JUDGMENT Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.08.2010 passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II-cum-Spl. Judge, L.A., Hazaribagh in LR Case No. 930/90/LA Case No. 05/80-81 whereby and whereunder, learned court below has enhanced the amount of compensation of the acquired land at the flat rate of Rs. 400/- per decimal. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the lands under khata No.7 measuring an area of 5.41 acres of village Chordhara, P.S.-Ramgarh was acquired by the State for the purpose of C.C.L. Declaration for the same was made on 31.12.1981. A notification for acquisition was published in the District Gazette on 01.01.1982. Aghanu Bedia and others were shown as the awardees but they failed to appear before the District Land Acquisition Officer. The case of the petitioner is that she has right, title and possession over the acquired land mentioned in the Scheduled-A of the plaint in total amounting of 2.05 acres for which a compensation of Rs. 31,984.66/- has been paid. It is also the case of the petitioner that the classification and measurement of the land acquired are wrong and are less than the present market value and the present market value of the land is not less than Rs. 1,75,000/- per decimal. The petitioner has not received any notice under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. The acquired lands are irrigated as well as cultivable lands and first class paddy lands in which they used to grow various crops also in summer season. The petitioner is entitled to get compensation at the rate of 1,75,000/- per decimal with interest. The petitioner further filed an application under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act contending therein that she has right, title, interest and possession over the Scheduled A land of the petition but the same has not been considered and the compensation has wrongly been paid to Aghanu Bedia, Santu Bedia, Bala Bedia and Karma Bedia of village Chorghara, P.S. Patratu, District-Hazaribag. It was contended by the applicant that the said land described in Scheduled-A of the petition was recorded in the name of ancestors of the awardees during the survey operation but 1.93 acres of land bearing plot Nos.131, 132, 133 and 134 of village Chordhara has been purchased by father of the petitioner by means of registered sale deed dated 15.06.1939 executed by Dandu Bedia son of Rupa Bedia, the ancestor of the awardee Aghanu Bedia and others. After purchase of the same Rama Mahto i.e. the father of the applicant came in possession over the land and paid rent of the same to the State Government regularly till his lifetime and after his death, the petitioner being the legal heirs and successor has been coming in possession over the said land and paying the rent to the Government regularly. It was also contended that the father of the petitioner has also got settlement by the ex-landlord of plot No.130 measuring an area of 0.12 acres by means of Hukumnama dated 20.04.1944 and rent was paid to the ex-landlord and after vesting of the same rent is being paid to the State Government. It is the further case of the petitioner-objector that in the year 1971 Nanhu Bedia and others filed Title Suit No.207 of 1971 against the petitioner and others in the court of Munsif, Hazaribag in respect of lands in question. Nanhu Bedia and others also preferred Title Appeal No.15 of 1979/4 of 1977 in the court of the District Judge, Hazaribag which was ultimately heard by the Additional District Judge, Hazaribag and the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.05.1977. It is further contended by the petitioner that the lands of Scheduled-A of the petition has been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer but unfortunately compensation award was prepared for Aghanu Bedia and others which is wrong and illegal. Aghanu Bedia and others have no concern or possession over the lands mentioned in the petition and they by playing fraud in collusion with the official staffs by taking the benefit of record of right in their name have got prepared the award of compensation in their favour. It is claimed by the petitioner that the compensation should have been paid to the petitioner by making fresh award in her claim. It is claimed by the petitioner that the compensation should have been paid to the petitioner by making fresh award in her claim. Hence, the matter was referred under section 30 of Land Acquisition Act for adjudication regarding title and possession. The awardees were summoned by the Special Judge under the Land Acquisition Act. Though the summons has been received by one of the awardee namely Karma Bedia but even then no one appeared in the court. The awardee Aghanu Bedia died during the pendency of the case. His legal heirs were substituted and they were also summoned to appear before the Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribag. None of them appeared. The opposite party filed a show cause contending therein that as the plot Nos.131,132,133 and 134 under Khata No.7 of village Chordhara were recorded in the name of Aghanu Bedia and others who were members of Scheduled Tribes community. Hence, the petitioner being not the member of the Scheduled Tribes cannot claim any right, title and possession in respect of the said acquired lands, in view of the provisions of Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act. It was also contended that plot No.130 under Khata No.7 has not been included in the award and the District Land Acquisition Officer was right in his action in not preparing the award in the name of anybody including the petitioner. It was also pleaded by the appellant-opposite party that the compensation of Rs. 31,984.66/- has been paid and the claim of Rs.l,75,000/- Per decimal is imaginary and exorbitant. 