JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Subhash Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent-State, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway. 2. Since in all these first appeals common judgment is under challenge that is why all these first appeals are heard together. 3. The appellants have abandoned the claim of the houses, well and boundary-wall in L.R. Case No. 41/2012, L.R. Case No. 43/2012, L.R. Case No. 44/2012 and L.R. Case No. 45 of 2012. 4. All these first appeals have been filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment dated 26.06.2013 and award dated 08.07.2013 passed in Land Reference Case No. 37/2012, Land Reference Case No. 41/2012, Land Reference Case No. 45/2012, Land Reference Case No. 43/2012, Land Reference Case No. 40/2012, Land Reference Case No. 32/2012, Land Reference Case No. 34/2012, Land Reference Case No. 44/2012, Land Reference Case No. 38/2012, Land Reference Case No. 36/2012, Land Reference Case No. 35/2012, Land Reference Case No. 33/2012 and L.A. Case No. 01/05-06. 5. From perusal of impugned judgment, it appears that appellants in L.R. Case No. 31 of 2012 and L.R. Case No. 39 of 2012 have not filed first appeal before this Court. 6. Mr. 5. From perusal of impugned judgment, it appears that appellants in L.R. Case No. 31 of 2012 and L.R. Case No. 39 of 2012 have not filed first appeal before this Court. 6. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that land in Khata No. 25 Plot No. 616 area 9 decimals, Plot No. 617 area 1 decimal, Plot No. 618 area 7 decimal, Plot No. 619, area 12 decimals total area 29 decimals, Khata No. 19 Plot No. 612 area 124 decimals, Plot No. 613 area 12 decimals, Plot No. 1162 area 0.015 decimal, Plot No. 1163 area 0.51 decimal, Khata No. 27 Plot No. 1161 area 15 decimal total area 1.035 acre in Mouza Pochra, Plot No. 1157/1 area .02 acre, Plot No. 1157 area .03 acre total area .05 acre, Khata No. 1 Plot No. 1157/5 area .02 acre, Khata No. 1 Plot No. 1157 area .025 acre, Khata No. 19 Plot No. 1162 area 0.015 acre total area 0.040 acres, Khata No. 19 Plot No. 1163, Khata No. 43 Plot No. 1158 area .38 acres, Khata No. 43 Plot No. 1158, Khata No. 42 Plot No. 1159/1 area .09 acre, Plot No. 1160 area .14 acre, Plot No. 1168 area .19 acre total area .42 acre, Mouza Pochra Khata No. 86 Plot No. 1164 area .08 acre, Khata No. 40 Plot No. 1173 Mouza Pochra area .03 acre, Khata No. 21, Plot No. 1159 area 0.19 acre, Khata No. 1 Plot No. 1157/1, Khata No. 19 Plot No. 1163/2 were the subject matter in L.R. Case No. 31/2012, L.R. Case No. 32/2012, L.R. Case No. 33/2012, L.R. Case No. 34/2012 L.R. Case No. 35/2012, L.R. Case No. 36/2012, L.R. Case No.37/2012, L.R. Case No. 38/2012, L.R. Case No. 39/2012, L.R. Case No. 40/2012 , L.R. Case No.41/2012, L.R. Case No. 43/2012, L.R. Case No. 44/2012 and L.R. Case No. 45/2012. All these reference cases were arise out of after the award passed by the Collector under section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and that is why, these reference cases were filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act before the court below for enhancement of awarded amount. 7. Mr. All these reference cases were arise out of after the award passed by the Collector under section 11 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and that is why, these reference cases were filed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act before the court below for enhancement of awarded amount. 7. Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for appellants submits that land looser objected the amount of compensation they were awarded and the collector made reference in terms of section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to determine the market price of acquired land pursuant to that the above reference cases were registered. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that valuation of their land required to be considered at least @ Rs. 20,000/- per decimal in view of circle rate fixed by the District Sub-Registrar i.e. Exhibit-4 which were exhibited before the court below whereas the court below has fixed @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimals. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that land is just next to the National Highway and meant for Ramgarh-Patratu Road. He further submits that lands are very near to Barkakana Railway station and very near within the vicinity of Ramgarh Cantonment area within Ward No. 7. He further submits that there are number of big shops near land acquired which is higher market value. In support of their claim, the claimants have exhibited some documents which are as follows:- i. Exhibit-1 is the valuation report of the valuer. ii. Exhibit- 2 to 2/B are certified copy of 3 sale deeds. iii. Exhibit 3 & 3E are the earlier award passed in L.R. Case No. 1/83/1984 and judgment. iv. Exhibit-4 is the circle rate issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribag. v. Exhibit-5 is the Notification of the year, 1941 of the Defence Department. vi. Exhibt-6 is the order of Additional Collector in L.R. Case No. 86-89. 10. In support of their claim, claimants examined five witnesses and all the witnesses stated in the same line that market value of the land is 25,000/- per decimal. Land in question has been acquired for the Barkakana-Hazaribagh Broad Gauze Railway Line. He further submits that assessment was made on the basis of value of land to treat as village land as situated within Ward No. 7, Cantonment Army is there. Land in question has been acquired for the Barkakana-Hazaribagh Broad Gauze Railway Line. He further submits that assessment was made on the basis of value of land to treat as village land as situated within Ward No. 7, Cantonment Army is there. The witnesses have stated that at the time of Acquisition of land in question, the land was being sold @ Rs. 20,000/- to 50,000/- per decimal. 11. He further submits that State has examined two witnesses and also produced certain documents. Court below considering the application and evidences has ordered the land in question as the market value @ Rs. 8,000/- per decimal. 12. In view of above facts, Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajeet Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that lesser amount has been fixed by the court below whereas claimants are entitled to get higher amount in view of evidences and documents which were brought on record particularly considering the Exhibit-4 which is circle rate issued by the District Sub-Registrar, Hazaribagh. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants fairly submits that the appellants are forgiving their claim on the ground of houses, well and boundary wall in L.R. Case No. 41/2012, L.R. Case No. 43/2012, L.R. Case No. 44/2012 and L.R. Case No. 45 of 2012. He further submits that land are very near to Ranchi road, Exhibit-4 which is circle rate, has not taken care of by the trial court in its right perspective and there is apparent error on the part of the lower court. 14. This Court has examined Exhibit-4 and in the said Exhibit-4 at the column no. 15, Ward No. 7, Mouza-Pochra, Thana No. 18, rate is shown as Rs. 20,000/- to 22,000/-. In view of the Exhibit-4, it transpires that the court below has not considered this circle rate and wrongly came to conclusion that the value of the land should be Rs. 8,000/- per decimal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that Exhibit-4 prepared by the District Collector as per the guidance of Government of Bihar Act, 1995. As the said circle rate which is the exact Ward No. 7 the rate was shown as Rs. 20,000/- to 22,000/- per decimal. 8,000/- per decimal. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that Exhibit-4 prepared by the District Collector as per the guidance of Government of Bihar Act, 1995. As the said circle rate which is the exact Ward No. 7 the rate was shown as Rs. 20,000/- to 22,000/- per decimal. In support of his contention, he relied upon two judgments, in the case of “Atar Singh and another Versus Union of India and Another” reported in (2009) 9 SCC 289 and in the case of ““Jagdish Prasad Verma (Dead) by LRS and Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others” .reported in (2016) 11 SCC 430 ”. In the case of “ Jagdish Prasad Verma” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under; “2.The aforestated amount appears to be on much lesser side as circle rate is much higher than the amount which has been awarded.” 16. Per contra, Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway and Mr. Subhash Chandra Prakash, learned counsel for the respondent-state jointly submit that the court below rightly assessed the compensation as Rs. 8,000/- per decimals on the basis of sale-deed. He submits that as per nature of land said valuation of land has been fixed. He further submits that after applying the appropriate deduction court below came to conclusion that value of lands should be Rs. 8,000/- per decimal and thus assessed the compensation correctly. 17. On query whether Exhibit-4 has been discussed by the court below, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Railways as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State are not in a position to say anything. 