JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. A.G., Mizoram appearing for the respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘L.A. Act’ for short) read with Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘C.P.C.’ for short) and Section 17(1) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 has been preferred against the Judgment & Order, dated 19.11.2019, passed by the learned District Judge, Lunglei Judicial District in L.A. Case No. 2/2018 for enhancement of the market value of the lands belonged to the appellants which were acquired by Draft Award No.1/2015. 3. The appellants’ grievances, precisely, are that for the purpose of widening of road from Hnahthial to Saiha via Sangau road, the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram published a preliminary Notification on 12.11.2012 under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act along with a notification dated 27.02.2015, that is, Declaration under Section 6 of the L.A. Act for the purpose of acquisition of the lands belonged to them. The lands were accordingly duly verified and demarcated and after complying with all the formalities required under the L.A. Act, the respondent No. 1/District Collector, Lawngtlai District, Lawngtlai published the Draft Award No.1/2015 awarding Rs.54,53,205/-(Rupees Fifty Four Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand and Two Hundred and Five) only to the appellants by fixing the market value of the lands belonged to them @ Rs.80/-per square metre. The aforesaid Draft Award was approved by the Government of Mizoram vide a letter dated 17.08.2015. 4. Being aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded to them, the appellants had preferred a Reference Petition under Section 18 of the L.A. Act, which was registered as L.A. Case No. 2/2018 in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Lunglei Judicial District praying for enhancement of the market value of their lands as fixed by the respondent No. 1 and enhancement of the amount awarded in respect of the buildings belonged to them along with payment of solatium and interest payable under Section 23 (1A) and (2) and payment of interest under Section 34 of the L.A. Act. 5. 5. The respondent No. 1 by filing a written objection/statement contested the Reference Petition claiming that the said reference application was received on 28.06.2017 and as such, the application was barred by limitation and that while determining the market value of the acquired lands all relevant factors were taken into consideration and as such, the value so fixed @ Rs.80/-per square metre by the Award was reasonable. 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the reference Court had framed the following issues- (i) Whether the reference application/case is barred by law of limitation or not? (ii) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to enhancement of market value of their respective lands @Rs.500/-per sq. metre or not. If so, to what extent and reasons. (iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to enhancement of value of their respective buildings at least by three folds of the already awarded amount. If so, to what extent and reasons. (iv) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to payment of solatium as per section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 @30% of the market value of their respective lands or not. (v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to payment of interest @ 12% per annum as per the market value of their lands for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the date of the award or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier or not. (vi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to payment of interest u/s 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or not. (vii) Whether there was damaging/severing the prime portion of the respective lands of the plaintiffs due to the instant cause beyond the assessed/calculated portion, already done/ included in the impugned Award, adversely affecting the remaining portions of their lands greatly lowering the potential for future development of their respective lands or not. If so, to what extent and whether they are entitled to payment of compensation for the same or not. (viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed in reference application or not. If so, to what extent. 7. In course of the proceeding, the petitioners/appellants herein examined four witnesses and the respondents examined two witnesses in support of their respective pleadings. 8. (viii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed in reference application or not. If so, to what extent. 7. In course of the proceeding, the petitioners/appellants herein examined four witnesses and the respondents examined two witnesses in support of their respective pleadings. 8. The learned District Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, Lunglei decided the issue No. (i) in the negative. However, the issue Nos. (ii), (iii) and (vii) were taken up together for consideration and decided the same recording the reasons which are extracted hereinbelow- “11. ......The petitioners contended that the valuation by the LAC was not reasonable and that the matters specified in Section 23 of the Act were not duly taken into consideration. The four witnesses they produced submitted that the lands fall within Sangau town area and have in the vicinity a number of Government institutions such as schools, a Police Station, a bank, offices of the Public Health Engineering Department, a tourist lodge, and so on, several private institutions such as the Blue Mountain School, the Don Bosco English School etc. and commercial establishments like furniture workshops. They submitted that in view of the numerous facilities and amenities available, the cost of land in the town has escalated by leaps and bounds within the last few years, and that the value of the lands is much higher than the Award rate fixed at Rs.80/-per square meter. They submitted that the market rate cannot be less than Rs.500/-per square meter and prayed that the Award amount be enhanced accordingly. 