4. Basing on the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition framed the following points for determination :- (i) Whether the petitioner Mostt. Dumari is entitled for compensation amount of her lands of Khata No.7, plot Nos.131, 132, 133 and 134 total area of 1.93 acres acquired by the Government Authority for the purpose of C.C.L.? (ii) Whether the amount of compensation has been assessed at the prevalent market rate or not? If, not what would be the reasonable amount of compensation? 5. In support of his case, the plaintiff altogether examined five witnesses and proved the following documents:- (i) Ext. 1- is the original registered sale deed executed by Dandu Bediya in favour of Rama Mahto on 15.06.1939 (ii) Ext. 1/A to 1/C- are the three certified copies of the sale deeds, (iii) Ext. 5. In support of his case, the plaintiff altogether examined five witnesses and proved the following documents:- (i) Ext. 1- is the original registered sale deed executed by Dandu Bediya in favour of Rama Mahto on 15.06.1939 (ii) Ext. 1/A to 1/C- are the three certified copies of the sale deeds, (iii) Ext. 2 to 2/A- are two rent receipts of the land in question issued by the Government Authority. (iv) Ext. 3- is the certified copy of the judgment dated 09.05.1977 passed in T.A. No.15 of 1976/4 of 1977 (v) Ext. 3/A- is the certified copy of the judgment dated 11.03.1976 and decree passed in T.S. No.207 of 1971 passed by the Addl. Munsif, Hazaribag (vi) Ext. 3/B- is the certified copy of the judgment dated 04.02.1993 passed in L.R. Case No.660 of 1992 and 668 of 1992. 6. From the side of the opposite parties, one witness was examined and the opposite party proved the following documents:- (i) Ext. A is the rate report including the copy of proceeding. (ii) Ext.B is the valuation khatiyan of case No.5/1980-81. (iii) Ext.C is the sale figure of village Chordhara, P.S.-Ramgarh from 10.02.1979 to 10.02.1982. 7. Learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition, after considering the evidence in record held that since Title Appeal No.15 of 1976/4 of 1977 has been finally decided in respect of the land in question and was finally decided in favour of the petitioner, hence, she has acquired valid right, title over the said land, hence, she is entitled to receive compensation in respect of the said 1.93 acres of land acquired. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, learned court below considered the three sale deeds filed by the petitioner out of which Ext.l/A was in respect of land of village Lapunga which was sold for consideration of Rs. 6,500/-, Ext. 1/B in respect of three decimals of land of village Chorghara for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- and Ext. 1/C was in respect of the land of Ramgarh Cantt in which one and half decimals of land has been sold for a price of Rs. 21,000/- and also considered that the process mentioned in Ext. 6,500/-, Ext. 1/B in respect of three decimals of land of village Chorghara for a consideration of Rs. 2000/- and Ext. 1/C was in respect of the land of Ramgarh Cantt in which one and half decimals of land has been sold for a price of Rs. 21,000/- and also considered that the process mentioned in Ext. C is the compilation of the sale figures of the sale deed of the land described of the village Chorghara and after considering oral and documentary evidence in the record came to the conclusion that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per decimal at a flat rate for the entire land should be awarded. 8. Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since the land stand recorded in the name of Aghanu Bedia and others who are the members of Scheduled Tribes and the petitioner is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, learned court below erred in holding that the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of said 1.93 acres of land and it is also submitted by Mr. Kumar that the compensation awarded by the learned Special Judge under the Land Acquisition Act is excessive. In the Ext. C which is a compilation of the sale figures of the sale deed executed of village Chorghara shows that most of the lands were sold at the rate of Rs. 300/- per decimal but most of such lands sold was less than five decimals in area and the learned Special judge, Land Acquisition erred by relying upon the sale deeds marked as Ext.l, 1/A and 1/C because the same were in respect of different villages and the lands thereof has no proximity from situation angle with the land acquired in the present case. It is further submitted by Mr. Kumar that the learned court below erred by not considering the sale deed marked as Ext. 1/B as the same is in proximity to the lands acquired in respect of time angle as is evident from the fact that the said land has not been mentioned in Ext. C. It is further submitted by Mr. Kumar the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to consider the fact that the land in question is Tanr land and there is no irrigation facility. C. It is further submitted by Mr. Kumar the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to consider the fact that the land in question is Tanr land and there is no irrigation facility. It is further submitted that the land is much more in size in comparison to the acquired lands. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award be set aside. 9. No one turns up on behalf of the respondent in spite of repeated calls. 10. In view of the submission made at the Bar and after going through the records, the following point for determination crop up for consideration in this appeal:- (i) Whether the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition was proper in holding that the petitioner-respondent No.l is entitled to receive the compensation in respect of the said 1.93 acres of land? (ii) Whether the compensation amount assessed by the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition was proper? Out of the five witness examined by the petitioner, P.W.l-Samsuddin Ansari has supported the case of petitioner and stated that the lands in question were purchased lands and since the purchase she has been in possession thereof. At the time of acquisition of the land it was in possession of the petitioner. He has clearly stated that earlier the lands belong to Bedia- s but their ancestor have sold the land. This witness also possessed his land which has also been acquired besides the land in question. In his cross-examination he has stated that his land is bounded on one side by road, from south Manjur Mian, from east by jungle and from west Ganua Kurmi. 80 decimals of land has not been purchased by P.W.I in 1980-81 but there was sell and purchase of the land in the year 1980-81. He does not remember the amount for the acquisition of land in the year 1980-81. Bhurkunda market is at a distance of 4 kilometres from the acquired land. P.W.2-Lakhan Mahto, is the son of Most. Dumri the petitioner of the case. He has stated that his grandfather Rama Mahto had purchased the land from Dandu Bedia in the year 1939 by virtue of registered deed of sale. His grandfather was in possession and after his death his mother has been in possession thereof. P.W.2-Lakhan Mahto, is the son of Most. Dumri the petitioner of the case. He has stated that his grandfather Rama Mahto had purchased the land from Dandu Bedia in the year 1939 by virtue of registered deed of sale. His grandfather was in possession and after his death his mother has been in possession thereof. His mother is the only legal heir of her father Rama Mahto and at the time of acquisition of the land the same was in possession of his grandfather. The registered deed for sale has been marked as Exhibit 1 on his testimony. In his cross-examination he has stated that his grandfather died in 1971. In 1980-81 land was enquired (sic) acquired by the department and at that time there was no whisper about the sell and purchase of the land. Bhurkunda Colliery is at a distance of 3-4 kilometers of the said land. P.W.3-Govind Prasad, who is also the son of Mostt. Dumri and according to him also the lands have been purchased by his grandfather Rama Mahto. The suit land for which this case has been filed is in front of the glass factory and Bhurkunda Colliery. There is also a Sirka argadha colliery. There is also Bhurkunda market. P.W.3 has land in Chorghara. Bhurkunda market is at a distance of 4 kilometer from the said land. The compensation which was paid by the C.C.L. is not acceptable. The amount which was set to have been compensated was much less than the amount which they will fetch if they sell. The land is a purchased land and it measures about 1.83 acres. All the lands was purchased by the grandfather of the P.W.3 and the P.W.3 has no knowledge about the purchase of the land. The mother of the P.W.3 Dumri Devi was the only daughter of his grandfather and he has no sons. He has described the plot to be recorded in the name of his grandfather under khata No.7 bearing plot Nos.131, 132, 133 and 134. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the said land was in the name of Rama Mahto. There is no canal near the said land. The C.C.L. has constructed the water tank near the said land. Sirka, Argadha colliery is near the river. In between there is no trees but only their mound are present. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the said land was in the name of Rama Mahto. There is no canal near the said land. The C.C.L. has constructed the water tank near the said land. Sirka, Argadha colliery is near the river. In between there is no trees but only their mound are present. The measurement of the land was done by the State Government and the C.C.L. At the time of acquisition of the land, it was not a home stead area. Acquisition was done on 1939. The road was constructed by the mine board. The compensation given by the C.C.L. at the time of acquisition was not known to him. After the acquisition the development work was done by C.C.L. There is no school in the village whereas the school is situated at Bhurkunda. P.W.4-Ram Charan Oraon is an independent witness. He has also fully supported the case of petitioner. He has stated that the acquired land was purchased by Rama Mahto from Dandu Mahodar and since then he has been in possession of the land. After his death, Most. Dumri is in possession of the same. He has also stated regarding the Title Suit between Mostt. Dumri and Dandu Mahodar, in which Mostt. Dumri succeeded and she came to the possession of the suit land. There is glass factory, Lapanga Colliery and Bhurkunda market near the suit land and Sirka Colliery is situated towards the east side of the suit land. In the west, suit land is surrounded by Patratu Thermal Power. There is pakka road in the east which goes to Patratu. P.W.4 heard in 1980 that there is no paper regarding 7-8 acres of land being registered in the name of Bedias after 1981. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the land was acquired by C.C.L. in 1980. The employees of C.C.L. enquired about the land. In 1980 there were separate houses and small market and there was facility for transportation and there was no forest bushes near the acquired land. There is a mines and hill at a distance of half kilometer and at a distance of three kilometers there is Sirda Colliery and Patrutru Thermal Power is at a distance of 15 kilometers. It is not the fact that the Patrutu road is constructed by the C.C.L. There is no canal as well as water tank near the area. There is a mines and hill at a distance of half kilometer and at a distance of three kilometers there is Sirda Colliery and Patrutru Thermal Power is at a distance of 15 kilometers. It is not the fact that the Patrutu road is constructed by the C.C.L. There is no canal as well as water tank near the area. In that area there is primary school and middle school but there is no high school. Prem Sao and Balkishun Sao have stated that they had purchased the land at the rate of Rs. 7000-8000/- per decimal but they have not produced any documents regarding that. P.W.5- Satish Kumar is a formal witness. He has proved two rent receipts, which have been marked as Ext. 2 and 2/a respectively. From the side of the opposite party No.2, O.P.W.1-Rajendra Lal has stated that the acquisition of land was done on 1980-81. L.A. Case No.5 of 1980-81 was registered. The land is in Khata No.1 rakbha 5.41 acres. Before acquisition D.C.O and their staffs inspected the acquired land and enquired about the acquired land through its sale deed as provided by the registry office. The rate of the compensation amount of the suit land and the category of the acquired land was Dhan-II, Dhan-III, Parti and Tand land. In the cross-examination, he has stated that award was prepared in 1980. He did not see the documents. He did not give notice to Dumri Devi and others. Ramgarh Road is by the side of the acquired land. Acquired land is 2-3 km. away from the Lapung Colliery and this colliery was established in 1946. The acquired land can be used for constructing house. It is not the case that at the time of acquisition the rate of the acquired land was Rs. 5,000/-. So far as the first point for determination is concerned as after going through the records, it is crystal clear that the title of the respondent No.l was challenged in Title Suit No.207 of 1971 in the court of Munsif and subsequently, the said decree was challenged in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1976/4 of 1977 but the competent civil court has not filed any justification to interfere with the claim of title of the petitioner over the said 1.93 acres of land. Since the title and possession of the defendant over the said 1.93 acres of land has been tested by the competent civil court and the same has been set at rest and as there is no further material in record to suggest that the judgment and decree of the 2nd Additional District Judge passed in Title Appeal No. 15 of 1976/4 of 1977 was ever challenged anywhere. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Special Judge, Land Acquisition was proper in holding that the petitioner-respondent No.l is entitled to receive the compensation of the said 1.93 acres of land. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. So far as the second point for determination is concerned, after going through the Ext. C which is a compilation of the sale deeds of village Chorghara which are proximate from time angle and situation angle of the land acquired, 1 find that the consideration amount of most of the lands is Rs. 300/- per decimal but the area of the land involved was mostly of four decimals or less than that. It is a settled principle of law that largeness of the area of the acquired land is a minus factor as far as the valuation of the land is concerned. The learned Special judge, Land Acquisition certainly erred by considering Ext. 1/A and 1/C as those exemplar sale deeds were not in proximity with the acquired land by area and Ext. 1/B was in proximity with the acquired land by time wise. Hence keeping in view the aforesaid facts and law as discussed above the market value of the land acquired, is assessed at Rs. 275/- per decimal at a flat rate on the acquired land. Accordingly the impugned order and award is modified to the extent indicated above. In addition to that the petitioner shall be entitled to solatium and interest as per law. 11. With the aforesaid modification in the impugned order and award, this appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. 13. Order accordingly.