JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 26(2) has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(a) the appeal be allowed and the appellant be allowed compensation after correctly assessing the market value and potential value of the lands and after assessing the value of the trees and other claims; (b) the appellant be allowed solatium on the value allowed @ 30% ; (c) interest may also be allowed to the appellant from the date of the taking over possession of the acquired properties till the date of payment; (d) any other appropriate direction or order that may be deeded expedient for the ends of justice may be passed; and (e) costs be awarded to the appellant." 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the proceedings, for acquiring the property belonging to the appellant for the purposes of the then University of Udaipur, were initiated under the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953, and in lieu whereof, an award to the tune of Rs.3,27,173/- including the solatium, was allowed by the Land Acquisition Officer, Udaipur on 29.11.1976. 3. The claimant sought the remedy of Section 18 of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, and thus, the matter was referred to the learned court below for assessing the market value of the land, including the irrigated portion on the banjar lands. 4. The appellant also raised the issue of structure, including wells, swimming pools, tin-sheds, pump house, culverts, roads, boundary wall, irrigation channels. The appellant further claimed the value of the trees, including the fruit trees viz., Mango, Guava, Pomegranate and other trees. The appellant also claimed solatium as well as the potential value of the land. 5. The impugned judgment was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Udaipur on 01.08.1988, partially allowing the appellant's claim to the extent of Rs.65,727/-, in respect of the market value of the agricultural irrigated lands. Further, the learned court below also awarded the appellant a sum of Rs.44,275/- as potential value, apart from 30% solatium, which was already allowed. 6. The grounds as raised by Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shashank Purohit for the appellant are that the award was granted for 30 bighas and 3 biswas of irrigated land, whereas the land in question was 30 bighas and 13 biswas. 6. The grounds as raised by Mr. J.L. Purohit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Shashank Purohit for the appellant are that the award was granted for 30 bighas and 3 biswas of irrigated land, whereas the land in question was 30 bighas and 13 biswas. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that the value for 10 biswas of the irrigated land has neither been computed nor compensation has been granted. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the amount for the irrigated and banjar lands was not calculated as per the market value, and a common parameter of one Sohan Lal's land was adopted, which was apparently a banjar land, and thus, was valued only at Rs.4,680/- per bigha. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned court below failed to rationalize the compensation between the irrigated land and the banjar land, even when the cost difference would be three times. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Kamla Devi vs. BSF, Jodhpur, (1988) 1 WLN(Raj) 730 , in which price of the irrigated chahi land was assessed at three times the rate of uncommand land. Learned counsel thus submitted that the market value of the irrigated land would be Rs.14,040/- (Rs.4,680 x 3) per bigha. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the market value was above Rs.10,000/- per bigha, and for this, the sale deeds for the period from 1967 to 1973 were placed on record. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.02.1972, whereas the sale deeds Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 were all prior to the date of the said notification. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the aforementioned fruits trees and structures have been undervalued, and thus, the overall compensation, as awarded, is not in accordance with law. 13. To substantiate his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, has relied upon the judgment rendered in Smt. Tribeni Devi and Ors. VS. The Collector, Ranchi, (1972) AIR SC 1417 ; Dadoo Yogendrenath Singh and Ors. Vs. The Collector, Seoni, (1977) AIR SC 1128 ; Adusumilli Gopalkrishna Vs. Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), (1980) AIR SC 1870 ; Raghubans Narain Singh Vs. VS. The Collector, Ranchi, (1972) AIR SC 1417 ; Dadoo Yogendrenath Singh and Ors. Vs. The Collector, Seoni, (1977) AIR SC 1128 ; Adusumilli Gopalkrishna Vs. Spl. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), (1980) AIR SC 1870 ; Raghubans Narain Singh Vs. The Uttar Pradesh Government, through Collector of Bijnor, (1967) AIR SC 465 (V 54 C 36) ; Mahabir Prasad Santuka and Ors. Vs. Collector, Cuttack and Ors., (1987) AIR SC 720 ; State of Orissa Vs. Dunda Oram and Ors., (1978) AIR Orissa 74 ; State of Madras Vs. Rev. Brother Joseph, (1973) AIR SC 2463 ; Chaturbhuj Pande and Ors. Vs. Collector, Raigarh, (1969) AIR SC 255 (V 56 C 47) ; Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Vs. State of Kerala, (1991) AIR SC 2027 ; Rabindradhar Barua and Ors. Vs. Collector of Kamrup, (1982) AIR Gauhati 17 ; P.Ram Reddy and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 305 ; Manimegalai Vs. Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer) ADI Dravidar Welfare, (2018) 13 SCC 491 ; Deep Chand and Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. and Anr., (1980) AIR SC 633 ; Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor Vs. L.Kamalamma (Smt.) Dead by LRs and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 385 ; Ravinder Narain and Anr. Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 481 and; Ranvir Singh and Anr. Vs. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59 . 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the aforementioned notification was issued only in respect of 30 bighas and 3 biswas of land, and the objections regarding the 10 biswas of land have not been raised either before the Land Acquisition Officer or the learned Civil Court, and therefore, at this stage, the same cannot be permitted to be taken up. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted the land was acquired through private negotiations, and a sum of Rs.2,500/- per bigha and Rs.2,000/- per bigha were paid for the irrigated land and one crop/non-irrigated land respectively, which was the baseline, on the basis of which the Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award. 16. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted the land was acquired through private negotiations, and a sum of Rs.2,500/- per bigha and Rs.2,000/- per bigha were paid for the irrigated land and one crop/non-irrigated land respectively, which was the baseline, on the basis of which the Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the sale deeds cannot be accepted as an absolute figure, and the figure arrived at on the basis of Sohan Lal's land became the ground for enhanced compensation to the claimant, and the rate prescribed by private negotiations with khatedar, which was Rs.2,000/- per bigha, was already excessively enhanced. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that no specific evidence was recorded regarding fruits and other trees, and a general cost has been arrived at, as per the schedule, by an expert Dr. S.P. Pathak, who was a Horticulturist, and the amount was calculated on the basis of the opinion of the expert, and thus, the same needs no interference by this Court at this stage. 18. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the amount was claimed on the basis of the estimates (Exhibits 15 to 23) prepared by one Shri Jagdamba Lal Mathur, but he was not produced as a witness, and therefore, the calculations were made as per the report of the expert and the trained engineer of the State Department, which was having a considerable trust value. 19. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the appellant had claimed a total sum of Rs.5,20,625/- in respect of the acquired land, whereas the learned Civil Court had already awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.5,16,371/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum, and thus, the appellant is not entitled for any further enhanced compensation. 20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the order passed by the learned Civil Court, enhancing the compensation to Rs.1,41,102/- @ Rs.4,680/- per bigha, instead of Rs.2,500/- per bigha for the irrigated land as granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, was way beyond the negotiated rate of Rs.2,500/-, and thus, was justified. 21. 21. This Court further finds that the compensation awarded for the banjar land, which was agreed upon in the private negotiation as Rs.2,000/- per bigha, has been rightly kept at the same level, and thus a clear distinction between the irrigated land and banjar land has been drawn by the learned court below. The fruit trees are as per the schedule and as per the expert report of Dr. S.P.Pathak, who was a State Horticulturist, and was thus a neutral authority to provide valuation for the compensation in question. The compensation awarded for other trees, to the extent of Rs.22,150/-, was also justified. The compensation of Rs.1,24,557/- for structures has been rightly maintained, and the potential value, which was not granted by the Land Acquisition Officer, has been rightly considered by the learned court below, to the extent of Rs.44,275/-, which is suffice to be a just compensation for the acquisition in question. Thus, the enhanced compensation amount for the irrigated land, which was the prime point of the appellant, has already been addressed. The prayer of the appellant was to claim Rs.5,20,625/- as compensation, whereas the learned court below has already awarded Rs.5,16,371/-, after enhancing the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was Rs.3,27,173/-. 22. The precedent laws cited by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the present case. 23. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.