JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.D. Sanjay, learned Senior Counsel cum Additional Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Y. Doloi, learned senior panel counsel for the Govt. of India/appellants and also heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1-103, Ms. P. Sangita, learned Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, appearing for the respondent No.104 and Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the respondent No.105 in L.A. App. No.01/2024. 1.1 Also heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1-103 and Mr. Y. Doloi, learned senior panel counsel for the Govt. of India/respondent Nos.104-107 in L.A. App. No.03/2024 , which is filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh. 1.2 Also heard Mr. M. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1-103 in L.A. App. No.04/2024 , which is filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh and another. 2. As in all these three appeals, under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013, the appellant(s) have challenged the same judgment and award, dated 19.10.2024, and the order dated 30.10.2024, passed by the learned Reference Authority-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basar, Leparada District, Arunachal Pradesh (Reference Court) in Basar Reference Case No.02/2024 , it is proposed to dispose of all the three appeals, being L.A. App. Nos. 01, 03 and 04/2024 by this common judgment and order. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment and award dated 19.10.2024, and the order dated 30.10.2024, the learned Reference Court had allowed the reference petition, filed by the petitioners/respondents herein and enhanced the market value of the acquired horticultural land at Rs.500/- per sq.m., instead of earlier awarded market value of Rs.150/- per sq.m., as awarded by the proforma respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, Basar, Leparada District. The learned Reference Court has also awarded other statutory benefits of multiplication factor 2 on the market value with 100% solatium on enhanced market value along with interest @12%, under Section 30(3) read with Section 69 (2) as well as Section 72 and 80 of the LARR Act, 2013 on enhanced rate as statutorily provided @9% for first year and thereafter, @15% per annum, respectively. 3.1. For ready reference the impugned award is reproduced herein below:- AWARD.... 185. 3.1. For ready reference the impugned award is reproduced herein below:- AWARD.... 185. In view of the material exhibits of the parties, oral evidence as well as oral and written argument, the Awarded rate made by the Collector in his calculation at the rates of Rs. 150, is enhanced to rate of Rs. 500/- as an enhanced market value determined herein with recourse to provisions of Section 69 of the LARR Act, 2013 read with Section 26 of the LARR Act, 2013. And the petitioners should be compensated, accordingly, at the said enhanced rates. 186. Therefore, the compensation for market value payable to the petitioners shall be determined at the round off rate of Rs. 500/- per sqm. which would, thus, stand at around Rs. 1,08,65,80,933/- for total area of 21,73,161.866 sqm. of area acquired as acquired under category of Horticulture land instead of the earlier determined compensation of Rs. 32,59,74,250.80/-. The amount is to be deposited in this Court within one month after proper calculation by the DC Leparada. 187. The petitioners are entitled to a multiplication factor of 2 (two) as per Section 26 (2) of the LARR Act, 2013. 188. The petitioners are entitled to award of Solatium @ 100% on total compensation amount as per Section 30 (1) read with Section 69 (3) and also award of 12 % interest under Section 30 (3) read with Section 69 (2) of the LARR Act, 2013. 189. The petitioners are not entitled to any cost of the proceedings. Background Facts:- 4. The background facts leading to filing of the present appeals are briefly stated as under:- "The Government of India, Ministry of Defence has accorded sanction for acquiring a parcel of land measuring 537 acres on the basis of market value of the land @Rs.150/- per sq.m., vide letter No.569/US(L)/D(L)/2021, dated 16.02.2023 and the same was also approved by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. The Deputy Commissioner, Leparada District, vide letter No.LRD/LM-51/20-21/6787-89, dated 02.02.2023, clarified that the land classification and land rate was specified as per new Land Manual Notification, dated 06.09.2022, published by the Secretary, Land Management Department, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh for acquisition of land in Arunachal Pradesh. In the said Land Manual, published by the Land Management Department, also specified that multiplication factor would be 1 for all acquisition cases in Arunachal Pradesh. of Arunachal Pradesh for acquisition of land in Arunachal Pradesh. In the said Land Manual, published by the Land Management Department, also specified that multiplication factor would be 1 for all acquisition cases in Arunachal Pradesh. The Land Management Department also published land rates for all the districts of Arunachal Pradesh for particular classification of land, which is taken as the sole basis for acquisition cases in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as sale deeds are not registered to determine the market value of the land. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Basar, Leparada District, published the award, under Section 37 of the LARR Act, 2013 on 13.11.2023 and pursuant to the said award, the total acquisition compensation was disbursed to the land owners on 21.11.2023 and the same was accepted by the land owners without any protest. Thereafter, one Dagli Riba, power of attorney holder, had filed Basar Reference Case No.02/2024 under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 and submitted a notarized power of attorney allegedly stated to be given by the ex-land owners, thereby seeking higher compensation in respect of 537 acres of land acquired for the construction of Corps Ammunition Point against the award passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Basar, on 13.11.2023. The said reference petition was initially forwarded to the learned District & Sessions Judge, Aalo by the Deputy Commissioner, Basar, Leparada District and the same stood transferred to the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Basar and then the reference case was numbered as Basar Reference Case No.02/2024. Thereafter, on receipt of summons in the said reference case, the appellants/respondents initially filed one interlocutory application, being I.A. No.11/2024, with a prayer to implead the Secretary, Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, as a necessary party, but the said prayer was rejected vide order dated 09.08.2024. But similar petition filed by the Secretary, Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh was allowed and the said respondent was added as a proforma party. Thereafter, the appellants/respondents entered appearance and contested the above reference petition on merit and filed a joint written statement denying the respondents‘ claim of enhanced compensation and objected to the maintainability of the reference petition in its present form, challenging inter alia amongst others, the correctness of the power of attorney holder and the acceptance of the compensation amount by the landowners without protest. Thereafter, the learned Reference Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties had framed as many as 7(seven) issues vide its order dated 07.09.2024, which are as under:- (i) Whether the instant reference suit is maintainable in its present form or not? (ii) Whether the reference petition was initiated on protest by the beneficiaries as referred under the law? (iii) Whether the applicant/petitioner is entitled for multiplication factor of 2 on market value of the land in terms of Section 26 (2) of the LARR Act, 2013? (iv) Whether the notification dated 06.09.2022 was correct or followed by the respondent No.1 in the land acquisition process? (v) Whether the market value of Rs.150/- per sq.m. awarded by the respondent No.1 is justified fair market value of acquiring land? If not, what would be the just fair market value of acquired land? (vi) Whether the land owners are entitled to get award of solatium and the interest under the LARR Act? (vii) Whether the land owners are entitled to cost proceeding or any other relief? Thereafter, considering the evidence brought on record by both the parties and also considering the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Reference Court had decided all the issues in favour of the petitioners/respondents herein and passed the impugned judgment and award." Grounds:- 5. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein preferred the present appeals on the following grounds:- (i) That the impugned judgment and award dated 19.10.2024 granting enhanced compensation @Rs.500/- per sq.m. for horticultural land against earlier awarded rate by the Deputy Commissioner, Basar, at the rate of Rs.150/- sq.m. with other components such as multiplication factor of 2 on value with 100% solatium on enhanced market rate along with the interest @12% under Section 30(3) read with Section 69 (2) as well as Section 72 and 80 of the LARR Act, 2013 on enhanced rate of interest @9% per annum for first year and thereafter, @15% per annum, is patently erroneous in facts and law. (ii) That, the learned Reference Court has erroneously decided that there is no legal impediment or infirmities in instituting the reference proceedings through the power of attorney holder and that the learned Reference Court grossly erred in upholding the veracity of special power of attorney and that the acquisition compensation was disbursed to the actual land owners at the time of acquisition of land not to any power of attorney holder and the power of attorney was not in existence at the time of paying the compensation and filing of the case seeking higher compensation is an afterthought and there may be a foul play done by the vested interest persons for getting enhanced compensation on behalf of the actual land owners by filing the case on false grounds. (iii) That, the alleged power of attorney holder, namely, Dagli Riba, has filed the reference petition claiming exorbitant claim arising out of immovable property of 102 ex-land owners, due to its acquisition, and that the appellants herein had relied upon the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 for analyzing the legal validity of the power of attorney submitted by the applicants. (iv) That, any power of attorney executed for claiming benefit arising out of immovable property is required to be executed before any Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate and that the special power of attorney, submitted by the petitioner/respondent Shri Dagli Riba has not been executed before any Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate and it also cannot be established from the special power of attorney submitted by Shri Dagli Riba that the same has voluntarily been executed by the ex-land owners. (v) That a bare perusal of power of attorney reveals that the same is not a genuine document having legal validity. As per provisions of the Land Manual dated 06.09.2022, notified