JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. H. Das, the learned counsel for the appellants and Dr. B. N. Gogoi and Ms. S. Chakraborty, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, Railway. 2. These appeals are against the common judgment and order dated 29.06.2013 (31.07.2013) passed in L.A. Case No.20, 27, 3, 15, 4, 12, 36, 8, 44 and 11 of 2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Goalpara. The said reference cases under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) were preferred by the respective appellants challenging the award dated 18.12.2009 of the Deputy Collector, Goalpara in L.A. Case No.5/08-09 whereby the said Deputy Collector acquired the land of the appellants on the basis of the Government notification No.RLA-6/2009/4 dated 13.01.2009 and the declaration vide RLA-6/09/7 dated 08.05.2009. The respective L.A. Cases of the appellants, the area of land acquired and the assessed values are given herein below: CHART OF CASES Sl. No. L.A. Appeal No. and Name of the Parties L.A. Case No. Total Land Rate per Bigha (in Rs.) Total amount (in Rs.) Date of Judgment 1. L.A. Appeal No.2/2014 Bimal Kumar Rabha Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.20/2010 i) 1B 15L ii) 1B 4K 1,50,000/- 2,20,000/- 8,07,270/- 29.06.2013 2. L.A. Appeal No.4/2014 Dharanidhar Basumatary Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.27/2010 10B - 31,240/- 29.06.2013 3. L.A. Appeal No.5/2014 Ganak Chandra Rabha Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.3/2010 i) 1B 5K ii) 4K 15L 1,50,000/- 2,20,000/- 5,20,430/- 29.06.2013 4. L.A. Appeal No.6/2014 Kamal Chandra Roy Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.15/2010 1B 1K 15L 2,20,000/- 3,90,500/- 29.06.2013 5. L.A. Appeal No.7/2014 Someswar Rabha Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.4/2010 2B 4K 15L 2,20,000/- 9,21,580/- 29.06.2013 6. L.A. Appeal No.63/2014 Putul Chandra Kachari Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.12/2010 i) 1B 15L ii) 4K 15L 1,50,000/- 2,20,000/- 8,98,150/- 31.07.2013 7. L.A. Appeal No.65/2014 Kowshalya Rabha Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.36/2010 1K - 1,66,001/- 31.07.2013 8. L.A. Appeal No.66/2014 Sanjoy Kumar Kachari Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.8/2010 1B 10L 2,20,000/- 1,15,300/- 31.07.2013 9. L.A. Appeal No.67/2014 Dharanidhar Basumatary Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.44/2010 3K 2,20,000/- 4,68,600/- 31.07.2013 10. L.A. Appeal No.68/2014 Raja Basumatary Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.36/2010 1K - 1,66,001/- 31.07.2013 8. L.A. Appeal No.66/2014 Sanjoy Kumar Kachari Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.8/2010 1B 10L 2,20,000/- 1,15,300/- 31.07.2013 9. L.A. Appeal No.67/2014 Dharanidhar Basumatary Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.44/2010 3K 2,20,000/- 4,68,600/- 31.07.2013 10. L.A. Appeal No.68/2014 Raja Basumatary Versus State of Assam and Ors. L.A. Case No.11/2010 10L Bhiti Land 2,20,000/- 78,100/- 31.07.2013 Rs.2,20,000/- per Bigha for Bhiti Land and Rs.1,50,000/- per bigha for Agricultural Land along with 30% solatium and 12% interest situated at village-Dudhnoi in the district of Goalpara, Assam. 3. While fixing the amount payable as compensation the said Deputy Collector assessed Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha for Bhiti (residential) land and Rs.1,50,000.00 per bigha for agricultural land along with 30% solatium and 12% interest situated at village-Dudhnoi in the district of Goalpara, Assam. 4. The present appellants before the reference court pleaded that the land so acquired was “Bhiti” land but the learned court below failed to consider the same and dismissed the reference cases considering the same as agricultural land as assessed by the Collector. Further it was pleaded that the said land are situated adjacent to the National Highway 37 and within the heart of Dudhnoi Revenue Town having various institutions, Government Offices but the potentiality of the said land was not considered by the learned court below. On the other hand, the Deputy Collector filed written statement and justified the assessment of compensation at the rate of Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha for Bhiti land and Rs.1,50,000.00 per bigha for the agricultural land. The potentiality factor was disputed by pleading that the land falls far away from Dudhnoi Town. Similarly, the respondent, N.F. Railway also filed written statement taking similar plea as those taken by the Collector. The Railway further took the plea that the classification of land was done as per available records in the Office of the Land Revenue Department and after site inspection, according to Railway, it found that the land acquired from the appellants include agricultural land with paddy field and as such there is no question of considering the said land which was assessed as agricultural land as Bhiti land. The Railway also disputed the potentiality factor of the land by taking the stand similar to that of the Deputy Collector in its written statement. 5. The Railway also disputed the potentiality factor of the land by taking the stand similar to that of the Deputy Collector in its written statement. 5. The learned reference court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues:- 1. Have the petitioner any cause of action for the suit? 2. Is the suit barred by limitation? 3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner is in adequate in view of present market price of the acquired land? 4. What will be the just and proper compensation payable to the petitioners? 5. To what relief, the petitioners are entitled? 