12. The petitioners, however, failed to produce any iota of evidence on the actual market value of lands in Sangau. Having stated that the market rate had escalated by leaps and bounds in the last few years, they ought to have substantiated this by showing at least a single instance in which the market rate was higher than what the Award provided for. The Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, was notified on 2.5.2013. Section 100 of the Act of 2013 provides that all valid transfers of land shall be compulsorily registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013, was notified on 2.5.2013. Section 100 of the Act of 2013 provides that all valid transfers of land shall be compulsorily registered under the Registration Act, 1908. Even though the area possibly fell within the Lai Autonomous District, to which the Act of 2013 did not extend (this was not pleaded or brought out in evidence), there would naturally have been documentation pertaining to transfers, including sale deeds, to process for mutation in the land revenue officers, and this could have properly been produced to substantiate the petitioners claims. 13. There is a general presumption, as indicated in illustration (e) to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, of regularity in the performance of official acts. The presumption would cast a burden on the petitioners to show nonfeasance on the part of the LAC in the determination of the compensation payable for their lands. They cannot be held to have discharged this onerous burden by merely saying that the assessment was not in keeping with the market value, without showing what the market value actually was, and it would appear that their claim that the market value could not be less than Rs.500/-per square meter was only fanciful thinking. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act excludes the proof of such matters by oral evidence-when dispositions of property have been reduced to writing-and it is felt that the claim in respect of the market value of the land was not substantiated at all by the petitioners. 14. The petitioners failed also to produce any cogent evidence on the value of their buildings. Having stated in their pleadings that the actual market value of their buildings was higher than that assessed, and that the amount should be enhanced at least three-fold, the petitioners failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever on what buildings they actually had, or the sizes and types of construction. They cannot accordingly, again, be held to have discharged the burden to prove nonfeasance by the LAC in the determination of the compensation payable in respect of the buildings. No effect can be given, also, to the prayer for compensation in respect of the diminution in the value of the lands retained by the petitioners as a result of the acquisition, for want of any cogent evidence on the mater. Issue Nos. (ii), (iii) and (vii) are thus decided. Findings on Issue Nos. No effect can be given, also, to the prayer for compensation in respect of the diminution in the value of the lands retained by the petitioners as a result of the acquisition, for want of any cogent evidence on the mater. Issue Nos. (ii), (iii) and (vii) are thus decided. Findings on Issue Nos. (iv), (v) (vi) and (viii): 15. In the circumstances the petitioners’ refusal to accept the compensation was not justified. They could well have received the amounts under protest, and the claim for interest under Section 34 of the LA Act is accordingly disallowed. The petitioners would be entitled, however, to solatium under Section 23(2) of the LA Act at 30% (thirty percent) of the Award amount and to the additional amount under Section 23(1-A) of the LA Act at 12% (twelve percent) simple of the Award amount from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 4 till realization in whole. All the issues are thus decided. 16. The reference petition is disposed off accordingly. Announced in open Court on 19.11.2019.” 9. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants by adducing evidence had clearly proved that their lands clearly fell within Sangau town area and that in the vicinity of the aforesaid lands a number of Government and private institution as well as commercial establishments have come up. On the other hand, the impugned Draft Award clearly shows that the respondent No. 1 had not taken these vital factors into consideration while determining the market value thereof and in this regard, the District Collector had relied upon the old market value of lands of other land owners of different far away areas of the state which were subject matters in old Awards. Mr. Malhotra further submits that the learned Reference Court has failed in duty to consider the specific factors enumerated in Section 23 of the L.A. Act and other factors included in the various guidelines set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mr. Malhotra also submits that proper reasons have not been given while rejecting claim for interest payable to the appellant landowners under Sections 28 and 34 of the said Act. Mr. Malhotra has relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in- (i) Atma Singh (Dead) Through LRS. and Ors. Mr. Malhotra also submits that proper reasons have not been given while rejecting claim for interest payable to the appellant landowners under Sections 28 and 34 of the said Act. Mr. Malhotra has relied on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in- (i) Atma Singh (Dead) Through LRS. and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 568 ; (ii) Digamber & Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 406 ; (iii) Ratti Ram vs. Union of India and Another, reported in (2016) 11 SCC 110 . 10. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. A.G., Mizoram appearing for the respondent No.1, submits that the impugned Draft Award was made after due consideration of the claims of the applicant appellants herein and by taking into account of all relevant factors as required under Section 23 of the L.A. Act. Mr. Zoramchhana emphatically submits that the market value of the land as fixed @Rs.80/-per sq. meter by the Draft Award is rational inasmuch as it coincided with the claim of the petitioner appellants herein and others, which has been admitted in the cross-examination of C.W. 1 and the other factors, which are reflected in the draft itself. Mr. Zoramchhana has relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Government (NCT of Delhi) and Others Vs. Ajay Kumar and Others, reported in (2014) 13 SCC 734 . 