JUDGMENT : Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This first appeal has been filed under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 against the Judgement dated 15.06.2023 (Decree dated 28.06.2023) passed by learned Principal District & Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka in Land Acquisition Case No.24 of 2020, arising out of the reference made by District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar vide Letter dated 18.02.2020 in connection with Land Acquisition Case No.37 of 2017-2018 whereby the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge-cum-Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Dumka, has refused to interfere with Award No.13 wherein the appellants were claiming enhancement of the compensation in connection with the structure on the acquired land. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that two awards were prepared, one was Award No.4 for the land in connection with which the appellants have no grievance and the other was Award No.13 in connection with the building on the land. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that issue no.(i) as to “whether the land and structure acquired by the respondents exist in commercial area of Deoghar” has been decided in favour of the appellants inasmuch as it has been held that the land and structure acquired by the respondents exist in urban residential market area/commercial area, but the learned court has refused to enhance the value of the structure standing thereon. He submitted that the property consisted of residential-cum-shop building; in the front portion, there was shop having a commercial connection of electricity and at the back, there was a residential house. The learned counsel submitted that since the property was in the commercial area, therefore, the valuation of the building should also have been taken in terms of the commercial, and therefore, the award in connection with the Award No.13 calls for interference and the amount of compensation be enhanced. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer, submitted that as per the materials placed on record, every aspect of the building has been taken into consideration. The building was not purely commercial, rather only a portion of which was used as shop. The appellants did not place on record any material for appreciation of the learned court in order to enhance the compensation. The building was not purely commercial, rather only a portion of which was used as shop. The appellants did not place on record any material for appreciation of the learned court in order to enhance the compensation. He submitted that it was for the appellants to place on record appropriate material for enhancement. He submitted that even the valuation of the house as on 2017-2018 was not produced by the appellants for consideration of the concerned court. In absence of any evidence placed on record by the appellants seeking enhancement of compensation with respect to the house structure, the learned court has rightly refused to interfere with the Award No.13. 6. Considering the nature of the dispute, the sole point for determination is as to “ whether the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation for the house/building standing on the acquired land ” 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the land and building of the appellants were acquired in the year 2017-2018 and the award was prepared separately in connection with the land and the building. The award in connection with the land was Award No.4 and the Award in connection with the building was Award No.13. 8. The learned court had framed the following issues for consideration: (i) Whether the land and structure acquired by the O.P. exist in commercial area of Deoghar? (ii) Whether the acquired land is transferable Basauri land? If so, its effect? (iii) Whether the award No.4 and 13 against the compensation of acquired land and house have been prepared without considering the market value of acquired property as per provisions of Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013? (iv) Whether the petitioners/awardees are entitled to enhancement of the amount of compensation?” 9. The appellants examined two witnesses namely, PW-1 Ashutosh Pandey and PW-2 Ali Amjad in support of their case. PW-1 filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit wherein he stated that the land measuring 765 square feet appertaining to Khata No.2 (2/2902) T.P. No. 8/T.P. (1457) situated at Mouza- Madhusudan Chhorath, Thana No.255 has been acquired for Railway Overbridge Jasidih and Level Crossing 04/E Satsang Nagar of Baidyanathdham Railway Station. The acquired land is in the name of his nani namely, Lalmani Devya vide Sale Deed No.4948 dated 12.12.1975 and her name has been mutated and rent is being paid in her name. The acquired land is in the name of his nani namely, Lalmani Devya vide Sale Deed No.4948 dated 12.12.1975 and her name has been mutated and rent is being paid in her name. He exhibited the original rent receipt No.004992 dated 16.10.2016 as Exhibit-2. Lalmani Devya had only one daughter namely, Divambari Devi. The husband of Divambari Devi namely, Abhay Kumar Pandey has died on 03.06.2021. He further stated that the holding tax of the said land is being paid in the name of his father namely, Abhay Kumar Pandey to Deoghar Municipal Corporation. He exhibited the Holding Receipt No. 139027328022022043129 dated 28.02.2022 as Exhibit-3 and original Water Tax Receipt No. 3772442812022124559 dated 28.01.2022 as Exhibit-4. He stated that the claimants are the sons and daughters of Abhay Kumar Pandey. He further stated that he had commercial establishment on the acquired land which was situated adjacent to the Satsang Bhirkhibad Main Road and there was Lethe Machine in his shop and Grill Gate work was also done there and for the same, a commercial electric connection was taken vide Consumer No. SSLTIS 6853. He exhibited the original Commercial electric Bill depositing receipt as Exhibit-5. He stated that the acquired land was totally commercial, the award amount for the acquired land is meagre. He further stated that Deoghar is a developed town, but the award has not been prepared accordingly. He exhibited the Valuation list received under the Right to Informant Act as Exhibit-6. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,11,98,200/- against the acquired land. During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-26 that the shop was situated in the front portion and they were residing in the back portion of the acquired house in Deoghar. He also admitted at Para-27 that the electricity bill was generated in the name of his brother Bijay Pandey and at Para-28, he admitted that there are two electricity connections, one is commercial and the other is for residential and he has not filed the residential electric bill. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief filed on affidavit stated the same facts as stated by PW-1. During his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that there is a road in between Mouza- Hirna and Mouza- Madhusudan Chhorath and the acquired land is situated at a distance of 4 kilometres from Baba Baidyanath Temple. 10. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief filed on affidavit stated the same facts as stated by PW-1. During his cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that there is a road in between Mouza- Hirna and Mouza- Madhusudan Chhorath and the acquired land is situated at a distance of 4 kilometres from Baba Baidyanath Temple. 10. The appellants exhibited the following documents before the learned trial court: Exhibit 1- Certified copy of sale deed bearing No. 4948/75 Exhibit 2- Original rent receipt No.004992 dated 16.10.2016 Exhibit 3- Holding receipt No. 139027328022022043129 dated 28.02.2022 Exhibit 4- Water tax receipt No. 3772442812022124559 dated28.01.2022 Exhibit 5- Commercial electric Bill depositing receipt Exhibit 6- Valuation list received under R.T.I. Act. Exhibit 7- Certified copy of order dated 12.08.1976 passed in Mutation Case No. 103/76-77 by C.O., Deoghar. 11. On the other hand, the opposite parties/respondents examined two witnesses namely, O.P. No.1 Rishi Raj and O.P. No.2 Alok Kumar. O.P. No.1 is the Circle Inspector, Deoghar. He filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that the award has been prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar for 1.756 decimals of land under Jamabandi No.2 of Madhusudan Chhorath and the Award No.4 has been prepared on the basis of Letter No.1071 dated 09.08.2018 issued by the Circle Officer, Deoghar and the acquired land is raiyati and non-transferable. He further stated that the acquired land was not commercial and there was neither commercial establishment on the acquired land, nor it does not come under the commercial area. During cross-examination, he admitted at Para-9 that Mouza- Madhusudan Chhorath Satsang Mikhirbad is situated at some distance from the main road, but the same is not main road, but vehicles move from there. He further admitted at Para-10 that the Collectorate, S.P Office, Civil Court and Satsang Railway Station are near, but Baba Temple is at a distance of 2 kilometres from there. He also admitted at Para-11 that earlier there was little movement of vehicles, but after construction of the bridge, large number of vehicles are running. 12. O.P. No.2 is an Amin posed in the District Land Acquisition Office, Deoghar. In his examination-in-chief filed on affidavit, he stated the same facts as stated by O.P. No.1. He stated that the claim of the appellants that the acquired land is commercial is totally wrong and after verifying all the facts, the award has been prepared. 12. O.P. No.2 is an Amin posed in the District Land Acquisition Office, Deoghar. In his examination-in-chief filed on affidavit, he stated the same facts as stated by O.P. No.1. He stated that the claim of the appellants that the acquired land is commercial is totally wrong and after verifying all the facts, the award has been prepared. He further deposed that there was neither commercial establishment, nor the acquired land comes under the commercial area. During cross-examination, he admitted that he has seen the khatiyan as per which the land is raiyati. He further admitted that the Collectorate, Civil Court, college, Baba Temple, Jasidih Station and AIIMS are near to the acquired land. 13. Vide order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the court, the opposite parties/respondents exhibited the original Letter No.167/Bhu dated 14.02.2023 alongwith Order No.01/2017 and valuation chart as Exhibit-A (with Objection) in support of their claim. 14. With respect to Issue No.(i), the learned court considered the materials on record and held that the building was residential-cum-commercial in the sense that front portion of the building was having a shop. The building had two electricity connections, one was residential and the other was commercial. The learned trial court decided the Issue No.(i) in favour of the appellants. 15. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants has not pointed out any illegality in the matter of appreciation of the evidence while dealing with Issue No.(i) and the nature and the use of the building and while deciding the Issue No.(i), the learned court has come to a finding as follows: “It is admitted case that in front portion of the acquired house of the petitioner/awardee, shop is situated in which he was doing his business and in back portion of the acquired land, applicant / awardee was residing, hence in my view the acquired land is situated in urban residential market area/commercial area. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners/awardee that the land and structure acquired by the Opposite party exist in the urban residential market area/commercial area.” 16. Hence, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners/awardee that the land and structure acquired by the Opposite party exist in the urban residential market area/commercial area.” 16. So far as Issue No.