JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard 1. The present appeal is against the award dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Land Acquisition Case No.11/2011, whereby the Court in exercise of power under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'Act, 1894') has passed the award. 2. Admittedly, the land bearing Khasra No.755/1 ad-measuring 0.182 hectare and 755/2 ad-measuring 0.028 hectares situated at Village Mova, R.I. Circle, Raipur, Tehsil and District Raipur (C.G.) was acquired by the State. Being aggrieved by the original award dated 18.02.2011, a reference was filed under Section 18 of the Act, 1894. The Referral Court vide its award dated 29.11.2018 has modified the award to the extent that the compensation be calculated on the basis of market valuation of land at the rate of per square meter and an interest was awarded from the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, i.e. 06.08.2010 to 18.02.2011, i.e., date of award at the rate of 12% per annum. The appellant/land owner being not satisfied with the award has come up before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the referral Court had accepted the contention of the appellant that the award has to be passed by calculating the acquired area as per square meter, but failed to consider the fact that the land is situated at main road and according to the guideline, which was placed before the concerned Court, the compensation should have been granted at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per sq. meter instead of Rs.6,832/- per sq. meter. He would submit that in this case, the appellant along with Patwari and the Clerk of Sub Registrar were examined to demonstrate the fact that the land was situated at main road and at the main road, the average market rate according to the guideline was Rs.18,000/- per square meter. Consequently, as per the acquisition policy of the State, the maximum rate should have been applied for, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per sq. meter. He would further submit that the possession of the land was taken way back on 01.10.2007, whereas the interest has been granted from 06.08.2010, that is the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. meter. He would further submit that the possession of the land was taken way back on 01.10.2007, whereas the interest has been granted from 06.08.2010, that is the date of publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894. He would submit that the statement of the appellant/land owner and the document placed on record would show that the appellant has made various representations before the Land Acquisition Officer at the relevant time in the year 2007 to say that without proper acquisition of the land, the road was being constructed. He refers to Ex.P.-18 to submit that the land owner was left with no other option except to make such representation, therefore, the fact that the land was acquired in the year 2007 should have been accepted without there being any evidence to rebut the same. He placed his reliance in the matter of State of H.P. and others vs. Dharma Das reported in (1995) 5 SCC 683 to submit that the interest should have been awarded as per the statutory rates specified in the Act, 1894 and it cannot be varied. Consequently, the award dated 29.11.2018 passed by the referral Court be modified accordingly. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State would submit that initially the award was passed taking into consideration the area of the land on the basis of per hectare as also the interest was not awarded. However, the referral Court, while adjudicating the reference, came to a finding that the area so acquired was less than certain specified area, consequently, calculated the compensation as per the square meter. He would further submit that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the fact that the land was situated at main road and as per admission of the appellant, no main road exists near land. Consequently, the quantum of compensation, which was taken to the maximum one according to the guideline as per the average sale of the previous year, the amount of Rs.6832/- being maximum in the guideline, was calculated. Consequently, the quantum of compensation, which was taken to the maximum one according to the guideline as per the average sale of the previous year, the amount of Rs.6832/- being maximum in the guideline, was calculated. He would further submit that there is nothing on record to show the fact that the possession of the land was taken in the year 2007 and the rate of interest, therefore, the finding of the referral Court that the interest is to be awarded from 06.08.2010 that is final publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 till the date of passing of award, is well merited and justified, therefore, no interference is called for. 5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length and perused the record of the Court below. 6. While going through the award of the learned referral Court, we find it that initially the award of Land Acquisition Officer dated 18.02.2011 was modified inasmuch as the area which was calculated taking it to be the area in hectare was turned into square meter. There is no dispute about the fact on this issue, therefore, we would not like to make any deliberation on this. Another fact that the rate of calculation was according to the acquisition policy and the maximum was to be taken while comparison of guideline and the publication of notification, the guideline provides for Rs.18,000/- per square meter for the land situated at main road and Rs.6832/- for the land away from the main road. The guideline was produced before the trial Court vide Ex.P.10-C. Therefore, as per policy, maximum rate of compensation was calculated. 7. Now the question comes to fore which the guideline rate to be applied that is of land situated at main road or otherwise. Though, the statement has been made by the appellant that the land is situated at main road, however, looking into the record, we do not find any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. 7. Now the question comes to fore which the guideline rate to be applied that is of land situated at main road or otherwise. Though, the statement has been made by the appellant that the land is situated at main road, however, looking into the record, we do not find any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. As per the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, the development plan to be published and Section 7 speaks of regional plan followed by the planning areas and development plans under Chapter IV and purports that contents of development plan are to be embodied under Section 17 which includes placement of the road in the particular area and the contents of zoning plan is take it into its sweep the existence of road in a particular proposed development area. There is no dispute of the fact that the land was situated within Raipur Municipal area. Consequently, the publication of the map of the zoning and the regional plan should have been in existence. In absence thereof, only by oral statement of an individual, it cannot be inferred that particular land when it subjects of acquisition is adjacent to main road. 8. We are further fortified in our finding by the statement of the appellant at paragraph 21 of the cross-examination wherein the appellant has stated that no main road situates on the site, whereas it is said to be a Dharsa road. Paragraph 22 of his cross-examination also would show that Partwai Naksha, which was marked as Ex.D.-1, does not disclose existence of any Dharsa road even on the site. Consequently, it can be safely presumed and the finding arrived at by the learned referral Court of absence of the road adjacent to land, which is subject of acquisition is well founded. 9. Now coming to the other aspect of the grant of interest, the appellant has heavily relied upon Ex.P.-18 to submit that he made representation to the Land Acquisition Officer enclosing original documents of the record to say the possession of land was taken in year 2007. While, we went through the original document of the record Ex.P/-18, which purports to have signed and was given to the SDO by the appellant, we are not aware as to how such original document was in possession of the appellant if it was said to have been given to Land Acquisition Officer. While, we went through the original document of the record Ex.P/-18, which purports to have signed and was given to the SDO by the appellant, we are not aware as to how such original document was in possession of the appellant if it was said to have been given to Land Acquisition Officer. Leaving it apart there is nothing on record to substantiate that to whom such document was tendered. The referral Court has granted interest from 06.08.2010 to 18.02.2011. 06.08.2010 is the date of final publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1984. Without going into the fact of the authenticity of Ex.P.-18, even if it is admitted, it would show that it was given on 19.10.2010 and not in the year 2007. The evidence is not on record to show that the land in question, which was acquired, the possession was taken in the year 2007 and it is only the oral statement of the appellant that the appellant was sanguine of the fact that without any acquisition of land, possession of the land was taken over. It was expected that some better evidence should be placed on record to evaluate such fact. In absence thereof, positive inference in favour of the appellant cannot be drawn. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that no interference is required in the order of the learned referral Court. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.