11. A perusal of the above cited reasons for the decisions by the learned District Judge, Lunglei shows that the appellants’ claim for higher value of their acquired lands failed due to inability to discharge their burden of proof with reference to Section 23 of the L.A. Act; Section 100 of the Mizoram (Land Revenue) Act, 2013; Sections 91 and 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may be pointed out that the expression ‘Land’ includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The principles for determining market value of the acquired land are statutorily specified in Section 23 of the L.A. Act, which reads as under- “23. It may be pointed out that the expression ‘Land’ includes benefits to arise out of land and things attached to earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth. The principles for determining market value of the acquired land are statutorily specified in Section 23 of the L.A. Act, which reads as under- “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation - (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration- First, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub section (1); Secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason of the taking of any standing crops or trees which may be on the land at the time of the Collector’s taking possession thereof; Thirdly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of severing such land from his other land; Fourthly, the damage (if any), sustained by the person interested, at the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land, by reason of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings; Fifthly, if, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the Collector, the persons interested is compelled to change his residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any) incidental to such change; and Sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the declaration under section 6 and the time of the Collector’s taking possession of the land. [(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per centum per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1), in respect of such land to the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. Explanation-In computing the period referred to in this sub-section, any period or periods during which the proceedings for the acquisition of the land were held up on account of any stay or injunction by the order of any Court shall be excluded.] (2) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of [thirty per centum] on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.” 12. It may relevantly be pointed out that the State has the initial burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it and for this purpose, the State has to show that assessment of the value has been done taking into consideration of all the above factors. In this regard, it may be noted that the market value may be ascertained on the basis of (1) opinion of experts; (2) price of land within a reasonable time of bona fide transactions of value of purchase of land acquired or the land adjacent to the land acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) number of years of purchase of the actual or immediately perspective parts of land acquired etc. 13. With regard to the above, let us look to the Draft Award No. 1 of 2015 text published by the District Collector, Lawngtlai District, which was approved by the Government of Mizoram on 17.08.2015 as extracted hereinbelow (relevant parts)- “1. ............ 2. ............. 3. Claims : In response to Notice U/S 9 (2) of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued to them most of the land owners have submitted their claims @Rs.80/-per Sq. Mtrs. 4. Market value of Land : Market value of the LSC has been determined after taking various factors like location advantages, suitability precedent etc. into consideration. Therefore, for fixation of land value, the following of facts are taken into consideration. (a) Location advantage : The Lands & Buildings in question are located from Hnathial-Saiha via Sangau road are under LADC areas. They are suitable for widening/improvement of road. (b) Precedents : Since, there has been no earlier fixation of market value of land in and around this particular location some other precedents within Lawngtlai District may be mentioned as precedents under : Sl. No. Location Purpose Rate per Sq. Mtrs. Award No. & year 1. They are suitable for widening/improvement of road. (b) Precedents : Since, there has been no earlier fixation of market value of land in and around this particular location some other precedents within Lawngtlai District may be mentioned as precedents under : Sl. No. Location Purpose Rate per Sq. Mtrs. Award No. & year 1. Lawngtlai Construction of MMTTP road Non-Agriculture Land Rs.60/- 1 of 2010 Agriculture Land Rs.35/- 1 of 2010-2011 2. CADC areas BOP Non-Agriculture Land Rs.45/- 2 of 2013 Therefore, considering all the relevant factors like location of Land precedent price escalation lapse of time etc. market value of land in question is fixe @Rs. 80/-per Sq. Mtrs. 5. Crops/Plant/Building etc. : There are Crops/ Plant/Building etc. within the land proposed to be acquired valuation assessment of these Crop/Plant/Building etc. are assessed by the Surveyor of Land Revenue & Settlement Department, LADC in presence of land owners and representative of Acquiring Department i/c 71 RCC and SDO (C) Sangau in accordance with the prevailing notes fixed by the Revenue Department, Government of Mizoram. 6. Apportionment : The compensation shall be paid as per list enclosed as marked at annexure-I if there is any dispute, the amount will be kept undisbursed till the parties come to a compromise in case the dispute is not settled within a reasonable period of time, the matters will be referred to Law Court for apportionment and adjudication. 