6. The appellants adduced oral evidence and exhibited sale deeds in order to compare the value of land which were sold prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. 7. Each of the appellants adduced their evidence in the respective reference cases. However, the respondents failed to adduce any evidence, both oral and any documentary piece of evidence. On the basis of the said evidence, the learned reference court dismissed the reference cases vide the said common judgment. 8. Mr. Das, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned court below failed to take note of the potentiality factor inasmuch as the acquired lands are within the close proximity of the Dudhnoi Town which is expanding and schools, colleges including government offices are situated. In support of his contention with respect of the potentiality of the land Mr. Das submits that a similar plot of land measuring 10 lechas was sold prior to the issuance of the notification at a valuation of Rs.30 lakh per bigha. The said sale deed was exhibited but the learned court below did not consider the same. Similarly, the land though purportedly shown to be agricultural land are in fact Bhiti land inasmuch as the appellants have their residential houses over there. But the learned court below failed to appreciate the said evidence on record and dismissed the reference cases. Mr. Das relies upon (2003) 4 SCC, Ravinder Narain and Anr. Vs Union of India, (2014) 15 SCC 161, Defence Research & Development Organisation vs. Anjanappa and Anr., (2017) 11 SCC 394, Abhinash Chand and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., (2015) 5 GLT 91, Sabid Ali (Md) vs. State of Assam & Anr. and (2005) suppl. Mr. Das relies upon (2003) 4 SCC, Ravinder Narain and Anr. Vs Union of India, (2014) 15 SCC 161, Defence Research & Development Organisation vs. Anjanappa and Anr., (2017) 11 SCC 394, Abhinash Chand and Ors. vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., (2015) 5 GLT 91, Sabid Ali (Md) vs. State of Assam & Anr. and (2005) suppl. GLT 797, Assam State Electricity Board vs. on the death of Jethua Mikir, his sons, in order to support his submission with respect to the determination of compensation. 9. Dr. Gogoi, on the other hand, objects to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the fact of potentiality of the land and the classification of land as Bhiti land could not be established by the appellants. On the other hand, the said classification was on the basis of documents and the documents will prevail over the oral evidence adduced by the appellants. Regarding the sale deed, Dr. Gogoi submits that the same cannot be taken into consideration as none has proved the said sale deed. The said submission is supported also by Ms. Chakraborty. Dr. Gogoi relies on 1997 (2) GLT (SC) 5, Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. Collector of Hailakandi, 1998 (4) GLT 413, L.A. collector, N. Tripura vs. Radha Mohan Debnath, 2008 (4) GLT 571, Kharibam Ibomcha Singh vs. State of Manipur And Ors. 10. The argument of the learned counsel is considered and perused the record including the evidence led by the appellants in their respective cases. The sale deed produced by the appellants specifically shows that the land is situated within the Dudhnoi Town and as such the same cannot be considered though the sale deed is prior to the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. Regarding potentiality of the land the appellants failed to show any supporting evidence with respect to existence of Government office, hotels and the expansion of Dudhnoi Town from the concerned Municipal Board or any other authority of Dudhnoi Town nor there is any supporting evidence with respect to the location of the land by the side of any P.W.D. road or highway by calling officials from the Circle Office. The learned reference court held that the nature of the land shown to be sold by way of the registered sale deed was not proved by the seller/purchaser of the land under the sale deed and as such the same was not considered. In addition to that the sale deed No.336/315 dated 23.02.2009 which shows that 1 katha of land was sold at the rate of Rs.14 lakh per bigha was also not considered inasmuch as the PW3, Tapan Kr. Dey admits that the said plot of land falls within Dudhnoi Town. Taking note of the oral evidence of the appellants to the effect that the land was Bhiti land, the learned court below discarded the same on the ground that the same could not be considered to give too much reliance of oral evidence rather the best evidence for assessing the value of land are the evidence of sale of similar land. 11. The learned court below took note of the pleadings of the respondents who pleaded that the acquired land are of agricultural classification. The evidence of appellants that there were dwelling houses of the people nearby and over the acquired land were discarded on the ground that no person of the said locality were examined to lend credence to such claim of the appellants. This finding, in my opinion, cannot be accepted. 