Judgment 1. Collector land Acquisition Anantnag-(respondents No. 6 In CFA No. 106/2016 and respondent No. 1 in CFA No. 185/2016) submitted a communication to the District Judge, Anantnag vide No. 901-03/LA, dated 30.03.2002 stating therein land measuring 65 kanals and 5 marlas situated at Tehsil Kulgam has been acquired for the public purpose namely married accommodation of Army. . Final award of the land was set forth to have been issued by the Collector on 7th April 1999. The interested persons namely Ab. Ahad, Ab. Salam, Mohammad Yousuf sons and Mst,. Jani W/o Mohammad Shaban and Mst. Raja W/o Mohammad Yousuf Kutto R/o Harnag have been stated to be have filed an application on 10th May 1999 for referring the case to the Civil Court for determination of the compensation. The communication as such was sent in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) for further necessary action. In the said application moved by the claimants/land owners some of the points set forth for making a reference to the District court were stated as: “Acquisition of land was in process in the village Khan, pahari Tehsil Kulgam District Anantnag. Land measuring 67.02 kanals under Survey No.s 1182, 1184, 1185, 1187, 1188, 1189, 1190, 1191, 1192, 1193, 1239, 1240, 1241, 1242 and 1247 also wazs notified for acquisition” Process of acquisition is in progress but the final award has not been conveyed to the applicant so far. The applicant has been given to understand that the proceedings have ben finalized and compensation has been decided at a very low rate; that the market value of the land in question. Since the award has not been conveyed to the applicants under rules; the rights of the applicants are likely to the adversely affected. It is pointed out here that the land in question is situated at commercial sites and values about 07 lacs of rupees per kanal. Determination of price in the award is therefore erroneous and it tells about the genuine rights of the land owners. This land has been occupied by the Indian Army in the year 1979 and continues in their possession since then No rent has been paid for the intervening period. Determination of price in the award is therefore erroneous and it tells about the genuine rights of the land owners. This land has been occupied by the Indian Army in the year 1979 and continues in their possession since then No rent has been paid for the intervening period. If the award is deemed to halts that years, the applicants are entitled to interest on t her amount @ 18% per annum of compensation and in alternative therein for all these years. Land acquired had about three hundred trees planted of the willow trees planted of the willow bran and apricot is still standing in it. Trees also are of value and have not been compensated so far applicants are entitled to the price of the same. It is requested to kindly make a reference in terms of Section 18 of J&K Land Acquisition Act 1990 (1034 AD) Part III of the Act for determination of price of land and fixation of compensation in favour of the application. The applicants have been deprived of the genuine use of the land since long and suffer for payment of compensation. It is requested that the compensation already fixed by the collector be paid to the applicants owners under protest and subject to final adjudication of that matter by the civil court.” 2. On receipt of reference, the parties were put to notice and asked to file their response/objections which have been accordingly filed on 18.11.2013 wherein it is being stated that the land referred in the application has been acquired for public purpose. Particulars of the dates on which the notification/declaration under Section 4, 6, 7 were issued have been given therein besides placing on record documents (original sale deed and two attested copies of sale deeds). After framing of the issues and recording of evidence, the learned district judge passed an award on 8th May 2006 whereby the amount of compensation fixed by the Collector was enhanced with the rate as indicated in the said award 3. Same was challenged by filing CIA No. 149/2012 and 63/2006 before this Court and this court while setting aside the order passed by the learned District Judge directed the parties to appear before the reference court. Reference court was directed to provide opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and pass the award accordingly. Same was challenged by filing CIA No. 149/2012 and 63/2006 before this Court and this court while setting aside the order passed by the learned District Judge directed the parties to appear before the reference court. Reference court was directed to provide opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and pass the award accordingly. Learned reference court thereafter on arrayed of Union of India through Defence Estate office as respondent No. 2 asked the parties to lead evidence. Collector was also put to notice. Union of India filed its objections (after being arrayed as party). One witness Fayaz Ahmad Buch Bazaz was examined on 02.07.2013. The evidence was accordingly closed at the request of Union of India on 14th August 2013 and the case was fixed for passing of the final award, which have been accordingly passed on 09.07.2014 and which is being assailed herein by the parties. CFA No. 185/2014:- 4. In the memo of appeal of CFA No. 185/2014 the case projected for enhancing of compensation has been put forth as: (i) Land referred hereinabove is stated to have been acquired for public purpose. Same is said to be situated on Srinagar Jammu Highway at Khanabal, Anantnag opposite PWD & DIG office, Dakbanglow, Khanbal and Degree College Anantnag. (ii) In the year 1975, it was requisitioned by the State/Union of India, through competent authority under the provisions of S. 21 of the Jammu and Kashmir Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1968 vide his order No. 881-83/LA dated 30.07.75 for the construction of married accommodation for its defence forces (15 corps) deployed in the state of J&K at Khanabal Anantnag. (iii) Land owners thereof did not agree to this proposition so forcible possession thereof was taken from them by the Army as on 09.03.1978 through the said competent authority under the provisions of S. 4 (2) of the said Act without following due process of law. (iv) Unilaterally rent thereof was fixed by the defence Estate Officer, Srinagar Circle vide his office Order No. JK/625/Reg/67 dated 02.04.1980 @ rate of Rs. 1649- per annum for 65 K 5M i.e. @ rate of Rs. 24.50 per kanal regardless of any classification of the said requisitioned land. (v) Land owners refused to accept this rent offered to them by the respondent No. 2 so they demanded back possession of the requisitioned land from the said competent authority/defennce Estate Officer. 1649- per annum for 65 K 5M i.e. @ rate of Rs. 24.50 per kanal regardless of any classification of the said requisitioned land. (v) Land owners refused to accept this rent offered to them by the respondent No. 2 so they demanded back possession of the requisitioned land from the said competent authority/defennce Estate Officer. (vi) That the competent authority under the aforesaid Act also felt that the rent offered to the land owners for the requisitioned land was far too law so he conveyed to this to the respondent No. 2 that it was neither acceptable to him nor to the landowners thereof as such possession of the requisition land may be restored back to them. (vii) But the Union of India through its Defence Estate Officer, Circle Srinagar, instead of restoring back possession of the aforesaid requisitioned land expressed its intention to acquire it formally. (viii) Accordingly a letter of intent was sent by the defense estates officer, circle Sriangar to the competent authority for its acquisition. (ix) Consequently notification under S. 4 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act came to be issued by the respondent No. 1 i.e. Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag for its acquisition in favour of the Union of India vide his No. LH (177) 21-25 dated 18.09.85. (x) Declaration under S.6 to the affect that the land was being acquired by the state for and on behalf of Union of India, for the public purose of providing married accommodation for defense forces deployed at Khanabal Anantnag vide its No. Rev. (LA) 84 of 1989 dated 06.06.89. (xi) Before passing of the final award Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag had sought average sale rate and prevalent market of the area from the TEhsildar concerned i.e. Tehsildar Kulgam. (xii) Tehsildar Kulgam in compliance thereof vide No. 892/OQ dated 22.09.1989 furished a detailed report to the Collector vide his No. 892/OQ dated 22.09.1989 where Collector vide his No. 892/OQ dated 22.09.1989 where under he gave average sale rate of the area as Rs. 51,612 P. K and prevalent market rate as Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal, irrespective of any classification or categorization of the land based on kind of its soil or cultivability. (xiii) That the Collector chose to ignore the aforesaid report of the Tehsildar concerned and of his own recommended a payment of compensation payable to the land owners at the Rate of Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal, irrespective of any classification or categorization of the land based on kind of its soil or cultivability. (xiii) That the Collector chose to ignore the aforesaid report of the Tehsildar concerned and of his own recommended a payment of compensation payable to the land owners at the Rate of Rs. 1.75 lacs for Abi land, Rs. 1.58 for maidani land and Rs. 1.35 lacs for Banjri Qadim land without assigning of any reasons whatsoever. (xiv) That the collector vide his final award bearing No. 7 11 (177) II dated 09.04.1999 fixed compensaton of the acquired @ Rs. 1.17 lac for Abi land and Rs. 1.00 lacs for Maidani and Banjri Qadim Land. (xv) Landowners did not accept this award and the market rate fixed by the collector/government and as such sought a reference to the civil court for its redetermination as provided under the provisions of the S. 18 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act. (xvi) That the reference court, however vide its award dated 18.05.2006 adopted the rates proposed by the Collector vide his draft award and held the land owners entitled to payment of compensation @ Rs. 1.75 for the abi land, Rs. 1.58 for Maidani land and Rs. 1.35 for Banjari Qadim land, Jabrana 15% interest thereon @ 6% P. A w.e.f 31.06.1989 i.e, from the date of issuance of S. 9 notice to the landowners under the Act, till the final payment thereof or deposite in the court. (xvii) That the land owners challenged the aforesaid award before this court vide CIA No. 63/2006 and CIA 149/2012. (xviii) That this court after hearing both ther parties at length was pleased to set aside the aforesaid award of the reference court dated 18.05.2006 and remanded rthe case back to the reference court for passing of fresh award, after giving of a fresh opportunity of being heard to both the parties 5. (xviii) That this court after hearing both ther parties at length was pleased to set aside the aforesaid award of the reference court dated 18.05.2006 and remanded rthe case back to the reference court for passing of fresh award, after giving of a fresh opportunity of being heard to both the parties 5. In the appeal filed the grounds for setting aside award have been put forth as: (i) That the land was actually requisitioned by the State of J&K for Union of India as provided under the provisions of S. 21 of the J&K Requisition and Acquisition Act and the forcible possession thereof was taken by the competent authority under the provisions of S. 4 (2) of the said Act so the requisitioned land ought to have been acquired by the state under the provisions of S.7 of the said Act and not under the provisions of the J&K Land Acquisition Act. (ii) That the reference court has committed a gross error and mistake by replicating the earlier award passed by it which was set aside by t his Hon’ble court vide order/judgment dated 07.05.2013 passed in CIA No. 63 of 2006 and CIA No. 149 of 2012 remanded back to it with a direction to hold a fresh enquiry/trial after hearing of both parties and allowing them to lead any fresh evidence as may be available to them under the law. (iii) That in the final award No. LA (177) 98/II dated 09.03.1999 i.e. Annexure “c” to the appeal, collector at para 6 of the said award has himself referred to the different awards passed in the year 1987-1988 in the same vicinity around same time, where under an average rate of Rs. 1.71 P. K has been awarded/ paid to the land owners by State and further held in unequivocal terms that the land of the appellants herein was situated at a far better location/place and was possessed of higher potential and greater value in comparison to the land acquired by the State for different public purposes in the same in the same vicinity and around same time, i.e. almost two years before the relevant date of declaration made under S.6 of the Act in the instant case. (iv) That before passing the aforesaid final award, matter was referred to by the collector to the Tehsildar Kulgam for providing of average sale data and prevalent market rate of the area of location of the acquired land who in turn had given average sale @ rate of Rs. 57142 P. K for the year 1987-88 and the prevalent market of all types of land @ rate of Rs. 2.00 lacs (Rs. Two lacs) per kanal, after holding of proper enquiry and recording of statement of disinterested persons on the spot. (v) That the Collector has given no explanation or justification whatsoever for not relying on the report submitted by the Tehsildar concerned to him based on recording of statement of disinterested persons of the said locality as provided under Rule 46 of the J&K Land Acquisition Rules issued vide council Order No. 939 of 1936 dated 8.12.1936. (vi) That the appellants want to clarify herein that they have in fact produced following certified/verified copies of sale deeds which are of 1991 during the course of recording of their evidence in the case and not of the year 1999 as referred to by the reference court in two of its separate awards: (a) Sale deed dated 01.11.1991 executed by one Mr. Ab. Gani Khan in favour of the Mr. Ali Mohammed Munjkhal for the land measuring 517 Sft. Comprising of Khasra No. 899 situated within TAC Anantnag at Mohalla Mehman sold for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- i.e, at the rate of Rs. 9.47 P.K. (b) Sale deed dated 01.11.1991 executed by the same vendor in faovur of Mr. Ab. Hamid Narchoor for land measuring 150 Sft. Comprising of same Khasra No. 899 situated within TAC Anantnag at Mohalla Mehman sold for a consideration of Rs. 10.88 lac P.K. (vii) That the appellant in law are entitled to a minimum compensation @ Rs. 6.00 lacs per kanal as claimed by them in their objections dated 17.07.1989 filed under S. 9 of the land Acquisition Act and referred to by the reference court at page 34 of its fresh award dated 09.07.2014 along with Jabirana payable @ rate of 15% and interest thereon @ 6% P. A w.e.f 9.3.78 i.e. date on which the possession of their requisitioned land was forcibly taken by State/Union of India, till the final realization thereof or deposit in the court. 6. 