JUDGMENT : Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J. 1. On Reference made by Collector under Section 18 of the State Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 (for short, the Act), the learned District Judge Udhampur vide his award dated 15th July, 1994 enhanced the rate of compensation in respect of land which was acquired from the respondents. The learned District Judge after recording evidence and elaborate discussion about the facts of the case directed for payment of compensation at the following rates: 1. Irrigated land i.e. Abi is assessed at Rs. 6000/- per kanal. 2. Khushki lard as defined in the award in question which are inclusive of Hal Barani and Warhal Abal and Doim which is priced @ Rs. 5000/- per kanal. 3. The compensation of Banjar Qadim of land is fixed at Rs. 2000/- per kanal. 4. The price of Gairmumkin land is fixed @ Rs. 1000/- per kanal. It was also ordered that the respondents would be entitled to solatium @ 15% on the enhanced amount of compensation + 10% interest as is mandated by Section 35 of the Act. It is this award/decree which is called in question in this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at great length. Learned counsel read the impugned judgment in extenso. Learned counsel also read the evidence recorded by the District Judge. Learned counsel submitted that the learned District Judge while enhancing the rate of compensation has considered the sale deeds in respect of small chunks of land, whereas the land which was acquired was huge. Learned counsel submitted that instances of 8 to 10 marlas of land would not determine the compensation of land, which is subject matter of the proceedings inasmuch as hundreds of kanals of land were acquired. 3. Learned counsel submitted that there was no reliable and dependable evidence before the learned District Judge for awarding enhanced compensation in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for allowing of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned award/decree. 4. Learned counsel for respondents while referring to the evidence recorded by the learned District Judge, submitted that besides the documentary evidence which was produced in the shape of sale deeds, oral evidence was also lead. Learned counsel accordingly prayed for allowing of the appeal and setting aside of the impugned award/decree. 4. Learned counsel for respondents while referring to the evidence recorded by the learned District Judge, submitted that besides the documentary evidence which was produced in the shape of sale deeds, oral evidence was also lead. Learned counsel specifically referred to the evidence of the Naib Tehsildar - Chuni Lal to show that the said authority had himself admitted that the respondents have been paid lesser compensation though they were entitled to higher compensation. 5. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the evidence available on record of the learned District Judge, it is proved not only by preponderance of probability but with certainty that lesser compensation has been paid to the respondents. Learned counsel for respondents accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. The Collector Reasi (Sub Divisional Magistrate) issued Notification under Section 4 of the State Land Acquisition Act on 23rd April, 1980 with regard to land situated at village Salal, sub-Village Surman, Tehsil Reasi which was owned by respondents/predecessors-in-interest. The land was measuring 84 kanals and 5 marlas. After the declaration under Section 6 was made on 23rd May, 1980, yet another Notification under Section 6 of the State Land Acquisition Act was issued in respect of 3316 kanals of land situated at Village Thampal, Tehsil Reasi. The Notification was issued on 23rd November, 1980. 7. The Collector after assessing the compensation and same having been approved by the Competent Authority directed that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per kanal for Abi land, Rs. 1500/- for unirrigated land, Rs. 300/- per kanal for Banjar land and Rs. 200/- per kanal for Gairmumkin land be paid. It was also directed that Jabrana at the rate of Rs. 15% be paid on the compensation amount, but the same was not awarded on the compensation of fruit trees. 8. The respondents/predecessors-in-interest being not satisfied with the rate of compensation awarded by the Collector, as already stated, filed applications to refer the matter under Section 18 of the State Land Act to the Civil Court. The Collector in view of the mandate contained in Section 18 of the Act made reference to the Civil Court. The Civil Court, as already stated, after conclusion of the inquiry enhanced the rate which is taken note of in the 1st part of the judgment. The Collector in view of the mandate contained in Section 18 of the Act made reference to the Civil Court. The Civil Court, as already stated, after conclusion of the inquiry enhanced the rate which is taken note of in the 1st part of the judgment. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has not raised any dispute about the correctness of the evidence of the witnesses which has been reproduced in the impugned judgment. 10. The evidence which has come on record of the learned District Judge does provide sufficient material for justifying the passing of impugned award/decree. 11. Though there is ample evidence brought on record of the trial Court to sustain the impugned judgment, but it would be apt to refer to the evidence of Shri Chuni Lal - Naib Tehsildar, who, when his statement was recorded by the trial Court, was working in the Land Acquisition Department in District Reasi. In his statement tendered before the trial Court, he has submitted that Surman and Arnas are situated at the banks of river Chenab. He has also submitted that the part of the land of village Surman, which has been acquired, is Abi land where the land of the village Arnas is dry land. The land from both the areas Surman and Arnas was acquired for the purposes of construction of Salal Dam. 12. It is deposed that Hamlet Surman is situated at one bank of the river Chenab and Hamlet Arnas is situated at the other bank of the river Chenab. He has further stated that in terms of the final award passed in respect of village Arnas, rate has been fixed at Rs. 6000/- per kanal and for Hal Barani Type I and Type II of land, rate has been fixed at Rs. 5000/-; for orchard, it is fixed as Rs. 5000/- per kanal; in respect of constructions like shops and houses, it is fixed at Rs. 6000/-; for Gairmumkin, it is fixed as Rs. 1000/- per kanal, for Banjar Qadim it is fixed as Rs. 2000/- per kanal and for other lands Rs. 1000/- is fixed per kanal. It is stated that the land of Surman village is better than the land of Arnas. 13. The land of both the areas was acquired for construction of Salal Dam. The Collector issued two awards to fix different rates of compensation. 14. 2000/- per kanal and for other lands Rs. 1000/- is fixed per kanal. It is stated that the land of Surman village is better than the land of Arnas. 13. The land of both the areas was acquired for construction of Salal Dam. The Collector issued two awards to fix different rates of compensation. 14. Learned trial Judge has rightly recorded findings that the Collector, who has fixed the rate of compensation in respect of land of respondents, has not based the same on any reliable material and has not recorded any cogent reason for fixing the lower rate of compensation in respect of the land in village Arnas. 15. In view of the evidence tendered by Shri Chuni Lal-Naib Tehsildar before the trial Court, it becomes writ large on the face of record that the respondents/predecessors-in-interest have been subjected to invidious discrimination by the Collector in fixing the rate of compensation at higher rate for land of village Arnas. 16. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Record be sent back.