JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2016 passed by the Principal District Judge, Anantnag (for short “Reference Court”) in a reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act (for short “Act”). 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment as also trial court record and considered the matter. 3. Perusal of the file reveals that the department of Urban Local Bodies in the year 2004 placed a formal indent for acquisition of land measuring 04 Kanals and 16 Marlas and 04 Sirsai under Survey Nos.504, 505, 506 at village Kasba Dooru, Anantnag, before the Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag, who has notified the same under Section 4 of the Act. The case was recommended for issuance of declaration and accordingly notices under Section 9 and 9-A of the Act was issued on 19.11.2005 for seeking objections from the interested persons. The Collector passed the Final Award on 22.02.2007. The compensation was fixed to the tune of Rs.26,56,418/- for the land acquired for the public purposes i.e. Rs.18,750/- per Marla. The Appellant-Department deposited the whole amount with the Collector Land Acquisition for disbursement amongst the landowners. Some of the landowners accepted the award and received the compensation. However, the respondents herein submitted an application for making reference of the matter under Section 18 of the Act. The Collector referred the matter to the Reference Court on 29.12.2007, who admitted the reference and proceedings were initiated in ex parte against the Appellant herein, in view of the order dated 24.09.2009 and finally passed a judgment on 20.06.2016, enhancing compensation from Rs.18,750/- per Marla to Rs.40,000/- per Marla and in addition to this 15% of Jabirana @ 6% interest on the awarded amount from the date of issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Act along with an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as litigation charges has also been directed by the Reference Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment has been passed by the Court below in ex parte without there being any proper service upon the appellant herein. 25,000/- as litigation charges has also been directed by the Reference Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment has been passed by the Court below in ex parte without there being any proper service upon the appellant herein. The matter was referred to the Reference Court on 29.12.2007 and till final judgment dated 20.06.2016, more than 8 years, has lapsed and even the respondents in between have produced different documents and the Reference Court without seeking objections from the appellant, has accepted the same. The compensation has been increased from Rs.18,750/- per Marla to Rs.40,000/- per Marla, which is totally bad in law and against the mandate of Section 23 of the Act as it provides that the Court, before enhancing compensation, has to find out what was the market value of the land at the time of publication of the declaration relating to Section 6. The respondents did not produce any document showing the market value, however, they produced some sale deeds before the Reference Court which are not sufficient for enhancing the compensation. It is also averred that respondents have also produced some witnesses’ along with documents which are either their relatives or neighbours who have willfully and deliberately tried to support their claim and the Reference Court has not bothered to cross-examine the said witnesses to establish the correct facts. It is stated that Collector after receiving the report regarding the market value of the land at the relevant point of time from the Tehsidar concerned and thereafter on the basis of said report, passed the award. He would also contend that the reason given by the Reference Court for enhancing the compensation does not coincide with the mandate of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act and the reference was just a suit under law, therefore, the Reference Court was under a legal obligation to hold a detailed enquiry into the matter by providing equal chance of hearing and production of documents. 5. As is evident from perusal of the file, the Trial Court while entertaining the reference issued notice to interested persons as also Collector and indenting department. Appellant as also proforma respondent herein, though served, did not appear before the Reference Court, as such, it was left with no option but to set them ex parte vide order dated 22.09.2009. 5. As is evident from perusal of the file, the Trial Court while entertaining the reference issued notice to interested persons as also Collector and indenting department. Appellant as also proforma respondent herein, though served, did not appear before the Reference Court, as such, it was left with no option but to set them ex parte vide order dated 22.09.2009. Taking into account the case set up by the interested persons/respondents, the Reference court framed following issues: i) Whether petitioners were the owners-in-possession of the land measuring 4 Kanals 14 Marlas and 4 Sirsai under Survey Nos. 504 (14 Marlas), 505 (2 Kanals, 17 Marlas) and 506min (1 Kanal, 3 Marlas 4 Sirsai) situated at Qasba Dooru, which has been acquired un Land Acquisition Act for construction of Bus Stand at Dooru ? … OPP. ii) Whether the compensation has not been assessed as per the market rate and , if so, what was the market value of the suit land, on the date of acquisition ? ….OPP iii) Relief. 6. After framing the issues, the contesting respondents herein adduced the witnesses, who were also cross-examined. It is clear from the reference itself that there is no dispute with regard to contesting respondents’ title over the land in question, besides, relying on certified copies of two uncontroverted sale deeds, appellant herein did not produce any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence brought on record by the landowners/respondents. The minimum market price of the land at the time of issuance of notification for acquiring the land in question was Rs.50,000/- per Marla and the certified copies of the sale deeds placed on record proved that the price of the land adjacent to the land in question, at the time when it was acquired, was Rs.55,000/- Par Marla. 7. One of the land owner’s witness, namely, Mushtaq Ahmad Malik, has deposed that the rate given to the landowners is not adequate because in the year 2004, one Mohammad Yousuf Wani sold two marlas of land for a consideration amount of Rs.1,25,000/-and another person Sajad Ahmad Wani also sold two marlas of land for consideration amount of Rs.1,00,000/- In this way, in the year 2007, price of the one marla of land would have been around Rs.70,000/- but Government paid inadequate compensation to the landowners and not as per the prevalent market value. Further, with respect to around 80 willows and poplar standing trees, planted by the landowners, some 20 years back, in the land acquired by the Government, no compensation was given to the landowners for these trees. Though it was agriculture land yet near the bus stand and, as such, having commercial utility. Perusal of the file as well as sale deeds, registered by the Sub Registrar in the year 2004, reveals that the executants there had also sold two marlas of land near Munsiff Court Dooru for Rs.1,00,000/- that is at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per Marla, which is situated at same place, in same lane and the distance from their land to the land acquired by the Government is only 100 feet. The award itself reflects that the land in question is situated within the Municipal Limits of Dooru Town, which could have been utilized for business purpose and for constructing shopping complex and the Collector himself has also opined that the land in question could be used for commercial purpose then how he has declined to assess the value of the land as per the consideration amount mentioned in the sale deeds produced before him, which were in respect of land situated at same place and same lane where the land in question is situated. 8. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration while acquiring the land are provided in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, which reads as under: - “23. Matters to be considered in determining compensation. 8. The relevant factors to be taken into consideration while acquiring the land are provided in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition 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 declaration relating thereto under Section 6; 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 person 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. (2) 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 in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition.” 9. The aspects and factors as stipulated in Section 23 of the Act have not been taken note of by Collector while making the award for the land acquired for public purpose, viz. extension of Bus Stand Dooru. It is apparent and evident from the purpose itself that the land in question is having commercial value and this fact cannot be overlooked or ignored by anyone muchless by the Reference Court. This important fact has not been taken into consideration by the Collector while awarding the compensation. extension of Bus Stand Dooru. It is apparent and evident from the purpose itself that the land in question is having commercial value and this fact cannot be overlooked or ignored by anyone muchless by the Reference Court. This important fact has not been taken into consideration by the Collector while awarding the compensation. He has not taken into account the fact that the land was a commercial land and had commercial value. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the Collector should have taken into consideration while passing the award that the land which has been acquired by the appellant is the only source of livelihood and the land is close to the Bus Stand and has, as such, a commercial value. The compensation awarded by Collector was meagre which has been rightly enhanced by the Reference Court after taking into consideration all the evidences produced by the landowners. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Reference Court does not call for any interference in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. 11. In view of the above, I find no merit in the instant appeal and is, accordingly, dismissed.