JUDGMENT Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - This appeal has been preferred by State of H.P. against award dated 13.7.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Camp at Rohru (hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court) in Land Reference RBT No. 16-R/4 of 2008/05, titled Ishwar Singh vs. LAC and others, whereby learned Reference Court has awarded compensation to the land owner at the uniform rate of Rs.3398.25 per centiare for acquisition of land used for construction of road. 2. It is undisputed that land comprised in Khasra No. 526 situated in village Sarawati Nagar, measuring 5 bighas 17 biswas was allotted to land owner as a Nautor in the year 1974. In the year 1996 by filing Writ Petition No. 126 of 1996, land owner had approached this High Court seeking direction to State to pay compensation to him for construction of road over a part of Khasra No. 526 allotted to him by way of Nautor which was identified by revenue authorities during settlement in the year 1994-95 as Khara No. 1606. Claim of State is that road was already existing in Khasra No. 526 since the year 1962 and inadvertently whole of land comprised in the said Khasra No. 526 was allotted to the petitioner and actually petitioner was put in possession of land which was vacant after construction of road and therefore, there was no reason for acquisition of land already utilized for construction of road before allotment, but wrongly allotted to the petitioner. The said Writ Petition No. 126 of 1996 was decided by a Single Bench of this Court on 27th May, 2003 and for non-production of record to substantiate the plea of State with respect to construction of road in the year 1962 in Khasra No. 526, direction was issued to State to initiate and complete the proceedings to acquire the land, coming under the road comprised in Khasra No. 1606, under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and to pay compensation to petitioner as per law. 3. Aforesaid direction issued by the High Court was assailed by the State in the Apex Court by filing SLP, but such appeal preferred by State was dismissed by the Apex Court on 8.1.2004 and thereafter review filed by State was also dismissed on 28.4.2004. 4. 3. Aforesaid direction issued by the High Court was assailed by the State in the Apex Court by filing SLP, but such appeal preferred by State was dismissed by the Apex Court on 8.1.2004 and thereafter review filed by State was also dismissed on 28.4.2004. 4. In aforesaid facts and circumstances, the State had issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 16.4.2004 which was lastly published on 12.7.2004. 5. After completing the process under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), Land Acquisition Collector vide Award No. 19 of 2004 dated 11.11.2004 had determined the amount of compensation payable to the landlord at the rate of Rs.22.57 per sq. metre along with other statutory benefits. 6. For enhancement of compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, land owner had preferred Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act which has been decided vide impugned award, which is under challenge here in this appeal. 7. Land owner has examined 6 witnesses before the Reference Court, whereas State has examined 2 witnesses. Various documents have been placed and proved on record by parties, perusal whereof indicates that for purpose of assessment of compensation to be payable to landlord, landlord has relied upon evaluation certificate Ext.PW4/A for loss of trees alleged to have been situated on acquired land at the time of construction of road and Average Value of land Ext.PW5/A for determining the value of land. The Reference Court has not awarded compensation for loss of trees and landlord has not preferred any appeal against it. Therefore, Ext.PW4/A is not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. 8. State has put reliance on Average Value, but the same has not been proved in accordance with law, but it is available on record as Mark C. Document Mark C has been signed by some Patwari, but has not been counter-signed by Kanungo and/or Tehsildar. For these reasons, it is not a document to be considered for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. 9. For these reasons, it is not a document to be considered for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. 9. At the time of determining the value of land, Land Acquisition Collector has relied upon the information regarding value of land, supplied by Field Staff w.e.f. 13.7.2003 to 12.7.2004 for a period of one year prior to the last date of publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and this one year average value, based on one sale transaction, was made basis by Land Acquisition Collector for determining the value of land for the purpose of compensation. 10. The procedure to be adopted by the Collector for working out the estimated rate of land has been provided in Clause 12 of the Financial Commissioners Standing Order No. 28 (hereinafter referred to as 'Standing Orders'), wherein it has specifically been provided that rates of land will be worked out by the District Collector after taking into account average rate determined from the sale transactions in the revenue estate concerned for a period of one year preceding the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is apt to reproduce Clause 12 of the Standing Orders herein: "12. Collector's rate - how worked out. On receipt of the application, the Collector of the District will furnish data in the shape of rates per acre of the different kinds of land alongwith a preliminary estimate of the value of trees, buildings and other property, if any, for which compensation will have to be paid. The rates of land per acre will be worked out by the District Collector after taking into account average rate per acre determined from the sale transactions in the Revenue Estate concerned for a period of one year preceding the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. It should also indicate whether these average market rates would be appropriate for the land proposed to be acquired. It should also indicate whether these average market rates would be appropriate for the land proposed to be acquired. The fact whether the land to be acquired has any special features such as nearness to the abadi and main road which may justify a higher price than the average rate or where there were any special features in the lands sold during the last one year (e.g. sale of small pieces of land for abadi purposes or near a main road) which may justify approval of rates lower than the average rates, should also be indicated. The sale transactions during the year preceding the notification under section 4 of the Act and the average rates proposed should be indicated by the C.R.O. in the proforma given below while submitting the rate to Collector for approval. (i) Data of sale transactions in Village _________, Tehsil __________, District __________ for the period from ________ to _________ Serial No. No. and date of Registration of the sale Classwise Area Consideration Remarks (ii) Particulars of the sale transactions in the vicinity of the land under acquisition during the period under consideration.