18. This court heard the parties at length. From the evidence, it is not denied that the land are next to the Cantonment area of army, the land in question were acquired for Barkakana-Hazaribagh Broad Gauze Railway Line. The claimants by leading the evidences have stated that there are residential houses, Army Cantonment, bazars and factories near the land which have been acquired. This fact has also not been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent-Railway and learned counsel for the respondent-State and it is not denied that the land in question was acquired for the railway line. 19. In view of above facts, only question needs to be considered as to what will be the correct market value of the land in question. 19. In view of above facts, only question needs to be considered as to what will be the correct market value of the land in question. From the records, this court finds that evidences adduced on behalf of claimants have supported the contention that there are residential houses, Army Cantonment, bazars and Factories near the land. Exhibit-4 which is circle rate shows that rate is Rs. 20,000/- to 22,000/- per decimal and this circle rate is fixed by the State and this Court can take judicial note of the fact that in respect of transfer of lands and since sale deed sale value is based on circle rate even if the actual sale price less than the circle rate thus from the document –Exhibit-4 it is quite clear that same has been fixed at circle rate @ Rs, 20,0000/- to 22,000/-. This circle rate has been prepared on 17.08.2004 just two months before notification was published in the Gazette. Thus this court can very well rely upon circle rate which has been fixed by the State at the value, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Jagdish Pasad Verma (Dead) by LRS and Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others” .reported in (2016) 11 SCC 430 has assessed the market value on the basis of circle rate. Thus when the circle rate is available and that too which has been fixed prior to publication of notification in Gazette, this court finds it proper that rate so fixed should be the correct value of the lands so acquired. 20. This Court has gone through the judgment of the Trial Court and finds that no reason has been given that is why Exhibit-4 has not been considered and how valuation of land has been issued by the court below and thus the finding can be said to be without any reason. This Court is sitting in first appeal, has gone through the evidences and documents and came to the conclusion that circle rate is the correct rate for determining the market value of the lands as the same is fixed by the Government. This Court held that Rs, 20,000/- being the circle rate prevalent is the correct market price of the lands as the lands are situated besides the cantonment area so as to seems market, factories and residential houses etc. This Court held that Rs, 20,000/- being the circle rate prevalent is the correct market price of the lands as the lands are situated besides the cantonment area so as to seems market, factories and residential houses etc. Thus the appellants are entitled to get compensation calculating the price of the acquired lands to be Rs. 20,000/- per decimal along with solatium, interest and additional compensation as provided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is made clear that this Court is not interfering with the rate and extra compensation awarded by the court below. 21. In view of the above facts, as the appellants has abandoned the claim of the houses, well and boundary wall in L.R. Case No. 41/2012, L.R. Case No. 43/2012, L.R. Case No. 44/2012 and L.R. Case No. 45 of 2012, this court has not entered into this aspect of the matter, the claimants enhancement with regard to said abandonment, hence no enhancement in that cases i.e. L.R. Case No. 41/2012, 43/2012, L.R. Case No. 44/2012 and L.R. Case No. 45 of 2012. 22. All these appeals are allowed in part except L.R. Case No. 41/2012, L.R. Case No. 43/2012, L.R. Case No. 44/2012 and L.R. Case No. 45 of 2012. Award to be prepared accordingly. 23. Judgment and Award are modified to the above extent in L.R. Case No. 32/2012, L.R. Case No. 33/2012, L.R. Case No. 34/2012, L.R. Case No. 35/2012, L.R. Case No. 36/2012, L.R. Case No. 37/2012, L.R. Case No. 38/2012 and L.R. Case No. 40/2012. 24. The office is directed to send back lower court record to the court below forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.