcutta Gazette Extraordinary, dated July 4, 1984. A Draft Erratum No.234 L.Dev dated August 1, 1984 was published and the same reads as follows:- “Read the figure “4.50” acres for the figure “7.49” acres in Line-3. Read the figure “1.3212” hectare for the figure “3.0312” hectare in Line-4. Delete the word and the figure “and” and “888” respectively in Line-17 Delete the Line-21.” Ultimately, a declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued and published for 4.50 acres of land and published in the Extraordinary issue of Calcutta Gazette bearing No.236 L.D.V. dated August 1, 1988. The Collector assessed the valuation of the land considering it to be of ‘Hogla class’ at Rs.14,895.90/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Five and Ninety paisa) only inclusive of interest and additional compensation etc. The Collector assessed the valuation of the land considering it to be of ‘Hogla class’ at Rs.14,895.90/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Five and Ninety paisa) only inclusive of interest and additional compensation etc. The owners of the lands, namely, Somnath Pal & Ors., sons of late Jitendra Nath Pal, did not accept the award made by the Collector, North 24-Parganas, under Section 11 of Act 1 of 1894. The said owners required the Collector to make reference to the concerned Court, i.e., Special Land Acquisition Judge, Alipore. Collector made a reference and considering the objection made by the claimants that the valuation made by the Collector was not based on market value and that was grossly inadequate. As a result of such reference, the entire matter was taken up for consideration by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, which was numbered as LRA suit/Case No.101 of 1992(V). The Land Acquisition Judge passed his judgment and award on September 19, 1998. The points for consideration before the learned Land Acquisition Judge were i) whether the valuation assessed by Land Acquisition Collector was grossly inadequate and not based on market value, ii) whether the valuation made by Land Acquisition Collector was justified or not. The petitioners, i.e., the referring claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.30,000/ (Thirty Thousand) only per cottah. The State of West Bengal, in support of their contention, produced certified copy of a kobala dated January 19, 1982 in respect of lands measuring 3 cottahs 15 chittaks in plot No.215 of Mouza Osmanpur, the valuation of which was shown to be Rs.6250/-(Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty) only per cottah. The classification of the land appeared to be ‘Sali’ land. The State also produced a Deed dated March 18, 1984 in which there was a sale of tank under the same Mouza showing valuation of Rs.4,000/- (Four Thousand) only, per cottah. On the other hand, in order to establish their claim the referring claimants produced a Sale Deed Being No.539 dated January 28, 1983 of Mouza Osmanpur that 2 cottahs of danga land was sold @ Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) only, i.e., the rate was Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only, per cottah. The referring claimants also produced a Sale Deed being No.5983 dated September 23, 1983 under the same Mouza wherein 4 cottah 2 chittaks 8 Sq.ft. of land was sold @ Rs.8264/-(Eight Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four) only, per cottah. The referring claimants also produced a Sale Deed being No.5983 dated September 23, 1983 under the same Mouza wherein 4 cottah 2 chittaks 8 Sq.ft. of land was sold @ Rs.8264/-(Eight Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Four) only, per cottah. The referring claimants produced yet another Deed dated December 27, 1981 showing sale of 1 cottah 15 chittaks 35 Sq.ft. of land @ Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only, per cottah. From the judgment under appeal and the materials disclosed in the record it appears that the acquisition took place in the year 1988 and appreciation on account of passage of time cannot be disregarded. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Judge considered the Deeds produced by both the referring claimants and the State of West Bengal. It appears that average valuation came to be Rs.8,000/- (Eight Thousand) only, per cottah. The learned Judge also allowed 25% appreciation in addition to the said valuation and, accordingly, the valuation came to be Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only, per cottah. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that the Land Acquisition Judge was wrong in making the valuation of the property, inasmuch as, he has not considered the nature of the land which was classified as a ‘Hogla land’ at the relevant time. Learned advocate also submitted that Record-of-Rights gives a rebuttable presumption. The onus to prove that the entries in the Record-of- Rights are not correct, is on the person who disbelieves it or contradicts the same. However, no convincing argument could be advanced by the appellant that the nature of land was still ‘Hogla’ on the day the same was acquired by the State in August 1988. Learned advocate for the respondents/referring claimants submits that the property was acquired by the State of West Bengal invoking the provisions of the West Bengal Land Development and Planning Act, 1948 in short LDP Act, 1948. The object thereof was regularisation of post-50 squatters’ colonies. He submits that the notification under Section 4 of the aforesaid Act was published sometime in August, 1988 and declaration under Section 6 thereof was published on August 16, 1988. The Land Acquisition Collector declared the award in 1989 and assessed the valuation of the acquired land at a very low rate of Rs.1430/- One Thousand Four Hundred Thirty) only, per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector declared the award in 1989 and assessed the valuation of the acquired land at a very low rate of Rs.1430/- One Thousand Four Hundred Thirty) only, per acre. He submits that the learned Judge has correctly valued the property and the judgment and decree dated September 19, 1998 which is under challenge in this appeal should be upheld as no illegalities have been committed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge in assessing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only, per cottah and allowing other additional compensations. Insofar as the submissions made by the appellant that on the one hand, the land was described to be a ‘Hogla land’ but the Land Acquisition Judge has made the award at a higher rate, overlooking the nature of the land, it has been submitted by the learned advocate for the respondents that Collector was wrong in treating the acquired land as of ‘Hogla class’ because he assessed the valuation of the acquired land as of the year 1946 when nature of the acquired land might have been treated as “Hogla” class. It has been added that the Collector so made the award in respect of the acquired land as of the year 1946 relying on Section 8(1)(b) of the LDP Act, 1948 but it cannot be overlooked that the provisions of Section 8(1)(b) of the LDP Act, 1948 had been declared ultra vires by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal –Vs. – Mrs. Bela Banerjee & Ors. reported in AIR 1954 SC page 170. He submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramendra Nath Nandi & Ors. – Vs. – State of West Bengal & Ors. reported in AIR 1975 Cal 325 has also held that proviso to clause (b) under Sub-Section(1) of Section 8 of the LDP Act does not get the protection of Article 31B of the Constitution of India and it violates the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Bera, the learned Counsel appearing for the referring claimants, the valuation of the acquired land has to be assessed on the date of notification for acquisition. According to Mr. Bera, the learned Counsel appearing for the referring claimants, the valuation of the acquired land has to be assessed on the date of notification for acquisition. So, the acquisition and the award declared by the Collector assessing the value of the acquired land as of the year 1946 appears to be apparently wrong and cannot be sustained in law. Having gone through the case records and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, we are of the opinion that the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant are not tenable in law, inasmuch as, before passing the judgment and decree the learned Judge decided the issues involved in the matter and relied fully on the evidence adduced by the parties before coming to the conclusion that the land was to be valued at Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) only, per cottah. Similarly, the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant that the valuation of the land should be one treating the land to be of ‘Hogla’ class cannot also be tenable. In view of the fact that valuation made as of 1946 cannot be appreciable at all when the decision was given by the learned Land Acquisition Judge on the basis of the valuation as also the recitals of the Deeds produced before him. We cannot accept the submissions of the learned advocate for the appellant for another reason that admittedly, the acquisition was made in 1988 when L.R. operation already came into force and records were finally framed and published under the Land Reforms Act, 1955 and in order to make valuation of property, obviously no reasonable and prudent man could rely upon the record of rights which was published either under the Bengal Tenancy Act or under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. We, therefore, uphold the impugned judgment and decree passed in LRA Case No.101 of 1992(V) and, accordingly, we hold that the referring claimants shall be entitled to the compensation as passed by the Land Acquisition Judge in LRA Case No.101 of 1992(V) and together therewith the referring claimants shall also be entitled to an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of taking over possession of the land, i.e., from March 29, 1989 to March 28, 1990 and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till actual payment of the entire compensation less any amount if already paid. The appeal stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Indira Banerjee, J. I agree.