6. CFA No. 106/2016: In the memo of appeal filed by Union of India following pleas have been put forth as: (i) That the appellant (Defence Estate Office, Kashmir) has indented for acquisition of land measuring 65 kanal 5 marlas under Khasra No. 1181 (2-k 12m), 1182 (14k-0m), 1183 (5-k 1-m), 1194 (3- k 08-m), 1185 (2-k 19-m), 1187 (3-k 5-m) 1188 (1-k 7-M), 1189 (1-k 08-m) 1190 (1-k 08-m), 1191/M (7-k 02-m), 1191/B (1-k 0-m), 1192 (2-k 8-m), 1193 (2-k 05-m), 1239 (3-k 0-m), 1240 (2-k 11-m), 2141 (8-k 15-m) and 1242 (1-k 18-m0) situated at village Khandipahari Tehsil Kulgam for public purpose namely married accommodation for 15 Corps. Previously, the said land was requisitioned vide office No. 881-83/LA dated 30.07.31975 and possession was handed over to the army authorities on 09.03.1978 through Military Estates Officer (MEO) Srinagar. The financial sanction of the rent was received by the Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vide MEO Kashmir CircleSrinagar’s No. Jk/625/Req/67 dated 02.04.1989 for an amount of Rs. 1649/-= per annum for 65 kanals 05 marlas corresponding to Rs. 24.50 per kanal for all kinds of soils. (ii) That consequent upon the indent received by Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag process under land acquisition was initiated and after undertaking property for public purpose, objections from the interested persons were received and heard and finally Collector Land Acquisition proposed the compensation for different kinds of land. The proposed compensation by the collector land acquisition exceeded his total jurisdiction, as such, case was submitted to the District Collector (Deputy Commissioner) Anantnag for obtaining necessary approval from Government for payment of compensation to the interested persons and necessary approval was communicated by the revenue authorities vide Government Order No. 16/Rev(LAJ) 88 dated 07.04.1999 and vide Divisional Commissioner Kashmir’s No. DivCOM/581 dated 08.04.1999 where under rates to be adopted have been approved as under:- 1. Abi land Rs. 1.17 lacs per kanal 2. Maidani/ Banjri Rs. 1.00 lacs per kanal Besides, the approval envisaged that the amount of compensation with regard to Kachari land shall be retained by the Deputy Commissioner w ho will utilize the same as per the extending orders. The compensation of the land was therefore, assessed as under:- a. Compensation of Abi land measuring 26 kanals a 14 marlas & Rs. 1.17 lacs/ per kanal Rs. 31,23,90.00 b. Compensation of Maidani land measuring 38 kanals 7 marlas @ Rs. The compensation of the land was therefore, assessed as under:- a. Compensation of Abi land measuring 26 kanals a 14 marlas & Rs. 1.17 lacs/ per kanal Rs. 31,23,90.00 b. Compensation of Maidani land measuring 38 kanals 7 marlas @ Rs. 1.00 laxcs per kanal Rs. 38,35,000.00 c. Compensation of Banjari Qadeem land 0-k 04 marlas @ Rs. 1.00 lacs/per kanal Rs. 20,000.00 d. Compensation of Trees (as assessed by D. H. O Anantnag Rs. 20,112.00 e. Jabirana at 15% Rs. 10,49,851.00 Grand Total Rs. 80,48,863.80 Rupees Eighty Lacs Forty Eight Thousand Eight hundred Sixty Three and Eighty Paisa only) (iii) That on the basis of approved rates, the Collector (Assistant Commissioner Revenue) Anantnag passed the award to the tune of Rs. 80,48,863.80 as compensation for land measuring 65 kanals 05 marlas and trees standing on the Shamilat situated at Village Khandipahari proposed for marriage accommodation for 15 Corps army. The defence Estate Officer, Kashmir was directed to remit the award at the earliest. (iv) That the appellant in pursuance of the award passed by the Collector deposited the entire awarded amount. The land owners received the awarded amount and purportedly filed an application under Section 18 before Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag for seeking reference and consequent upon application, reference was made and vide communication dated 30.03.2002, the Collector Land Acquisition, Anatnag made reference to District and Sessions Judge, Anantnag. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Anantnag entered into the reference and without arraying the appellant as party respondent in the reference and invited objections from the Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag and also received evidence. The learned Principal District Judge, did not agree with the statements made by the land owners during recording of evidence but accepted the reference on the ground that while granting approval to the award of the Collector Land Acquisition, the proposed award of Collector Land Acquisition Anantnag, the Government slashed the rates without giving any reasons and the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Anantnag holding the petitioners/ land owners entitled to the following compensation: i. Compensation of land measuring 26 kanals 14 marlas @ Rs. 1.75 lacs per kanal Rs. 46,72,500.00 ii. Compensation of land measuring 38 kanals 7 marlas @ Rs 1.58 lacs per kanal Rs. 60,59,300.00 iii. Compensation of land measuring 04 marlas @ Rs. 1.35 lacs per kanal Rs. 27,000.00 iv. 1.75 lacs per kanal Rs. 46,72,500.00 ii. Compensation of land measuring 38 kanals 7 marlas @ Rs 1.58 lacs per kanal Rs. 60,59,300.00 iii. Compensation of land measuring 04 marlas @ Rs. 1.35 lacs per kanal Rs. 27,000.00 iv. Compensation of trees as assessed by the District Horticulture Officer Anantnag vide No. 2302/WSs dated 21.06.1986 D. H. O Anatnag) Rs. 20,112.00 Grand Total Rs. 1,07,78912 v.   Jabirana at 15% Rs. 16,16,836.00 Rs. 1,23,95,748 vi. Interest @ 6% from the date of notification under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, i.e. No. LA/177/15/56 dated 31.06.1989 on the enhanced amount till the final realization. The respondents were accordingly directed to pay the above said compensation to the land owners after deduction of the amount of compensation, if any, already received by the land owner. (v) That feeling aggrieved of the award dated 08.05.2006, the appellant filed appeal bearing CIA No. 149/2012 titled Union of India Vs. Abdul Ahad Kutoo and Ors. on the ground that Union of India was an interested party before the learned District Judge, but has not been arrayed as party in the reference. The respondents also questioned the award dated 08.05.2006 in CIA No. 63/2006 on the ground that compensation paid to them is not in accordance with Land Acquisition Act. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 07.05.2013 disposed of both the appeals with following directions:- “Against the said backdrop the order impugned in the two appeals on hand is set aside and matter remanded to the learned district judge, Anantnag. Parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 14th May 2013. The appellant in CIA No. 149/2012 i.e. Union of India through Defence Estates officer, Kashmir shall project its stand and file objections/reply, if any, on the date the matter is taken up by the Reference Court and thereafter adduce evidence, if any, within one month. The appellants in CIA No. 63/2006 obviously shall have an opportunity to rebut the evidence so adduced within four weeks thereafter. The proceedings in any case shall be conducted by or before 14th of August 2013. Since the order of Reference Court will be free to arrive at its own conclusion on the basis of material brought on record unmindful of the observations made by this Court while disposing of the appeals on hand. The proceedings in any case shall be conducted by or before 14th of August 2013. Since the order of Reference Court will be free to arrive at its own conclusion on the basis of material brought on record unmindful of the observations made by this Court while disposing of the appeals on hand. Record be sent down.” The Learned Principal District Judge, Anantnag in pursuance to the Hon’ble High Court order dated 07.05.2013 arrayed the appellant as respondent No. 2 vide order dated 31.05.2013 and also received objections filed by the appellant. The appellant produced one witness namely Faiz Ahmad Buch and his statement was recorded on 02.07.2013. (vi) That in pursuance to the order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the High Court, the learned District Judge, Anantnag was directed to received the objections of the respondent No. 2 (Appellant herein) and record in evidence, however, a chance was also given to the respondents herein to rebut the evidence which may produced by the appellant. (vii) That on 30.08.2013 the respondents counsel filed an application praying therein that they may be allowed to adduce additional evidence. The counsel for the appellant objected to the same and also filed objection to the application of the respondents. The Hon’ble court of District Judge vide order dated 23.09.2013 allowed the petitioners (respondents herein) to file certified copy of the judgment passed by the ld. Sub Judge in case titled State Vs. Rehman Dar in violation of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court dated 07.05.2013. the matter was finally heard and the Ld. District Judge Anantnag vide award dated 09.07.2014 passed the impugned award. 