JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants had filed the present Regular First Appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), against the award, dated 19th July, 2013, passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge (I), Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’), in Reference Petition No. 40 of 2007, titled as Gian Chand versus Collector, HPSEB and another, whereby the Reference Petition was ordered to be dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned Reference Court. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under: 3.1. The State of Himachal Pradesh has acquired the land of the petitioners, situated in Village Sanahali, for the construction of Uhl Hydel Project Stage-III. The notification, under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21st March, 2005, which was given wide publicity, as per the mandate of the Act. Thereafter, the notification, under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 25th August, 2005 and ultimately, vide award No. 308, dated 7th June, 2007, the land in Village Sanahali, Tehsil Lad Bharol, District Mandi, H.P. was acquired. The land of the petitioner was also the subject matter of the said award. 3.2. Dissatisfied from the market value, as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, a prayer had been made to the Land Acquisition Collector, to refer the matter to the learned District Judge, as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Act. This reference petition was referred by the Land Acquisition Collector to the learned District Judge, for adjudication by referring the objection of the petitioner that the Award is low and inadequate. 3.3. In the petition, under Section 18 of the Act, the inadequacy of the award has been pleaded, on the ground that the inadequate compensation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, as, according to the petitioner, the market value of the acquired land, at the relevant time, was more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per biswa. 3.4. 3.3. In the petition, under Section 18 of the Act, the inadequacy of the award has been pleaded, on the ground that the inadequate compensation has been assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, as, according to the petitioner, the market value of the acquired land, at the relevant time, was more than Rs. 2,00,000/- per biswa. 3.4. It is the further case of the petitioner that while assessing the market value of the acquired land, at the time of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector has ignored the sale deed of the same Mohal. Similarly, the value of the house is also stated to have been assessed on the lower side, as, according to the petitioner, the value of the house was not less than Rs. 15,00,000/-. 3.5. Highlighting the commercial potentiality of the land, it has been pleaded that the acquired land is situated on the State Highway, i.e. Baijnath-Sarkaghat Road. In addition to this, according to the petitioner, there were fruit bearing plants, over the acquired land, for which, no compensation has been assessed. 4. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made by the petitioner, to enhance the market value of the acquired land, by answering the reference, in his favour. 4.1. When put to notice, the reference petition has been contested, on the ground, that the petition is not maintainable; the petition is barred by time; and is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. In addition to this, another plea has also been taken that the petitioner has not handed over the possession of the house, as well as, the acquired land, to the respondents, even after receiving the entire value of the properties, which act of the petitioner is stated to be unwarranted, illegal and wrong. 4.2. Rest of the contents of the petition, with regard to the issuance of the notification and acquisition of the land, have not been disputed. According to the respondents, the Land Acquisition Collector has rightly assessed the market value of the land, after considering all the facts and circumstances. 4.3. Hence, a prayer has been made to decide the reference petition, against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder, denying the preliminary objections, as well as, stand of the respondents. According to the respondents, the Land Acquisition Collector has rightly assessed the market value of the land, after considering all the facts and circumstances. 4.3. Hence, a prayer has been made to decide the reference petition, against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has filed the rejoinder, denying the preliminary objections, as well as, stand of the respondents. The fact with regard to the fact that the possession has not been handed over to the respondents, is stated to be false. 5.1. According to the petitioner, half portion of the land and house of the petitioner has been acquired, whereas, he has been requesting the authorities to acquire his entire house, as well as, the land. The other contents of the reply have also been denied, by re-asserting that of the petition. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed by the learned Reference Court, vide order, dated 23rd April, 2012: “1. Whether inadequate compensation has been paid to the petitioners? OPP 2. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 3. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPR 4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 5. Relief.” 7. Thereafter, the parties to the reference petition were directed to adduce evidence. 8. After the closure of the evidence, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Reference Court has dismissed the reference petition, vide order, impugned herein. 9. The reference petition has been dismissed by the learned Reference Court, on the ground, that the petitioner has properly been compensated, in this case. 10. Another ground, upon which, the reference petition has been decided, against the petitioner, is that the conduct of the petitioner shows that he has not delivered the possession of the property, as such, he is not entitled for the enhancement of the compensation. 11. These findings have been assailed by the petitioner, by filing the present appeal. In the present appeal, the findings of the learned Reference Court have been called in question on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector has not properly assessed the market value of the acquired land. According to the petitioner, the evidence adduced on the file, has not been considered properly. 12. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. In the present appeal, the findings of the learned Reference Court have been called in question on the ground that the Land Acquisition Collector has not properly assessed the market value of the acquired land. According to the petitioner, the evidence adduced on the file, has not been considered properly. 12. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-appellant, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, by enhancing the amount of compensation, awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. 13. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-appellant has also relied upon the decision, dated 18th May, 2017, of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No. 17 of 2012, titled as Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board, Shimla versus Jonda Ram (deceased) through LRs Sh. Nagender Kumar & other, and connected matter, as well as, the decision, dated 24th May, 2017, rendered in RFA No. 190 of 2012, titled as HPSEB Ltd. versus Amar Singh, and connected matters. 14. Perusal of the record shows that while deciding issue No. 1, the learned Reference Court has decided the reference against the petitioner, mainly, on the ground that the possession has not been handed over by him. As such, he has been held to be not entitled for enhancement of the compensation. 15. The provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, are reproduced, as under: “18. Reference to Court. - (1) Any person interested who has not accepted the award may, by written application to the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. (2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken: PROVIDED THAT every such application shall be made, - (a) if the person making it was present or represented before the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award; (b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2), or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever period shall first expire. FURTHER PROVIDED THAT Collector may entertain an application under this section, after the expiry of the period of six weeks but within a period of six months, if he is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. (2-A) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the State Government may, where the acquisition of land is not for the purposes of the Union and it considers the amount of compensation allowed by the award under Sec. 11 to be excessive, require the Collector by written application that the matter be referred by him to the court for determination of the amount of compensation. Explanation – In any case of land under Part VII, the requisition under this sub-section may be made by the State Government at the request of the company on its undertaking to pay all the cost consequent upon such requisition. (2-B) The requisition shall state the grounds on which objection to the award is taken and shall be made within six months of the date of award. (3) Any order made by the Collector on an application under this section shall be subject to revision by the High Court, as if the Collector were a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908). 19. Collector’s statement to the Court. - (1) In making the reference, the Collector shall state for the information of the Court, in writing under his hand, - (a) the situation and extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon; (b) the names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land; (c) the amount awarded for damages and paid or tendered under sections 5 and 17, or either of them, and the amount of compensation awarded under section 11; (cc) the amount paid or deposited under sub-section (3-A) of section 17; and (d) if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined. (2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the parties interested respectively.” 16. (2) To the said statement shall be attached a schedule giving the particulars of the notices served upon, and of the statements in writing made or delivered by the parties interested respectively.” 16. Bare reading of these provisions shows that the Court, to whom, the reference has been made, has been called upon to answer the reference. As per Section 19 (1) (d) of the Act, the grounds of objection have to be mentioned by the Land Acquisition Collector, while making the reference to the Court. 17. When, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has used the word ‘Reference’, in Section 18 of the Act, and the language, that, ‘if the objection be to the amount of the compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined’, then, the jurisdiction of the Court, to whom the reference has been made, is confined to answer the reference, or, decide the reference. The scope cannot be enhanced by the learned Reference Court for considering the plea, which is outside the scope of Section 18 of the Act. 18. In Section 18 of the Act, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has confined the scope of the petition, regarding the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, or the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested. Except for the disputes, as mentioned in Section 18 of the Act, the learned Reference Court cannot decide any other question, even if, the same has been raised by the respondents, in reply to the reference petition. 19. The Land Acquisition Collector, in this case, in stead of determining the question, which has been referred to it, has dis-entitled the petitioner, for seeking the enhancement of the compensation, mainly, on the ground, that he has not handed over the possession of the acquired land, which is outside the scope of the reference. 