7. Land Revenue : Land Revenue (Taxes) payable per annum will be deducted if any dues found against LSC and land owner to the Land Revenue Settlement Department, Lai Autonomous District Council, Lawngtlai. Photocopy of list showing advance payment received from 71 RCC by the affected land owners is enclosed for ready reference if and when necessary. 8. Summary of award : The award is summarised as under- 1. Market value of the land covered By LSCs-10053 Sq. Mtrs. Rs.8,04,240/- 2. Building/Crops etc. compensation Rs.67,91,000/- 3. Total Rs.75,95,240/- 4. Amount already paid (An amount of Rs.2300, 866/-already paid to 32 land owners directly by O/C 71 RCC, Statement showing details of Payment enclosed at Annexure-‘A’ Rs.23,00,866/- 5. Balance of total amount payable to land owners Rs.52,94,374/- 6. Contingent charge 3% Rs.1,58,831/- G/Total Rs.54,53,205/- (Rupees fifty four lakh fifty three thousand two hundred five) only.” 14. Total Rs.75,95,240/- 4. Amount already paid (An amount of Rs.2300, 866/-already paid to 32 land owners directly by O/C 71 RCC, Statement showing details of Payment enclosed at Annexure-‘A’ Rs.23,00,866/- 5. Balance of total amount payable to land owners Rs.52,94,374/- 6. Contingent charge 3% Rs.1,58,831/- G/Total Rs.54,53,205/- (Rupees fifty four lakh fifty three thousand two hundred five) only.” 14. The above Draft Award shows that the market value of the lands of the appellants was determined by the District Collector, Lawngtlai primarily based on the claims of ‘most of the land owners’ @Rs.80/-per sq. metre without mentioning the names of those claimant land owners and an assessment of value made summarily as per requirements of Section 23 of the L.A. Act and further, referring to the precedents within the Lawngtlai District in determining the market value of lands made in the old Awards referred therein, but without referring to the relevant preliminary Notification dates published under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act. There is apparent disclosure that the land owners’ possession of crops, plants and buildings etc., the values of which were also assessed as per the summary of the Draft Award quoted above and as reflected in the detail compensation apportionment list of the 32 land owners annexed therewith. 15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments laid down the guiding factors for consideration for determination of the market value of land for the purpose of acquisition by the government for public purposes, some of which are extracted below 16. In Atma Singh (Dead) Through LRS. and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 568 , the Ho’ble Supreme Court observed- “4. In order to determine the compensation which the tenure-holders are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the main question to be considered is what is the market value of the land. Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression 'market value' has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression 'market value' has been the subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who would offer the land and a purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions but not an anxious dealing at arm’s length nor facade of sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event viz. a price outcome of hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. See Kamta Prasad v. State of Bihar, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M. P., Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi and Periyar Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala. 5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector v. Dr. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. See Collector v. Dr. Hari Singh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472 , Raghubans Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt., AIR 1967 SC 465 and Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 .” 17. In the case of Digamber & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 406 , the Apex Court observed- “16. We have carefully examined the factual and legal contentions urged on behalf of the respondents keeping in view the decision of this Court in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer, wherein this Court after interpreting Section 23 of the L.A. Act, 1894, referred to the various legal principles laid down by the Bombay High Court and this Court regarding the relevant criteria to be followed by the Land Acquisition Collector and courts for determination of the market value of the land acquired for public purpose: 16.1. At para 5 of the above referred judgment, there is a reference to the Bombay High Court’s judgment rendered in Nama Padu Huddar v. State of Maharashtra, the relevant extracted portion is reproduced below: “Judicial note can be taken of the fact that the industrial growth in and around Bombay has started with rapid stride from the year 1965 onwards. In fact, the growth is by leaps and bounds in the magnitude of industries as well as number of industries and virtually all the industries of the country are represented on the industrial estates scattered on this highway. It is also an admitted position that on this highway on all sides the facility of electric supply is available as also of abundant water supply. In the area in question it is also an admitted position that all the lands have suitable access roads to Zila Parishad and State Highway including lands which are the farthest from the highway.” 16.2. Further, in para 7 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla judgment, reference is made to the judgments in Shashikant Krishanji v. Land Acquisition Officer and Nama Padu Huddar v. State of Maharashtra, relevant portion of which is extracted below:- “7….. Further, in para 7 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla judgment, reference is made to the judgments in Shashikant Krishanji v. Land Acquisition Officer and Nama Padu Huddar v. State of Maharashtra, relevant portion of which is extracted below:- “7….. ‘The land involved in the reference in hand and the land involved in State of Maharashtra v. Ramchandra Damodar Koli are virtually identical situated in the same area bearing similar topographical and physical characteristics covered by the same Notification dated 3-2-1970, when the nearby land of the land under reference fetched market value @ Rs.25 per square metre. On the date of notification, certainly the land under reference will fetch the same market value.’ ” 16.3. Also paras 16 and 17 from Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla are quoted hereunder: “16. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully perused the record. It is settled law that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors: (i) Existing geographical situation of the land. (ii) Existing use of the land. (iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area. (iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land. 17. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat this Court laid down the following principles for determination of market value of the acquired land: “17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4. 18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. 19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.” 16.4. Further, it would be worthwhile to refer to the portion which is extracted from Atma Singh v. State of Haryana which paragraph is referred to at para 18 in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla’s case which reads thus: “5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, uses to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether nearabout town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration.” 16.5. In para 22 of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla’s case, the judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. L. Kamalamma is referred to and the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “22…..’7. … When a land is acquired which has the potentiality of being developed into an urban land, merely because some portion of it abuts the main road, higher rate of compensation should be paid while in respect of the lands on the interior side it should be at lower rate may not stand to reason because when sites are formed those abutting the main road may have its advantages as well as disadvantages. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay a reasonably higher price for that site. One cannot rely on the mere possibility so as to indulge in a meticulous exercise of classification of the land as was done by the Land Acquisition Officer when the entire land was acquired in one block and therefore classification of the same into different categories does not stand to reason.” 18. In the case of Ratti Ram Vs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (2016) 11 SCC 110 , the Apex Court observed as below- “4. There is no exclusion of any period contemplated on whatever account under Section 28 of the Act. The only reference is to the date of dispossession. Liability to pay interest starts to run from the date. Therefore, these appeals are allowed. It is directed that the appellants shall be entitled to interest for the compensation, as per Section 28 read with Section 23(1-A), in respect of the land acquired from the appellants, on value @Rs.76,550 per bigha for the period of stay also i.e. from 24-4-1997 to 27-9-2001.” 19. In the case of Executive Director Vs. Surat Chadra Bisoi, reported in AIR 2000 SC 2619 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as extracted hereinbelow- “5......... Ordinarily, the most accepted and recognised method of appointing compensation for land acquisition is to find out the value of the land prevailing on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which can best be enabled by tendering in evidence documentary evidence showing the price at which similar pieces of land have been bought and sold on and around the date of notification. Where there are no sales of comparable land the value has to be found out in some other way. One of the methods is to find out the annual income of the land which the owner has been deriving or is expected to derive from the use of the land and capitalise the same by adopting a multiplier. In Union of India vs. Smt. Shanti Devi, AIR 1983 SC 1190 this Court has said: (at p. 1194 of AIR): “The capitalised value of a property is the amount of money whose annual interest at the highest prevailing interest at any given time will be its net annual income. In Union of India vs. Smt. Shanti Devi, AIR 1983 SC 1190 this Court has said: (at p. 1194 of AIR): “The capitalised value of a property is the amount of money whose annual interest at the highest prevailing interest at any given time will be its net annual income. The net annual income from a land is arrived at by deducting from the gross annual income all outgoings such as expenditure on cultivation, land revenue etc. The net return from landed property, generally speaking, reflects the prevalent rate of interest on safe money investments.” 6. It was a case of very large tract of agricultural land having been acquired for Beas project. This Court held that in the facts and circumstances of that case 15 years purchase would be proper for determining the compensation and not 20 years purchase. Our attention has been invited to a Division Bench decision of the High Court of Orissa in Land Acquisition Zone Officer Vs. Damberudhar Pradhan and Ors., AIR 1991 Orissa 271 wherein on a conspectus of decided cases, the Division Bench has held that 16 years purchase was ideal to be adopted for fixing the market value of the land in Orissa. The High Court has adopted the same multiplier for this case. We do not find any fault therewith, in the facts and circumstances of the case and approve the same.” 20. It needs to be reiterated that while acquisitioning land of the public for any ‘public purpose’ defined in Section 3(f) of the L.A. Act, the ‘appropriate Government’ must adopt a fair and transparent approach to determination of the market value of such notified land areas taking into consideration of the guiding factors directed to be followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its catena of judgments and the statutory provisions in Section 23 of the L.A. Act so that the land owners are not deprived of the actual market value of their lands. 