7. The appellant is aggrieved of the same and challenges the same on the following grounds: (a) The Ld. District Judge although after receiving evidence and after returning findings on the above said issues, has announced the award only on the ground that the government has not given reasons while slashing the rates proposed by the Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag and same is in violation of the law. The said finding recorked by the Hon’ble District Judge, is against the proposition of law as the Collector Land Acquisition has only made a proposal to the government were fair and just compensation. The said finding recorked by the Hon’ble District Judge, is against the proposition of law as the Collector Land Acquisition has only made a proposal to the government were fair and just compensation. The statement of the judgment that the award of the Collector has over turned by the Government is without any basis as award was only passed on 09.04.1999 whatever was proposed cannot be termed as award in terms of provisions of J&K Land Acquisition Act and rules framed there under. Hence the award dated 09.07.2014 is contrary to the law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. (b) That the proposal of the amount to be awarded to the persons whose land is being acquired drawn up by land acquisition officer after making prescribed inquiry and submitting the same to the government for approval, is not an award within the meaning of Land Acquisition Act and the proposal is not binding upon the government or on the interested parties. The collector being officer of the government and the collector in making an award is bound by instructions and rules while paying compensation and the proposal which was made by the Collector land Acquisition and fixed higher rats and were not agreed by the Government is not an award within the meaning of section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act. The award was passed only on 09.04.1999 and the compensation to the tune of Rs. 80,48,863.80 was awarded to the land owners which the land owners received and after receiving the award, they purportedly filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for seeking reference. The observation of the Ld. District Judge that the government has not given reasons for slashing down the rates proposed by the Collector and thus enhanced the awarded amount from Rs. 80,48,863.80 to Rs. 1,23,95,748. The reasoning given by the learned District Judge is not supported by any law and is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Apex court on the point and on this count alone, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and set aside. (c) That the Ld. District Judge, in violation of the Hon’ble court order dated 07.05.2013 allowed the respondents herein to adduce additional evidence and the respondents filed certified copy of the order dated 20.03.2013 passed b y the Ld. (c) That the Ld. District Judge, in violation of the Hon’ble court order dated 07.05.2013 allowed the respondents herein to adduce additional evidence and the respondents filed certified copy of the order dated 20.03.2013 passed b y the Ld. Sub Judge, Anatnag and the certified copy of the order was nto relevant to the case as in that case, the parties have compromised the matter in private negotiations. The Hon’ble district Judge has erred in law and has thus passed the impugned award which is contrary to the settled preposition of law. (d) That the tentative assessment made by the Collector Land Acquisition for paying compensation for 65 kanals and 5 marlas of land situated at village Khandipahari Tehsil Kulgam was not award in terms of the Section 11 of the land Acquisition Act and was mere proposal which was not binding upon the government and the government after receiving the proposal and tentative assessment, slashed the rates for different kinds of land and directed the collector Land Acquisition to pass an award accordingly and on 09.04.1999 award was passed in terms of the Land Acquisition Act. The reasons given by the District Judge that the interested persons were not heard by the Government before the impugned award is not supported by any evidence and also the evidence received by the Collector Land Acquisition and inquiry made by him keeping in view the prevailing market rates in the area at the relevant time were not taken into consideration. Hence the impugned award is not supported by any law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants in order to substantiate his contentions has relied on the following judgments: 1. Amarjit Singh Vs. Charanjit Singh and Ors. 2004 2 SCC 282 . 2. Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu anad Kashmir 2017 4 SCC 717 . 3. State of J&K and Ors. Vs. Altaf Hussain and Ors. 2014 1 JKJ 125 HC. 4. Union of India through DEfence Estates Officer Srinagar Vs. Mst. Freeni Boga 2004 (II) S.L.J 777. 5. Union of India Vs. Ghansham and Ors. 2007 KLJ 91 . 6. Panna Lal Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1963 SC 1516 . 7. State of J&K Vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2470 8. Rishi Pal Singh and Ors. Vs. Meerut Development Authority and anr. Mst. Freeni Boga 2004 (II) S.L.J 777. 5. Union of India Vs. Ghansham and Ors. 2007 KLJ 91 . 6. Panna Lal Vs. State of Bombay AIR 1963 SC 1516 . 7. State of J&K Vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani and Ors. AIR 1998 SC 2470 8. Rishi Pal Singh and Ors. Vs. Meerut Development Authority and anr. AIR 2006 SC 3572 9. Thakaarsibhai Devjibhai and Ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and anr. 2001 SCC 584 . 10. Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Ors. 2005 12 SCC 564. 11. Narendra and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2017 9 SCC 426 12. Smt. Lila Ghosh (dead) through LR Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 2004 SC 288 13. Administrator Genl. Of West Bengal Vs. Collector Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943 14. KathuriaPublic Schools and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2016 SC 1664 9. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of counsel for the claimants before the District Court following were the main points which were taken as: (a) That court has to treat the reference as original proceedings before it and determine the market value a fresh on the basis of material produced before it. Accordingly the apex court held that claimants is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the prices offered for his land in award is inadequate on the basis of material produced in the court. otherwise can also be taken into account for that purpose (AIR 1988 SC page 1652) is submitted in support of argument. (b) That the claimants as well as the collector did no found any comparative sales entered into re venue records at the relevant time because of obstruct ban imposed by Section 31 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act which was in vogue from 1970 upto 1997. In the light of t his argument this court has to find recourse to section 56 of J&K Evidence Act and take the judicial notice of the fact that the ban imposed on sales is attracted for the relevant period. This court in SLJ 2007 (1) at page 184 has cited Section 31 of Agrarian Reforms Act in para No. 12 at page 186. This court in SLJ 2007 (1) at page 184 has cited Section 31 of Agrarian Reforms Act in para No. 12 at page 186. In para No. 13 of said judgment at page 187 states that said restriction was put on all types of alienation of land like sale, gift, mortgage with possession bequest and exchange. In the light of said Ban no sale deeds could be produced other than a few on file. (c) Judicial Notice of Section 56 of Evidence Act quo section 31 of J&K Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 is to be taken. Section 31 of said Act which imposed total bar on sale, mortgage, gift, exchange and bequeath. (d) In AIR 2012 SC at page 2711 para 5 it is held”............in view of Section 56 of the Evidence Act a fact judicially noticed need not to be proved. The land is surrounded by commercial centers, Government Residential colony, degree college is in existence since 1956 on its eastern side of Srinagar Jammu N. H. way in between acquired land and Degree College runs N. H. way on southern west lines the P. W. D office over decades, Taxi stand, residential quarters, guest house, residential colony of J&K Government, S. P Office, Forest Office and shopping line on boundary of acquired land opening throughout towards N. H. way on two sides. Boys High School Khanabal is only ¼ K M on road lending from H. H. towards Anantnag town, across bridge T. A. C. limits start from acquired land, village habitation is on northern west boundary N. H. bifurcates it. N. H. Way runs through out in frontage on two side viz east and south towards north runs bypass there can also be taken judicial notice U/S 56 as held in said citation. AIR 2012 Supra. So market value of the acquired land is to be determined by guess work, potential, location and other factors recognized by courts of law. (e) The claimants have laid a hand by way of filing the order dated 28.12.2012 passed in execution proceedings bearing file No. 13 instituted on 23.06.1998 whereby the state of J&K has awarded a compensation of 16,000/- per marla of land appearing in order dated 28.12.2012 titled Rahim Dar Vs. State of J&K and others passed by Sub Judge Anantnag. (e) The claimants have laid a hand by way of filing the order dated 28.12.2012 passed in execution proceedings bearing file No. 13 instituted on 23.06.1998 whereby the state of J&K has awarded a compensation of 16,000/- per marla of land appearing in order dated 28.12.2012 titled Rahim Dar Vs. State of J&K and others passed by Sub Judge Anantnag. IN para No. 02 of the court has observed that the plaintiff of suit in context had filed a suit for possession on 25.12.1984 with reard to the land measuring 14 kanals 11 marlas under Survey No. mentioned in the order which was taken by government during the era of the then Prime Minister Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad. But was decreed on 30.08.1986. At para No. 4 of this order the area of total land accrued is given alongwith rate state has satisfied the compensation vide order dated 28.12.2012. same is placed on file. This court can take a judicial notice of the fact that the land so compensated is all recorded as Banjri Kadeem in occupation of Education Department (GovernmentBoysHigh School at Khanabal, Anantnag) which is hardly at a distance of ½ KM from the land of claimants acquired by the Army. In other words, the compensation paid by the government for land at Khanabal is having less potential and value than the land of claimants acquired by Army adjoining government degree college, Boys Anantnag existent from 1956 and abets N. H. Way on east and south and By-pass on its western (posterior) to Northern side it is surrounded by N. H. Way on all the sides. The residential colony on government alongwith guest house P. W. D office are all situated across the National Highway infront of acquired land. So the land of claimants was having all eminites available right from 1956 like electricity, road N. H. Way, commercial and residential centre etc. The claimants M. Y. Katoo has substantiated all the facts in his statement tendered before t his court on 28.09.2004. So the land of claimants was having all eminites available right from 1956 like electricity, road N. H. Way, commercial and residential centre etc. The claimants M. Y. Katoo has substantiated all the facts in his statement tendered before t his court on 28.09.2004. It is also proved by another claimant namely Abdul Ahad Katoo who has stated that acquired land is bifurcated by Jammu Srinagar N. H. Way into 2 parts and it needed no development and wiling purchases offered him to sell this land at Twenty Five to Thirty thousand per marla but they did not want to sell it and instead wanted to utilize it for commercial purpose. (f) That another witness Gh. Mohammad Katoo states that T. A. C limits start from the boundary of acquired land. (g). Claimants witness Bashir Ahmad Tantary stated that market value of said land at the time of acquisition was 8 to 10 lac per kanal andon the date of his statement land in vicinity cost 20-25 lacs/kanal. (h). Patwari has also been examined as a witness who has stated that at the time of acquisition its market value was 12-14 lac/kanal. His statement was recorded prior in time, then the one deposed by him latter under pressure of the defendants. (i) That it is proved by the claimants that the land is situated at commercial site and its value is above Rs. 7.00 lac/kanal. (j) That the compensation paid by Government for land occupied by Education Department for Government Boys High School Khanabal in substantiated by the order placed on file and same has the evidentiary value. It is supported in AIR 2005 SC 3708 in para 86 at page 3726 as “it is well established principle of law that the land abetting N. H. Way will fetch for more higher prime than the land laying interior. Also at page 3728 factor for determining the value are given in the judgement. (k) That the plea raised by the respondent that application made for reference does not bear the date. The Hon’ble court may peruse the application on file which bears the date unambiguously on 10.05.1999. (L) Next plea raised is that he has made reference after lapse of time. (k) That the plea raised by the respondent that application made for reference does not bear the date. The Hon’ble court may peruse the application on file which bears the date unambiguously on 10.05.1999. (L) Next plea raised is that he has made reference after lapse of time. In this behalf, it is submitted that non action on behalf of collector cannot be attributed to applicants and the land acquisition act no where postulated t he time within which collector can made the reference. However Collector is within its powers to exclude the time from the date of application upto making of reference on held in AIR 1996 Kant 62(A) January part. (m) That the land acquired was developed before acquisition and was surrounded by N. H. Way on all four sides even before acquisition and had facilities like drainage, electricity in vicinity so deduction in value of land is not warranted. Same is supported by AIR 92 Page 2298. 