for acquisition of land in Arunachal Pradesh, a deed of acceptance of compensation was prepared by the Deputy Commissioner, Leparada, at the time of disbursement of the compensation, which has signatures of all the ex-land owners with their respective photographs and from the power of attorney submitted by the respondents shows that the signatures of land owners at Sl. Nos.2, 3, 5, 6,7, 8, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 77, 82, 85, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 96, 99 and 101 do not match with the signatures of the owners appended on the deed of acceptance of compensation and the name of the land owner at Sl. No.70 also do not match and the owners at Sl. Nos.12, 15, 75 and 81 had put their thumb impression on the deed of acceptance, whereas their signatures are appended on the power of attorney and there are two signatures on the deed of acceptance of compensation in respect of owners at Sl. Nos.26, 46, 78, 83 and 86, whereas there is only one signature on the power of attorney in respect of those and it becomes clear from above that the so called power of attorney is not a genuine document having legal validity and not executed by the ex-land owners. (vi) That, the learned Reference Court had not considered the above submission in true spirit and upheld the veracity of the power of attorney, relied upon Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and it had cast the burden of proof regarding the death and aliveness of the executers of power of attorney upon the appellants herein. (vii) That the learned Reference Court arrived at the finding that the reference application itself is a legal protest and objection to the award and the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate that if such is to be the case, lawmakers would not have added a separate proviso under Section 77(2) of the LARR Act, 2013, which provides that "No person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make any application under sub section 1 of Section 64 of LARR Act, 2013." (viii) That the learned Reference Court had failed to take into consideration of the fact that the assessment sheet mentioning land rates and other details of compensation such as multiplication factor was prepared and signed by all the landowners so as to initiate the land acquisition proceeding willingly. But, it had failed to appreciate this fact and held that it has no relevancy and landowners can claim more compensation and the landowners were very well aware of the land rate and compensation to be awarded as assessment sheet was signed by all the landowners on 10.03.2023 willingly. (ix) That the learned Reference Court has misinterpreted the law in awarding multiplication factor of 2 under Section 26 (2) of the LARR Act, 2013 and also it has failed to understand the well-known fact that the Arunachal Pradesh is non-cadastral state with restricted market in terms of buying and selling of land and the determination of market value as provided under Section 26 (1) is not possible when there is no free market and the same is precisely because of this reason among others that the State Government notifies the floor price under Section 26 (3) of the Act, and while determining the floor price under Section 26 (3), the State Government applied the principles to be adopted for determination of market value by adopting the method as provided under Section 26 (1) wherever, it is feasible and applicable such as locational advantages and disadvantages of the land and therefore, the assumption of the learned Reference Court that the principles under Section 26 (1) are not applied while determining the floor price under Section 26 (3) is prejudiced and devoid of merit and the learned Court has partially interpreted Section 26 (3) and the learned Reference Court also placed reliance upon a case of Tipak Tayeng v. Arunachal Pradesh & Ors. , is a misleading and wrong as the judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 by Itanagar Bench of Gauhati High Court is under challenge in the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. (x) That, the learned Reference Court had relied upon the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development Notification No.S.O.425(E), dated 09.02.2016, which states a uniform multiplication factor of 2 for all rural areas, but the learned Reference Court stated that in the present case appropriate Government is Ministry of Defence and not the State Government and multiplication factor of 2 as notified vide above cited Central Govt. notification would apply in this case. notification would apply in this case. (xi) That, the learned Reference Court has erred in considering the fact that as per first schedule, referred in Section 26 (2), factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case of rural area, specified as 1 to 2, based on the distance of project from urban area, as may be notified by the appropriate Government and from the acquisition sanction accorded by the Government vide letter dated 16.02.2023, the Ministry of Rural Development, through a Gazette Notification dated 14.02.2023, in exercise of power conferred by sub-clause (V) of clause (e) of Section of LARR Act, 2013, notifies the Ministry of Defence as appropriate Government for acquisition of land in question and as such, the Ministry of Defence becomes the appropriate Government and as such, the Ministry of Defence has issued sanction for acquisition of the land at Basar. (xii) That, the learned Reference Court, while awarding the multiplication factor of 2, considered neither the provisions of LARR Act in its true spirit nor the provisions of the State Land Manual. It has relied upon