21. For proper determination of market value of such lands, the initial burden lies on the appropriate Government to prove that while discharging its statutory duty, it explored all possible factors and accordingly, after due assessment determined the value. 21. For proper determination of market value of such lands, the initial burden lies on the appropriate Government to prove that while discharging its statutory duty, it explored all possible factors and accordingly, after due assessment determined the value. When a landowner seeks a reference under Section 18 of the L.A. Act for higher compensation, the burden is on him to prove that he is entitled to more than what has been assessed by the District Collector. It is the duty of the reference Court to scrutinize such evidence, oral and documentary, adduced before it in the light of the guiding factors and determine the just and fair compensation as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to meet the ends of justice to both the parties to the reference. 22. The appellants’ plea as stated above is that the market value of their lands, which are being located within Sangao town area and as in the vicinity there are a number of Government and private institutions, such as Schools (Government and private), Police Station, Bank, tourist Lodge etc. as well as commercial establishments, the District Collector has committed error by failing to consider the aforesaid relevant factors and had those factors were rationally considered, the prevailing market value of their lands would have certainly gone up to more than Rs. 80/-per sq. metre, possibly to around not less than Rs.500/-per sq. metre. 23. A perusal of the record of L.A. Case No. 02/2018, it is noticed that the respective witnesses of both sides have reiterated their respective stands taken in the proceeding in regard to the location advantages of the acquired lands which are located in the town area of Lawngtlai. C.W. 1, in his cross-examination, admitted the respondents’ suggestion to the effect that “it is not a fact that we did not submit claim for Rs.80/-sq. mt. to DC, Lawngtlai.” 24. The respondents’ evidence also, on the other hand, reveal that most of the land owners submitted their claims of market value of land @Rs.80/-per sq. metres and as such, keeping in consideration of the earlier assessments of land value made in Award No. 1 of 2010 in respect of non-agricultural land @Rs.60/-per sq. metres and agricultural land @Rs.35 per sq. metre as well is in Award No. 2 of 2013 in respect of non-agricultural land market value determination was made @Rs.45/-per sq. metre. metres and as such, keeping in consideration of the earlier assessments of land value made in Award No. 1 of 2010 in respect of non-agricultural land @Rs.60/-per sq. metres and agricultural land @Rs.35 per sq. metre as well is in Award No. 2 of 2013 in respect of non-agricultural land market value determination was made @Rs.45/-per sq. metre. It is further revealed from evidence that at the time of determination of the market value sufficient materials were not available such as recent transactions of selling and buying of lands for taking a reference. 25. Thus, it is apparent that neither party to the proceeding did produce any authentic and reliable documentary evidence in support of their respective claims and counter claims and thus, the respondent District Collector relied on, inter-alia, basically the disputed fact of claim of market value @Rs.80/-per sq. metre. As such, it is noticed that both the parties did not discharge their burden of proof more particularly, the initial burden of proof by the District Collector/Government, with equal responsibility of that of a private person, showing the preponderance of probability warranting acceptance of the aforesaid market value awarded to the petitioner appellants herein and so also, the appellants failed in their duty to produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim of market value of the lands. There is also no evidence in regard to the date of Notifications published as required under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act in respect of the old Awards aforementioned based on which the market value of the lands of the appellants were determined including the valuation assessment report submitted by the Surveyor of Land Revenue and Settlement Department, LADC which found place in the impugned Draft Award. 26. Although in order to determine a fair, reasonable and adequate market value as on the date of Notification is a question of fact depending upon the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, if any and probabilities arising in the reference, it is noticed that in the present case both the parties to the proceeding have failed in duty to produce appropriate and befitting evidence, oral and documentary in this regard. Further, once the market value of the land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act is so determined the land owner(s) shall be entitled to an amount @12% per annum therefrom to the date of the Award under Section 23(1A) and solatium @30% per annum thereon in view of the compulsory nature of the acquisition under Section 23(2) of the L.A. Act. For want of sufficient evidence adduced by the appellants and the respondents/Government, this Court is not in a position to determine the actual market value of the acquired lands in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties. 27. For the above stated reasons, the appeal stands partly allowed. 28. Despite this Court is being aware of the limited scope for remand of a civil proceeding, in the above stated compelling situation, the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Lunglei, Mizoram is partly set aside and accordingly, L.A. Case No. 02/2018 is remanded back to the said Reference Court to decide all the issues afresh except the issue No. (i) on the point of limitation, giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce additional evidence, oral and documentary, if so desired, in support of their respective pleas. Accordingly, both parties shall appear before the Reference Court of District Judge, Lunglei Judicial District, Mizoram on or before 16.06.2022 to receive further instructions. The petition stands disposed of.