10. Some of the points raised before this court now during arguments are: (i) That the reference court while ignoring the evidence both documentary as well oral evidence has by his final award dated 18.05.2006 fixed the compensation of the acquired land of the petitioners as proposed by the Collector in the tentative award passed by him i.e. @ of Rs. 1.75 lac for Abi land, Rs. 1.58 lac for Maidani land and Rs. 1.35 lac for Banjar land P.K with Jabrana/solatium payable at 6% PA w.e.f 31.06.1989 from the date of issuance of notice under S 9 till the payment or deposit of the enhanced compensation in the court holding that the compensation payable was reduced without any justification or reason. (ii) Keeping in view prevalent market value of Rs. 2.00 lac P. K quoted by the Tehsildar concerned for all kinds of lands, the award of compensation of higher compensation for similarly situated acquired by the state around three years prior declaration under S. 6 of in the case @ Rs. 1.71 P. K and as admission of the Collector in the tentative as well as final award that the land of the owners herein is far better located than the lands acquired by the state in the adjacent villages and is having better potential and market value and @ Rs. 1.71 P. K and as admission of the Collector in the tentative as well as final award that the land of the owners herein is far better located than the lands acquired by the state in the adjacent villages and is having better potential and market value and @ Rs. 9-10 lac proved by placing on record certified/verified copies of the two sale deeds of comparable land both location as well as time wise are indicative of the fact that the final award 09.11.1999 of the Collector as well as the award dated 09.07.2014 of the reference court are not reasoned one or true reflection of the prevalent market rate on the date declaration under S. 6 as provided under the S. 23 of the J&K Land Acquisition Act. (iii) That in consequence thereof fresh award of reference court dated 09.07.2014 under challenge in the appeals may please be set aside and replaced by an appellate court award and decree in the case by enhancing of the compensation payable to the land owners as this court may deem fit on the basis of evidence on record and powers vested in it under the provisions of S. 96 r/w O 41 of CPC. 11. The arguments referred on behalf of Union of India before the district court are as under: i. That the land measuring 65 kanals 5 marlas situated at Village Khandipahari Tehsil Kulgam District Anantnag was acquired for the public purpose namely married accommodation for 15 Corps of army under the provisions of J&K Land Acquisition Act 1990 following due process of law. ii. That the TEhsildar concerned initially after a survey intimated DEO Srinagar that in the vicinity of land in question land measuring 15 marals and 14 marlas was alienated against the consideration value of 40,000/- each which is recorded in mutation N. 893 and 894 dated 20.05.1987 of the revenue records. Accordingly on the basis of these transactions, the rate of land was worked out Rs. 53372 and Rs. 57142 per kanal for the year 1987 these rated were fixed after the issuance of declaration under Section 6 and 7 on 06.06.1989. however the draft award was framed by the collector land acquisition Anatnag at the rate of Rs. 1.75 lacs per kanal for 1st class land, Rs. 1.58 lacs/kl for 2nd class of land and Rs. 57142 per kanal for the year 1987 these rated were fixed after the issuance of declaration under Section 6 and 7 on 06.06.1989. however the draft award was framed by the collector land acquisition Anatnag at the rate of Rs. 1.75 lacs per kanal for 1st class land, Rs. 1.58 lacs/kl for 2nd class of land and Rs. 1.35 lacs/kl for 3rd class of land respectively which were quite high/exorbitant as per the earlier communicated rates. However the Collector Land Acquisition Act fixed the rates as per the approval of GAD rated were fixed at Rs. 1.17/kl for 1st class,. Rs. 1 lac/kl for Maidani 2nd class and Banjari Kadeem 3rd class and awarded the aforementioned rates in the final award. It si pertinent to mention here that as per section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1990 the market value of the land at the date of publication of declaration under section 6 has to be considered by the Collector while framing the final award. Thus the rate awarded by the Collector is quite genuine and needs no further enhancement. iii. That at the Indian Army was indeed in possession of land in question from year 1979 for which rentals were deposited by the Union of India through DEO Srinagar with the DC Anantnag till 31st of March 1990. Since the payment on account of rent as per rates notified by the J&K State Government from time to time, has already been paid/deposited by the respondent No. 2 with the concerned DC for the period it remained on requisition. Thus the payment fo interest does not arises from the date of notification. iv. The collector has also noted the details of compensation paid in respect of some land acquisition cases as under: 1. Approach road to new Khanabal Bridge 1.80 thousand/kl 2. PublicPark at Anantnag 1.2412/kl. 3. Achabal Dooru Verinage road 1.80,000/kl. The all three sites whose compensation has been mentioned above was in the heart of town. The acquired land was not in the outskirts of town area committee Anantnag so the rate fixed by the collector and approved by GAD in the final award is genuine. The all witnesses produced by the petitoners along with the petitioners have totally failed to prove t hier case and was not able to prove before this court that rates was higher than the collector has awarded in the final award. The all witnesses produced by the petitoners along with the petitioners have totally failed to prove t hier case and was not able to prove before this court that rates was higher than the collector has awarded in the final award. The all witnesses while recording their statement have roughly given the rates some have given it to seven lac and some 10 to 14 lacs while the petitioners said that he value of the acquired land at the relevant time was 7 lacs/kl. The petitioners have failed to prove his case and failed to produce any cogent evidence o nthe basis of which it could be said that the value of acquired land at that time was 7 lacs/kl. The all witnesses have only on the basis of thier own guess work stated that the value of the said land was very high rate to date which has been awarded. v. That the petitioners have also produced some documentary evidence before the court in order to prove their case. Two of the petitioners themselves namely Ab. Ahad and Mohammad Yoususf have sold land by virtue of sale deed at the rate of Rs. 2.50 lacs/half kanal but the deed has been executed in Nov. 1999 that means much later than of the acquisition, almost more than 10 years. The other two documents executed by Ab. Gani Khan S/o Aziz Khan pertains to land situated in proper town of Anantnag and they do havge been executed in Nov. 1999. So the petitioners have totally failed to prove their case that the market rate at the time of acquisition was 7 lacs/kl. It is clear from the sale deed executed by petitioners themselves in 1999 as per their sale deed executed by petitioners themselves in 1999 as per their sale deed the rate of the land in 1999 was 5 lac/kl in year 1999 almost 10 years from the date of acquisition so what would have been the rate before the 10 years so by producing documentary evidence the transaction made by the petitioners themselves negates their claim so the rates fixed by the collector in the award is quite genuine and needs no interference by this court. However it is mentioned here that the court has also admitted in the judgment in this reference that the petitioners have totally failed to prove their case either orally or through documentary evidence. However it is mentioned here that the court has also admitted in the judgment in this reference that the petitioners have totally failed to prove their case either orally or through documentary evidence. However the judgment has been set aside by court only because of technical grounds. vi. That the documentary evidenced produced by the counsel for the petitioner in the shape of court order passed by Sub Judge CJM Anantnag on 20.03.2003 is no way helpful to the petitioner as the petitioner has admitted