{{{{ Give Sl. Nos. of transactions listed in (i) above. (iii) Average rate per acre for various kinds of land as worked out from the transactions in Sl. No. (i) above. (iv) Average rate per acre for various kinds of land as worked out from the transactions mentioned in Sl. No. (ii) above. (v) Particulars of Award announced, if any, in the village during last 5 years Date of Award Date of notifica tion under section 4 Rates per acre for various clause of land (vi) Particulars of Court decisions announced, if any, in the village during last 5 years Date of decision Class date of notification under section 4 Rate Rates per acre allowed (vii) State whether the land under acquisition is being used solely for agricultural purposes? If not, indicate details? Class Rule (viii) State whether any part of land has any special features as nearness to abadi or main road to justify higher price? (ix) State whether there were any special features in the land sold during the last one year which may justify approval of rates lower than the average rates? (x) Estimated value of any trees or other structures on the land. (ix) State whether there were any special features in the land sold during the last one year which may justify approval of rates lower than the average rates? (x) Estimated value of any trees or other structures on the land. (xi) Classwise rates proposed with justification specially for any departure from he average rates indicated in (i) or (ii) above. (xii) Estimated total cost of acquisition Kanungos and Patwaris should not be called upon to give their opinion on the market value of the land. The Tehsildar or the Circle Revenue Officer concerned, while making his recommendation in these cases, should personally visit the spot, closely scrutinize the data and ensure all relevant information is supplied in the proforma prescribed for the purpose." 11. In the aforesaid prescribed procedure, average value of land for a period of one year preceding the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is one of the various parameters, but not a sole criteria for determining the value of land. Land Acquisition Collector has not taken into consideration the instructions contained in Standing Orders for working out the just and fair rate of land for determining the compensation under the Act. 12. The Supreme Court in case titled Chandra Bhan (dead) through Legal Representatives and others versus Ghaziabad Development Authority and others, (2015) 15 SCC 343 , relying upon Usha Stud and Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. versus State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210 and Surinder Singh Brar versus Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 403 , has held that the last date of publication and giving of public notice is treated as the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. 13. On combined reading of Standing Orders and exposition of date of publication by the Supreme Court, last date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, in present case, is 12th July, 2004 and relevant one year period prior to that would be w.e.f. 13.7.2003 to 12.7.2004. 14. Value of land on the basis of one year average for the period with effect from 1st October, 2002 to 30th September, 2003 has been relied by land owner and placed on record as Ex. PW-5/A. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 16.4.2004, last publicity whereof was made on 12.7.2004. 14. Value of land on the basis of one year average for the period with effect from 1st October, 2002 to 30th September, 2003 has been relied by land owner and placed on record as Ex. PW-5/A. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 16.4.2004, last publicity whereof was made on 12.7.2004. This average value cannot be taken into consideration as it pertains to beyond the period of one year prior to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 15. One year average Ex. PW-5/A has been prepared on the basis of four sale deeds, mutation whereof was attested vide mutations No. 166, 179, 180 and 181. Mutation No. 166 was attested on 28.10.2002 whereas mutations No. 179 to 181 were attested on 24.01.2003. 16. The date of attestation of mutations in aforesaid sale transactions is beyond a period of one year prior to the date of notification, and thus, sale deeds therein also must have been executed prior to that. Therefore, this average value is not a relevant document for determining the value of land under acquisition. Attestation of mutation is not date of transaction taking place, but it is only for updating the revenue entries on the basis of transactions already taken. But in present case, even the date of mutation is also beyond the period prescribed under the Standing Orders. Therefore, average value Ext.PW5/A is in violation of Standing Orders as well as adopted procedure for determining the average value of land. 17. Reference Court has erroneously taken into consideration Ext.PW5/A for determining the market value of land and it has been ignored by Reference Court that market value of land, as described in the Standing Orders, is not be considered only on the basis of average value of preceding one year from the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act, but, such average value is one of the number of factors, as detailed supra in Clause 12 of the Standing Orders. 