12. On perusal of the evidence it is seen that all the appellants as the respective witnesses in the respective reference cases stood by their pleading deposing that the land so acquired are Bhiti land. A proceeding before the reference court is similar to that of a regular suit. The petitioners/appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The pleadings are to be considered while disposing of the said reference cases. If there is any pleading to the effect that the land so acquired was Bhiti land the same must be supported in the evidence by the appellants. Once the cross-examination is over of the appellants and the said piece of evidence that the land was Bhiti land remained undemolished, the onus shifts to the respondents/defendants to prove the stand in their respective written statements. The respondents took the plea that the land is of agricultural class as per the records. Once the cross-examination is over of the appellants and the said piece of evidence that the land was Bhiti land remained undemolished, the onus shifts to the respondents/defendants to prove the stand in their respective written statements. The respondents took the plea that the land is of agricultural class as per the records. Thus, once the onus has shifted to the said respondents, they are bound to discharge that onus by producing necessary documents which in the present case is totally missing. The respondents never even led evidence in the proceeding. No doubt the principal burden lies upon the appellants to show that the said land falls within the class of Bhiti land. 13. In the present case in hand, the learned court below came to the finding that in order to prove that the said land is a Bhiti land and have dwelling houses of the people upon the acquired land, neighbouring persons ought to have been examined by the appellant. In fact, the appellants are from the said locality wherein the acquired land is situated. They form the “persons” from the said locality. Each and every one of the appellants stood by their plea taken in the petition that the land is Bhiti land. Under such circumstances, in my opinion and on the face of failure on the part of the respondents to discharge the onus as aforesaid, the evidence on record, more specifically the cross-examination part of the appellants supporting the fact that the land is a Bhiti land ought to have been considered in its full face value. 14. In V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 640 , the appellant adduced his evidence specifying the value of acquired land to be Rs.80,000.00. The reference court fixed the value of land at Rs.1,50,000.00. Appeal was filed and the High Court held that as the appellant asked for the value of Rs.80,000.00 as such the court below could not determine compensation at Rs.1.50 lakh per acre. Holding that the claimant must confined to his claim as a wrong finding of the High Court in view of Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after 1984 finally disallowed any enhancement beyond Rs.80,000.00 giving due weightage to the evidence of the appellant by holding as follows: “13. Holding that the claimant must confined to his claim as a wrong finding of the High Court in view of Section 25 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 after 1984 finally disallowed any enhancement beyond Rs.80,000.00 giving due weightage to the evidence of the appellant by holding as follows: “13. Even otherwise, in our view, market value has to be fixed on evidence led in each case. In this case the evidence is as extracted above. In our view, the evidence of the appellant, as extracted above, clearly shows that according to the appellant the market value of the land, at the appropriate time, was Rs.80,000/- per acre. We are unable to accept the submission that the appellant in his deposition is claiming either Rs. 80,000/- or Rs. 1,60,000/- on the basis of 16 years’ yield. Evidence has to be read as a whole. If it is read as a whole it is clear that according to the appellant the market value is Rs. 80,000/- whether taken as market value or taken on the basis of 16 years’ yield. Thus, the evidence in this case is that the market value at the appropriate time was Rs. 80,000/- per acre. This being the evidence of the appellant himself, the market value would have to be fixed at Rs. 80,000/- per acre.” 15. It would not be out of place to mention here that admittedly there was Bhiti land which were acquired and for the said reason there were two classified award, one for Bhiti land which is Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha and Rs.1,50,000.00 per bigha for agricultural land. The learned court below held that the appellants failed to prove their respective cases on preponderance of probability. But the learned court below ought to have taken into consideration that Bhiti land was also acquired which can very well be prepondered from the rate of assessment of Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha for Bhiti land. For the said reason I am unable to accept the findings of the learned reference court inasmuch as the evidence of the appellants are to be read as whole and on such reading the appellants are able to show that the land fell within the Bhiti classification. For the said reason I am unable to accept the findings of the learned reference court inasmuch as the evidence of the appellants are to be read as whole and on such reading the appellants are able to show that the land fell within the Bhiti classification. Accordingly I am constrained to hold that the land acquired falls under the classification of Bhiti land thereby enhancing the value of the same to Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha, the rate of assessment of Bhiti land by the competent authority. 16. Accordingly, these appeals succeed. 17. The appellants are entitled for enhancement of the value of land which were assessed at Rs.1,50,000.00 per bigha and to be assessed at Rs.2,20,000.00 per bigha and on the basis of the said enhanced value the amount for compensation be calculated along with the interest which had already been allowed which are statutory in nature. Considering the pendency of the appeals from the year 2014, the respondents are directed to satisfy the enhanced value within a period of 3 (three) months from the receipt of the copy of the judgment. 18. Send back the LCR at the earliest.