in his application that rate has been fixed as 16 thousand/ marla for the land which has been acquired by Education Department has been fixed through private negotiations. That on the page 5 of the judgment the Divisional Commissioner directs the ACR Anantnag that the total assessed amount is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the committee and after that the petitioners in the said case approached sub judge Anantnag and has succeeded got decree in exparty so it has no impact on this case as the rate has been fixed by some committee who are not competent and has been fixed through private negotiations. But in our case the due procedure as per law under the land acquisition act 1990 has been adopted and collector has passed the award as per the provisions of LA Act and has also kept in mind the rates at the time acquisition and has also given the value of the land by showing the compensation paid in the heart of town by the State and that relevant time and also petitioners had sell out half kanal of the land for 02 and half lacs that in 1999 after more than 10 years of the acquisition it clearly shows/proves that the rate in 1999 was 05 lacs/kl what would have been the rate before 10 years the rate w hich has been fixed by the collector in his final award. So the judgment of CJM Anantnag produced by the petitioner is no way applicable in t his case. vii. That the respondent No. 2 also produced a witness ADEO Srinagar namely Faiz Ahmad Buch who has also stated in his statement that the rates mentioned in the award are quire genuine and also stated that the rent has been paid till 31st March 1999 and also said that the award amount has been already satisfied by respondent No. 2. viii. viii. That Section 28 of the land Acquisition Act says “ if the sum which in the opinion of court, collector ought to have awarded as compensation is in access of the sum which the collector did award as compensation the award of the court may direct the Collector shall pay interest on such access as the rate of 6% P/A from the date on which he took possession of the land to the date of payment of such.” So it is clear from the section that if this court exceeds the amount which has been awarded by the Collector, it is the collector who shall pay the interest on such amount from the date of possession. ix. That it is also crystal clear and is quite evident from the final award get the compensation on account of trees standing on land in question were assessed by Horticulture Department and same stands paid accordingly. That is is also submitted that the respondent No. 2/DEO Srinagar has already paid Rs. 80,48,863.80 in two installments i.e. Rs. 44,99,418 vide cheque dated 31.03.2000 and Rs. 35,49,445/-vide cheque dated 09.09.2000 as awarded by the collector LA Anantnag vide its final award dated 09.04.1999. 12. Learned counsel appearing for Union of India has submitted that the award passed by Principal District Judge is bad on account of the pleas raised in terms of the memo of appeal hereinabove and so the award be set aside. She has also relied on the judgment of this court in case titled Madho Ram and Ors. Vs. Collector Baramulla 1962 AIR J&K 37. It would be quite fruitful to go through preceding lines of the judgment as under: “Even if the Collector signs a document embodying his decision regarding all the matters mentioned in S.11 and locks it up in his table, he is not making an award within the meaning of S.s 11 and 12. An award under S.11 is in essence an offer made by the Collector on behalf of the government to the persons interested in the land sought to be acquired. The making of an award must, therefore, involve the communication of the offer to the party concerned. Such communication is provided for in sub S. (2) of S. 12. It may be actual or constructive, but it is an essential ingredient of the making of an award (Vide Harish Chandra V. Dy. The making of an award must, therefore, involve the communication of the offer to the party concerned. Such communication is provided for in sub S. (2) of S. 12. It may be actual or constructive, but it is an essential ingredient of the making of an award (Vide Harish Chandra V. Dy. I. A Officer, AIR 1961 S. C 1500). It follows that in the absence of any manner of communication to the persons interested an award cannot be said to be have been made. The proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act down to the making of an award are administrative in character and not judicial. [vide Ezra V. Secretary of State for India, 32 Cal. 605 (P.C)]. If t his is so, I see no reason why a collector should not, before an award is actually made, be able to revise his tentative proposals regarding compensation. It may not be open to him to do so after an award is actually made because S. 12 (1) effectively forbids him fro doing so. But before he comes under the ban of S. 12 (1) I think he is free to reconsider his views and inclinations and reexamine his tentative proposals. The collector being the agent of the government in making an award, I do not see any good reason why it should not be permissible for the government, before the making of the award, to put the Collector wise on certain matters bearing on the assessment of the compensation for the land or issue relevant instructions to him to assist him in properly computing the compensation. The correctness of his valuation of the fruit trees with the help of the director of Agriculture. The petitioner’s learned counsel has criticized this as unauthorized interference by the government. I am unable to agree, I do not think the law grudges a principal this amount of freedom with his agent. It follows from what I have said above that he respondent has not yet made an award and that therefore the question of tendering compensation to the petitioners under the award does not now arise. The petition for writ therefore fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1.00 (One hundred rupees).” 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material before me. The petition for writ therefore fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1.00 (One hundred rupees).” 13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the material before me. It needs to be noted at the very prelude that the learned Principal District Judge has reiterated the rate fixed in terms of the earlier award which was set aside by the court. In order to justify the conclusion, the learned reference court has stated that the rate as claimed by the appellants/claimants as 7 lacs and above is not supported by any material. Similarly the findings returned by the Tehsildar and referred to by the Collector is Rs. 2.00 lac as prevailing market rate in the vicinity, has been said to be not based on any reason besides being not corroborated by any material. The land has been classified into “AbiLand”, “MaidianLand” and “Banjri Qadim” land. 14. In the final award prepared by the Collector, the quantum of the land stated to have been acquired is given 65 kanals and 5 marlas under various survey nos. as referred above. It is admitted there that the land was requisitioned vide communication dated 30th July 1975 and thereafter its possession was handed over to the army authorities on 9th March 1978 from MEO Kashmir CircleSrinagar. Particulars of the amount of the rent fixed for payment to the claimants is also quoted. It is also stated that some of the claimants in pursuance to the notice issued claimed an amount of Rs. 3 lacs for all kinds of land pleading to be prevalent market rate. Sale rate statement provided by the Tehsildar Kulgam is being referred and rate per kanal worked out to be Rs. 53372 and Rs. 57142 for the period of 1987. It is also being admitted that the Tehsildar Kulgam prepared reported rate of Rs 2 lacs per kanal as per prevalent market rate is not supported by any documentary evidence. It is however conceded that the Tehsildar had recorded the statement of some persons and on that basis, he had stated that Rs. 2 lacs was prevalent market rate in the vicinity. The potentiality of the value of the land is admitted by stating the area being situated in the immediate outskirts of town area committee Anantnag on Srinagar/Jammu National Highway. 