18. Keeping in view the parameters provided in Standing Orders and also for the reason that it is based on transactions executed beyond the prescribed period, the average value calculated in Ext.PW5/A also cannot be singularly made the basis for determining the market value of land under the Land Acquisition Act. 18. Keeping in view the parameters provided in Standing Orders and also for the reason that it is based on transactions executed beyond the prescribed period, the average value calculated in Ext.PW5/A also cannot be singularly made the basis for determining the market value of land under the Land Acquisition Act. The said average value pertains to the period w.e.f. 1st October, 2002 to 30th September, 2003, whereas relevant period would have been from 13th July, 2003 to 12th July, 2004. This average value has been prepared and signed by Patwari concerned only and neither Kanungo nor Tehsildar has counter-signed the same and this average, instead of date of execution of sale deed, is based upon the date of attestation of mutation. 19. Standing Orders provide that Kanungo and Patwari should not be called upon to give their opinion on market value of land and Tehsildar/Circle Revenue Officer concerned should personally visit the spot, closely scrutinize the data and ensure that all relevant information is supplied in the proforma prescribed for the purpose, before making his recommendation. Ex. PW-5/A prepared by the Patwari is only an average value and not the market value determined by the Collector, Tehsildar/Circle Revenue Officer concerned. 20. There is no explanation either on the part of the Collector or on the part of the land owner or the Patwari concerned so as to justify the basis adopted in calculating the average value in these documents. Value of land in Ext.PW5/A at the most, can be considered equivalent to circle rate. Therefore, market value of acquired land cannot be determined only on the basis of Ext.PW5/A, however, this is only document available on record, which may be one of the factors for determining the same. 21. It would be relevant to refer certain pronouncements of the Apex Court wherein for circumstances in those cases, circle rate has been taken into consideration for determining the value of land under acquisition, but, sometimes after making appropriate deduction. 22. In Thakur Kuldeep Singh (dead) through LRs and others versus Union of India and others,2010 2 SCC 794 , it has been made clear by the apex Court that the market value of acquired land cannot be fixed merely on the basis of circle rate, which implied that circle rate can also be one of the factors for determining the market value of the acquired land. 23. 23. Similarly, in Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and another versus Krishan Kumar and others, (2011) 15 SCC 297 , while observing that normally, it is not safe to proceed to determine the value of land on the basis of circle rates or Collector's rates as they are broad assessments which may or may not be based on proper scientific survey and verification, circle rates relied upon by the parties in evidence have been considered for determining the value of land after making 45% deduction keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case. 24. Also, in Jagdish Prasad Verma (dead) by LRs versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2016) 11 SCC 430 , the apex Court, after taking into consideration the fact that amount of compensation awarded was on much lesser side in comparison to the circle rate, had enhanced the rate per square feet. But, in this case also, highest of circle rate was not made basis, rather, middle path was adopted by the Court. 25. Therefore, in view of the fact that the only one document Ext.PW5/A on record has been relied, which is also not exactly a circle rate calculated for the purpose of stamp value, this average value of land Ext.PW5/A can be taken into consideration as a relevant factor for calculating market value, but, with appropriate deduction in the given facts and circumstances of the case as Ext.PW5/A is neither relevant average value nor circle rate. 26. In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board's case supra, the Apex Court had determined the value of land after determining 45% of value of property, arrived at on the basis of circle rate. As discussed supra, the average value Ext.PW5/A, in present case, is not a value like circle rate calculated for same purpose only, it is also a fact that said average value has been arrived at on the basis of sale deeds pertaining to small chunks of land, but without survey and application of expert's mind, in mechanical manner. 27. The Reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and has committed a mistake by determining the value of land on the basis of Ext.PW5/A, which was not relevant for discussion made hereinabove at all. 27. The Reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its right perspective and has committed a mistake by determining the value of land on the basis of Ext.PW5/A, which was not relevant for discussion made hereinabove at all. In fact, there is no relevant evidence on record so as to determine the exact value of the land under acquisition on the date of notification. However, to determine just and fair compensation, keeping in view the fact that Act is a beneficial statute, Ext.PW5/A is being taken into consideration for avoiding any hardship to the land owner. 28. It is also advanced on behalf of land owner that he is also entitled for claim for dispossession from the acquired land prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. To substantiate his claim, reliance has been placed on pronouncement of Apex Court in case Balwan Singh and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector and another, (2016) 13 SCC 412 . No such compensation was pleaded before the Reference Court and the Reference Court has not awarded any such compensation and land owner has not preferred any appeal or any cross objection on this count. Therefore, in my opinion, in present case, no case is made out for grant of such damages/compensation in terms of judgment of the Apex Court in Balwan Singh's case supra. 29. Considering the entire facts and circumstances and evidence on record, it would be appropriate to determine the value of land after deduction of 50% in the value of land determined for the land under acquisition in Ext.PW5/A. 50% of Rs.3398.35 is Rs.1699/- and accordingly, value of acquired land is determined at the rate of Rs.1699/- per centiare. 30. In view of above discussion, land owner is held entitled for compensation of acquired land at the rate of Rs.1699/- per centiar along with consequential statutory benefits permissible under law. 31. The award passed by the Reference Court is modified and appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms. 32. No order as to costs. Record of the Reference Court be sent back forthwith. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.