20. The learned Reference Court was supposed to answer the reference and not to travel beyond the scope of the reference. Hence, the findings of the learned Reference Court, as contained in para 21 of the award, which is reproduced hereinbelow, are held to be outside the scope of the reference and as such, award, dated 19th July, 2013, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside, by allowing the appeal. “21. Hence, the findings of the learned Reference Court, as contained in para 21 of the award, which is reproduced hereinbelow, are held to be outside the scope of the reference and as such, award, dated 19th July, 2013, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside, by allowing the appeal. “21. The petitioner has not handed over the possession of the acquired land which is admitted by petitioner as well as respondent. Previously he has filed an application for demarcation and after demarcation filed an appeal before Divisional Commissioner which has caused great loss to the respondent per day. Who seeks equity must do equity. The cost of land and house has already been given to him. He has prayed for extension of time twice which was given to him and since then petitioner has not left the possession till date. The sale deed placed on record is for the land which is less than one biswas and which is of no use to the case of the petitioner. In view of the law laid down supra and the conduct of petitioner, he has already been properly compensated and the respondents are even ready to denotify the acquisition qua land of petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner shows that he has not delivered the possession and since he has not delivered the possession he is not entitled for the enhancement of the compensation. Though the respondent has properly assessed the compensation qua his land and house when it was acquired.” 21. Once, it has been held that the learned Reference Court was bound to answer the reference, which was made to it, then, the question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is with regard to the amount of compensation, for which, the petitioner is entitled to, in this case, for the land and house, which were acquired by the respondents. 22. Perusal of the record shows that the respondents before the learned Reference Court, have relied upon the award, Ex. RW-1/A, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, in a bunch of reference petitions, lead whereof was Reference Petition No. 46 of 2006, titled as Roop Chand versus Collector Land Acquisition, HPSEB, Mandi, whereby, the following relief has been granted, to the petitioners therein: “41. RW-1/A, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, in a bunch of reference petitions, lead whereof was Reference Petition No. 46 of 2006, titled as Roop Chand versus Collector Land Acquisition, HPSEB, Mandi, whereby, the following relief has been granted, to the petitioners therein: “41. In view of my aforesaid discussions, reference petitions are allowed with costs and the petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 14,035/- per biswas in respect of acquired land from the date of notification i.e. 4.06.2003 till the date of award i.e. 29.06.2005. 23. The subject matter of those reference petitions was the land, which was acquired for Uhl Hydel Project, Stage-III and the notification, under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 17th May, 2003, whereas, in this case, the notification, under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 21st March, 2005. 24. In this case, the petitioner has placed much reliance upon the sale deed, Ex. PW-1/A, for being treated as exemplar sale deed, for determining the market value of the acquired land. Perusal of the said document shows that 19 biswas of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. This sale deed was executed on 5th October, 2002, whereas, notification, under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21st March, 2005. Meaning thereby, the sale deed, copy of which is Ex. PW-1/A, was executed about thirty months prior to the date of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act. 25. The subject matter of the said sale deed was the land in Village Chullah and the land acquired, in the present case, is situated in Village Sanahali, which is adjoining village and the land of the said village was also acquired for the same purpose, for which, the land, in the present case, has been acquired. In such situation, the sale deed, Ex. PW-1/A, can be treated as exemplar sale deed, to determine the market value of the acquired land, prevailing at the time of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act. 26. There is nothing on the record to show that the sale deed, Ex. PW-1/A, was a sham transaction, as, the same was executed thirty months prior to the date of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act. 27. 26. There is nothing on the record to show that the sale deed, Ex. PW-1/A, was a sham transaction, as, the same was executed thirty months prior to the date of issuance of the notification, under Section 4 of the Act. 27. In such situation, the market value of the land comes to Rs. 1053 x 20 = Rs. 21052 x 20 = Rs. 4,21,052/- per bigha. Since, the land was acquired for construction of Uhl Hydel Project, as such, the market value of the acquired land is held to be Rs. 4,21,052/- per bigha, irrespective of the kind and nature of the acquired land. 28. So far as the value of the house, situated over the acquired land, is concerned, the evidence of the petitioner, as well as, PW-3, Tejender Kaushal, is too short to conclude that the adequate compensation has not been awarded for the structure, situated over the acquired land. 29. In view of the above discussion, the award passed by the learned Reference Court is set aside and the market value of the acquired land, prevailing at the time of notification, under Section 4 of the Act, is held to be Rs. 4,21,052/- per bigha, irrespective of the kind and quality of the land acquired, alongwith the statutory interest, in the following terms: (a) The petitioners shall also be entitled to solatium @ 30% on the amount, as stated aforesaid; (b) The petitioners shall also be entitled for additional compensation @ 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act w.e.f. 21st March, 2005, the date of notification, under Section 4 of the Act, till the date of award of the Land Acquisition Collector, i.e. 7th June, 2007; and (c) The petitioners shall also be entitled to interest under Section 28 of the Act on the amount assessed under sub section (1) of Section 23 of the Act, the additional compensation worked out under sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Act, plus, solatium awarded under sub-section 23 of the Act, at the rate of 9% per annum on the value assessed from the date of award and thereafter, @ 15% per annum till the date of payment/deposit of the amount of compensation in accordance with Section 34 of the Act. 30. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. 31. Send down the record.