15. 2 lacs was prevalent market rate in the vicinity. The potentiality of the value of the land is admitted by stating the area being situated in the immediate outskirts of town area committee Anantnag on Srinagar/Jammu National Highway. 15. It is true as pleaded by claimants that in terms of Section 31 of the Agrarian Reforms Act 1976 there was prohibition on the sale of the land which latter was extenuated to a limited extent of 2 /4 kanals, by amendments on different occasions by providing that the land can be acquired to this extent for residential purpose. Section 50 of the Act deals with the utilization of the land and optimum land which a person can hold for residential purpose etc. The difficulty in procuring the documentary evidence in the form of sale deeds for the relevant period contended by claimaints cannot be thus brushed aside. This significant aspect of the case requires proper consideration and ought to have been taken note of by the Collector and reference court. As the land has been acquired for a single purpose of raising construction of married accommodation for defence force (15 Corps) deployed at Khanabal, Anantnag, and the land so acquired rightly then forms one block same could not be thus divided into different belts for awarding compensation on account of productivity of the land for agriculture purpose i.e the use to which it was put before requisition/acquisition. 16. It is not denied in the award passed by the Collector that the land acquired is surrounded by Commercial centres lake residential colony, degree college, national highway, taxi stand, guest house etc. The order dated 28.12.2012 passed by Sub Judge, Anantnag in the execution proceeding titled Rahim Dar Vs. State of J&K and Ors. does mention that the State had awarded a compensation of Rs. 16,000/- per marla for the land acquired. The said suit had been decreed on 30.08.1986 and the land stated to have been acquired a number of years prior to it. At para No. 4 of this order the area of total land acquired is given alongwith rate. State has satisfied the compensation vide order dated 28.12.2012. Comment made by indenting department about it that same is the outcome of private negotiation and so has not much relevance cannot be lightly brushed aside. At para No. 4 of this order the area of total land acquired is given alongwith rate. State has satisfied the compensation vide order dated 28.12.2012. Comment made by indenting department about it that same is the outcome of private negotiation and so has not much relevance cannot be lightly brushed aside. Be it as it is, acquired land admittedly abets N. H. Way on east and south and By-pass on its western (posterior) to Northern side. It is surrounded by N. H. Way on all the sides. The residential colony on government alongwith guest house P. W. D office are all situated across the National Highway infront of acquired land. It was having all the necessary amenities available right at the relevant time like electricity, road commercial and residential centre, pointing out towards its better value. 17. One of the claimants M. Y. Katoo has substantiated all the facts in his statement tendered before this court on 28.09.2004.The claimant’s witnesses Bashir Ahmad Dar too has corroborated the fact that the land acquired has a commercial potentiality. The report of the Tehsildar referred in the collector’s award and so of the reference court regarding the rate per kanal being 2 lacs in 1986 ought not to have been rejected, as the Tehsldar had prepared the said report after recording the evidence in discharge of his functions as public servant. It requires to be borne in mind that at the time frequent sales could not be accepted in view of the bar created under section 31 of the Agrarian Reforms act. 18. Sale of small pieces of land though can be taken into consideration in fixing the just and fair compensation but since the land acquired herein was a big chunk, land transferred on two occasions by Abdul Gani Khan and another place by Abdul Ahad Kutto relied by claimants cannot be a guiding or safe factor in fixing the just and fair compensation in the instant case. Rejection of the rate proposed by the Collector, by the government too has to be bracketed as unreasonable and unjustified in present circumstances. All actions of the government are expected to be fair and reasonable. Rejection of the rate proposed by the Collector, by the government too has to be bracketed as unreasonable and unjustified in present circumstances. All actions of the government are expected to be fair and reasonable. The rate was required to be fixed in a uniform manner for all kinds of land (may be “Abi Land”, “Maidani land” or “Banjri Qadimi land”) and the relevance it had was regarding its prospective use and purpose of the construction, and not the yield of crops earlier grown on it. 19. Taking into consideration, the legal position noted above and the factual aspects above referred, I am of the opinion that the fair compensation for per kanal of land acquired would be Rs. 2 lacs as recomended by the Tehsildar Kulgam at the relevant time. The rate claimed by the claimants i.e. Rs. 7 lacs or more cannot be awarded for the reasons that the same is just a hypothetical approach made for assessing on the basis of the assertion made by the witnesses referred hereinabove. No instance worth to be taken into consideration is quoted by the claimants for fixing the compensation at such a rate. Similarly the rate of Rs. 16,000/- per marla stated to have been paid for the land (as reflected in order of execution court referred above) too cannot be granted. The claimants at the time of recording the evidence ought to have explained same and pointed out that it was not a mere stray transaction in which compensation was paid because of some peculiar facts. For treating it as genuine and for adhering to it as a Rule, something more than placing on record a copy of order, was needed. 20. On weighing the contentions raised in terms of the CFA No. 185/2014 preferred by Union of India in the above backdrop, no force is found therein and so cannot become a ground for setting aside the award made by the reference court or for directing the lesser compensation to be paid for the land acquired. The witness examined by Union of India (Fayaz Ahmad) too does not in any way help the intending department to pay the rate lesser then that referred above. Learned reference court has made a proper evaluation of his statement and discussed its value, in the impugned award.. 21. Having said so, the award impugned is modified. The witness examined by Union of India (Fayaz Ahmad) too does not in any way help the intending department to pay the rate lesser then that referred above. Learned reference court has made a proper evaluation of his statement and discussed its value, in the impugned award.. 21. Having said so, the award impugned is modified. Claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal for the land acquired for the purpose mentioned above along with jabirana @ 15% from the date of award on the enhanced amount along with interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount and to be paid accoreingly. They are also entitled to additional interest of 15% on the rent paid/ payable from the date from which they were dispossessed pursuant to the requisition of the land in question till the notification under Section 4 was issued for acquisition. Cost to be borne by respondents in CFA No. 185/2014. 22. Disposed of as above.