JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed against the judgment dated 3.3.2000 passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Mandla (M.P.), in MJC No.45/1999, arising out of reference application filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the award dated 24.5.1987 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Mandla, in Revenue Case No.24(A-82)84-85. 2. In brief, the relevant facts of the case are that in the aforesaid revenue case, by notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 19.4.1985, total land area 872.11 acres situated in village Medhi, Takbeli and Jhurki, Tahsil Niwas, District Mandla were acquired to establish Maneri Growth Centre in Mandla under the Industrial Department of the State Government, in which, 7.37 acres of land situated in village Medhi of the respondent's ownership was also acquired and total compensation amount of Rs.2,813/- was determined. On reference, learned lower Court determined market price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre. Accordingly, total market price of the acquired land was determined at Rs.73,700/- and in addition, 12% interest i.e. Rs.8,844/- and 30% solatium i.e. Rs.22,110/-, total Rs.1,04,654/- as compensation was determined and further directed that on the enhanced amount from the date of award, 9% interest and thereafter, 15% interest along with costs of the litigation be paid. 3. Against the aforesaid finding of the learned Reference Court, this appeal has been filed on the ground that the impugned judgment is contrary to law. Learned lower Court has ignored the evidence available on record in determination of market value of the acquired land, and the price of the land has been determined arbitrarily Rs.10,000/- per acre which is too excessive. Hence, the appeal be allowed and the award passed by the learned Court below be modified. The question of maintainability of the reference and limitation has also been mentioned but these points have not been pressed. 4. On behalf of the respondent none has appeared. Hence, this appeal has been heard ex parte against him. 5. Hence, the appeal be allowed and the award passed by the learned Court below be modified. The question of maintainability of the reference and limitation has also been mentioned but these points have not been pressed. 4. On behalf of the respondent none has appeared. Hence, this appeal has been heard ex parte against him. 5. Having considered the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record in this case following questions arise for determination :- i) Whether, the market price of the acquired land determined by the reference Court is excessive or requires any interference ? ii) If yes then what will be the market price of the acquired land ? iii) Relief and cost ? 6. On perusal of the record it is found that the learned reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired land Rs.10,000/- per acre but in this regard, learned reference Court has not given any specific reason. In the impugned judgment the learned reference Court has stated that looking to all the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case and the fact of inflation, it appears that the price of the land in the year 1985 would not be less than Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- per acre. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get the price of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre. It appears that the learned lower Court has ignored the documentary evidence available on record and has drawn inference only on the basis of oral statements of the witnesses regarding the market price of the acquired land. This approach is not correct and legal. When the parties have produced relevant sale deeds for comparison with a view to determine the market value of the acquired land, the same may not be discarded on the basis of oral evidence unless it is held that the documentary evidence is not reliable or not relevant. 7. On perusal of the record it is found that on behalf of the respondents, sale deeds, Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 and on behalf of the appellant, sale deeds, Ex.D-5 to D-7 have been produced before the reference Court, in which, sale deed Ex.P-1 to P-7 are related to village Umaria, Takbeli and Medhi while Ex.D-5 to D-7 are related to village Jhurki, where the acquired land was situated. Therefore, the sale-deed Exs.P-1 to P-7 are not relevant and cannot be considered for determination of market value of the acquired land at different places. 8. On the other hand, the saledeed produced by the appellant, Ex.D-5 to D-7 are related to the land situated in village Jhurki in which the sale deeds, Ex.D-6 and D-7 are related to the year 1984 and the sale deed of nearest year is Ex.D-5. According to the sale deed, Ex.D-5, the land have been sold near about at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per hectare or Rs.810/- per acre. In this regard statement of Patwari Balgovind, DW1, is also relevant who has stated that at the time of acquisition of the land he inspected the land and prepared Vikray Chhant, Ex.D-1C, D-2C and D-4C in which D-4C is relevant to village Jhurki. A perusal of Ex.D/4C it is found that the acquired land has been shown to be of lower category and the price of best category land has been determined at Rs.1,644/- per acre. Even Ex.D-1C and D-2C be seen which are related to village Takbeli and Medhi in which price of the best category land belong to village Takbelil is Rs.1,664 per acre and the land of best category of village Medhi has been determined at Rs.3,944/-. If the fact that all the acquired land of the different village are situated nearby and the value of the best category land which is Rs.3,944/- per acre be considered for determination of the acquired land of this case. The market price of the acquired land would not be more than Rs.4,000/- per acre. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the finding of the learned lower Court regarding market price of the acquired land Rs.10,000/- per acre is not sustainable as it is against the evidence on record and, therefore, the market price of the acquired land is determined Rs.4,000/- per acre. Accordingly, total market price of the acquired land requires redetermination. 10. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the finding of the learned lower Court regarding market price of the acquired land Rs.10,000/- per acre is not sustainable as it is against the evidence on record and, therefore, the market price of the acquired land is determined Rs.4,000/- per acre. Accordingly, total market price of the acquired land requires redetermination. 10. Resultantly, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that the respondent is entitled to get compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per acre along with other statutory benefits as per law, i.e. on that amount, 12% interest from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act, i.e. 19.4.1985, to the date of award, i.e. 24.5.1987 and 30% solatium on the market value of the land shall also be paid. Apart from it, interest under sections 28 and 34 of the Act be also paid, if it is payable in view of the facts of the present case. 11. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.