JUDGMENT : ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. All the three LA appeals having its basis on the common set of facts as well as same law are being taken up together for its final consideration in a conjoint manner. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short LA Act 1894) was issued on 27.03.1996 by the then Collector, Kamrup district. By the said notification under Section 4(1), various plots of land of the respondents in the three appeals were acquired and possession thereof was taken. In due course, the acquisition was also declared under Section 6(1) of the LA Act, 1894 vide notification dated 04.01.1997. In the resultant land acquisition case numbered as LA Case 18/1995, the collector had passed an award determining the compensation of land to be paid @ Rs. 30,000/- per katha. All the respondents herein received their respective amount of compensation based on the calculation that the land value was Rs. 30,000/- per katha, but such receipt of the compensation amount was on protest. Consequent thereof, applications were made by the respondents before the Collector, Kamrup requesting that the issue regarding determination of the compensation be referred to the reference Court under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894. 3. Consequent thereof, reference Case No. 35/2000 was registered in respect of the respondent Jogindar Bhagat, reference Case No. 36/2000 was registered in respect of respondent Sudarshan Sah and reference case No. 37/2000 was registered in respect of respondent Ram Sarup Das. By the judgments all dated 31.10.2005 of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 4, Kamrup, the amount of compensation payable was enhanced from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per katha. Further solatium under Section 23(2) and additional compensation @ 12% per annum under Section 23(1)-A and interest over the excess compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of taking over of possession of the land during the first year and @ 15% per annum thereafter payable under Section 28 of the LA Act of 1894 was also included in the award. 4. 4. The judgments of 31.10.2005 of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 4, Kamrup in the reference cases were assailed before this Court by the appellant Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited on the ground that they were not made a party in the reference proceeding and hence the enhanced award was granted in their absence. By the common judgment dated 25.05.2009 in LA Appeal No. 02/2007, LA Appeal No. 03/2007 and LA Appeal No. 04/2007, the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, FTC No. 4, Kamrup was interfered and the matter was remanded back for a fresh consideration by affording the appellant Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited an opportunity of adducing evidence. 5. Upon a fresh consideration, the present judgments dated 07.10.2009 were passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kamrup (Metro), whereby the enhancement of the compensation from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per katha and the other interests payable were retained. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.11.2009 of the reference Court, the present appeals had been preferred. 6. The sole ground urged upon by Mr. GP Bhowmik, learned senior counsel for the appellant is that there was no material on record before the learned reference Court in order to arrive at its conclusion for enhancement of the compensation payable. We have taken note of that in the reference proceeding upon being remanded back, the land owner respondents had not adduced any further evidence, but had relied upon the earlier evidence adduced by them. The appellant Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited on the other hand had adduced certain oral evidence through DW-1 Banikanta Goswami, who is (was) the Chief Administrative Assistant in the appellant Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and DW-2 Dharani Dhar Barua, who was the Senior Assistant in the land acquisition branch in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro). Apart from making certain oral depositions, neither DW-1 nor the DW-2 had exhibited any documents, which may give some indication of the market value of the land at the time when they were acquired. 7. While perusing the record, we have come across a communication dated 10.03.1999 of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Guwahati made to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue Registration Department, wherein information were provided as regards the valuation of land in greater Guwahati for the purpose of sale and gift, which had been re-fixed as per the statement enclosed therewith. The re-fixed value with regard to land in the Betkuchi area was Rs. 90,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/- per katha. The enclosed statement also revealed that the valuation of the land as it stood prior to the re-fixation in respect of Betkuchi area was Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per katha. The learned reference Court in its judgment dated 07.11.2009 in the reference cases while deciding the valuation of the land that is to be taken into consideration had relied upon the notification No. KRM-1/96-61/2 dated 10.09.1999 by arriving at its conclusion that a fair, adequate and a reasonable market value of the land at the time of its acquisition and taking over possession would be Rs. 60,000/- per katha. 8. We have taken note of that the notification providing for the re-fixed valuation was of 10.03.1999 and the land valuation as it stood prior to the re-fixation is also provided therein. The valuation of the land prior to the re-fixation in respect of Betkuchi area where the acquired land is located was Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per katha. As the land was acquired in the year 1996, we see no reason as to why the valuation as it stood prior to the re-fixation cannot be a basis to arrive at a reasonable market value of the land in the year 1996 when it was acquired and possession was taken over. 9. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned reference Court dated 07.11.2009 in reference Case No. 35/2000, reference Case No. 36/2000 and reference Case No. 37/2000. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. The consequential requirements be done by the appellants and the authorities under the Collector, Kamrup, Guwahati pursuant to the dismissal of the appeals. Send back the LCRs immediately.