(ii) is concerned, the same was also decided in favour of the appellants and the findings are as under: “It is also pertinent to mention here that in the Sale deed (Exhibit-1), nowhere it is mentioned that land is Basauri or transferable and also in Mutation Order (Exhibit-7), it is not mentioned that land is transferable. But as per Exhibit-1 & 7, two times name of the purchasers were mutated in the office of the Circle Officer, Deoghar. On the other hand, objector/State claimed that as report of the C.O., land is not transferable, but the said report has not been produced by the objector/State before the Tribunal. It is presumption that every work done by the Government Officer is done rightly and correctly. In this case, mutation of land-in-question was done two times in the name of purchasers, hence in absence of the documents of the land, court can presume that land is basauri transferrable, that’s why its mutation was done by the C.O. two times. In the light of above facts and discussion, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner/awardees.” 17. While deciding the Issue Nos.(iii) and (iv), the learned court considered the quantum of compensation with respect to the Award Nos.4 and 13. So far as the Award No.4 is concerned, the compensation was enhanced and the findings are as under: “….. … In the light of above discussion, I find that compensation of acquired land has been prepared without considering the market value of acquired property as per provisions of Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013. Hence, as per Section 26 of the Act, the compensation for the land of the petitioner/awardee comes to 1.756 x 1437430.8 = 2524128.4848. … In the light of above discussion, I find that compensation of acquired land has been prepared without considering the market value of acquired property as per provisions of Section 26 of the Act 30 of 2013. Hence, as per Section 26 of the Act, the compensation for the land of the petitioner/awardee comes to 1.756 x 1437430.8 = 2524128.4848. Besides, as per Section 30 of the Act in addition to the above compensation amount payable to the petitioners/awardees, they are also entitled to get “solatium” amount equivalent to one hundred per cent of the said compensation amount.” So far as the award no.13, which is related to the house, is concerned, as per objector valuation of the house has been done by the Executive Engineer of the Building Division, Deoghar and he has done actual valuation of the acquired house as per prevailing rate of that time. On the other hand, petitioner / awardee has claimed that actual valuation of the house has not been done, but from perusal of the record, I find that no chit of paper has been submitted by the petitioner/awardee to show what was the actual valuation rate of the house in the year 2017-18. It is pertinent to mention that burden of proof is on petitioner / awardee to prove that actual or correct valuation of the house has not been done, but not a single chit of paper has been produced by the petitioner/awardee to show that what was the correct valuation of house according to him. In the above facts, I am of the view that no chit of paper is available on record to show that what is the correct valuation of the house situated on acquired land and petitioner/awardee has not been able to discharge his burden of proof. Hence, petitioners/awardees are not entitled to get the enhancement of the compensation of the house situated on the acquired land. Accordingly, above issues are decided partly in favour of the petitioners/awardees.” O R D E R Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that the petitioners/objectors are entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 2524128.48/- (Rs. Twenty five lakh twenty four thousand one hundred twenty eight point four eight only, plus 100% solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation for the award no. 4 for their land. 2524128.48/- (Rs. Twenty five lakh twenty four thousand one hundred twenty eight point four eight only, plus 100% solatium on the enhanced amount of compensation for the award no. 4 for their land. The Opposite Party/State is directed to pay the aforesaid enhanced compensation amount within a period of three months to the petitioners/awardees and to correct the Award No.4 of the petitioners/objectors accordingly. So far Award No.13 is concerned, the petitioners are not entitled to get any enhancement, except the compensation awarded by the D.L.A.O, Deoghar for the house situated on the acquired land. Office to prepare an award. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar for information and needful.” 18. So far as Award No.13 is concerned, the learned trial court has recorded that the valuation was done by the Executive Engineer of Building Division, Deoghar, and on the other hand, the awardees claimed that the valuation was not done as per actual valuation. However, it was recorded that the awardees did not produce any document to show what was the actual valuation and rate of the house in the year 2017-2018 and in absence of any evidence from the side of the awardees, the learned trial court refused to enhance the awarded amount of Award No.13. 19. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the appellants has not been able to show any evidence from the records received from the concerned court to show as to what material was produced by the appellants before the learned court seeking enhancement of compensation of Award No.13 relating to building over the acquired land. The appellants admittedly did not produce even the valuation of the building at the time of acquisition as back as in the year 2017-2018. 20. This Court has also gone through the records as received and finds that no material has been produced from the side of the appellants with regard to valuation of the construction for which the appellants were seeking enhancement of compensation. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the judgement passed by the learned trial court refusing to enhance the compensation under Award No.13 does not call for any interference, and accordingly, the first appeal is hereby dismissed. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 23. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the judgement passed by the learned trial court refusing to enhance the compensation under Award No.13 does not call for any interference, and accordingly, the first appeal is hereby dismissed. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 23. Office is to prepare decree accordingly.