the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development Notification, dated 09.02.2016, for granting multiplication factor of 2, which was not issued for any specific land acquisition or for any specific state. (xiii) That, the learned Reference Court has interpreted Section 107 of the Act very superficially asking the Deputy Commissioner to adopt more beneficial provisions in terms of Section 107 of the Act. (xiv) That, the learned Reference Court has erred in creating a wedge between the LARR Act and the Land Manual of State Government of Arunachal Pradesh and its decision is superficial in holding that the D.C. is not legally bound to follow the notification, dated 06.09.2022, but he has option to follow the LARR Act, 2013, but the Land Manual, notified on 06.09.2022, is no way in derogation of LARR Act, rather it smoothened the land acquisition process by providing various guidelines in accordance with the provisions of LARR Act, 2013 and as such, following the Land Manual is akin to follow the provisions of LARR Act, 2013. (xv) That, the learned Reference Court has wrongly relied upon the notification of land rates in the year 2010 and has wrongly increased the market value, by providing 10% increase per annum, on the land rate of 2010, and this led to the exorbitant land rate of Rs.500/- per sq.m. which is arbitrary, unprecedented for the land that has been acquired and that the compensation awarded at Rs.150/- per sq.m. is justified and reflects the fair market value of the land in question. (xvi) That, the learned Reference Court has erred in enhancing the land rate from Rs.150/- per sq.m. to Rs.500/- per sq.m., which is exorbitant and arbitrary based on the grounds cited above and the appellants have already paid 100% solatium, and 12% interest, as provided under Section 30 of the LARR Act, 2013 and awarding 100% solatium as well as 12% interest, on arbitrarily enhanced land rate by the learned Court amounts to double jeopardy. (xvii) That, the learned Reference Court has directed that the enhanced compensation shall be deposited in the Court within one month, after calculation by the D.C., Leparada and this conclusion takes away the statutory right of the requiring body aggrieved by the award passed by an authority under Section 69 to file an appeal before the High Court, within 60 days from the date of award. (xviii) That, the learned Reference Court has nowhere narrated the oral argument and the written submission advanced by the appellants and under the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is contended to allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. 6. The grounds of challenge of the impugned judgment and award in other two appeals being L.A. App. Nos. 03/2024 and 04/2024, are almost identical. Therefore, instead of repeating the same separately the major points, so raised in both the appeals are mentioned herein below:- (i) The impugned judgment and award, dated 19.10.2024, granting enhanced compensation at round off rate of Rs. 500/- per sq. m. for horticultural land against earlier awarded rate by the Deputy Commissioner, Basar, Leparada district at the rate of Rs. 150/- sq. 500/- per sq. m. for horticultural land against earlier awarded rate by the Deputy Commissioner, Basar, Leparada district at the rate of Rs. 150/- sq. m. with other components such as multiplication factor of 2 on value, with 100% solatium on enhanced market rate along with the interest at the rate of 12%, u/s 30(3) r/w Section 69 (2) as well as Section 72 and 80 of the LARR Act, 2013 on enhanced rate @ 9% for first year and thereafter @ 15% per annum respectively, under appeal is patently erroneous in facts and law; (ii) The statutory provision of application for reference under Section 64 requires that a person interested should not have accepted the award. On this ground alone the learnd Court below ought to have dismiss the petition on the ground of non-maintainability of the petition under section 64 of the Act of 2013. (iii) The learned Reference Court below erred in awarding the multiplication factor of two (2) under Section 26 (2) of the Act of 2013. The L.d. Court below failed to understand that Arunachal Pradesh is a non-cadastral state with restricted market in terms of buying and selling land. The determination of market value as provided under Section 26 (1) is not possible when there is no free market. It is because of this reason that the State Government specifies floor price under Section 26 (3) of the Act. Multiplication factor cannot be applied when Government notified rates are used for valuation of land under Section 26 (3). (iv) Further, the reliance placed on the case Tipak Tayeng vs-State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors is misleading and wrong as the judgment and order dated 05.07.2018 by the Gauhati High Court Itanagar Bench is under challenge in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Also, the Judgment dated 20.07.2023, passed in LA Appeal No. 01 of 2022 and other connected cases with respect to acquisition of land in Shi-Yomi District is also subjudice in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Also, the Judgment dated 20.07.2023, passed in LA Appeal No. 01 of 2022 and other connected cases with respect to acquisition of land in Shi-Yomi District is also subjudice in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (v) For that the learnd Court below misinterpreted the Notification dated 09.02.2016, issued by Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India which states application of uniform multiplication factor of 2 (two) for all villages inter alia stating that in the reference case, being the appropriate government, the Central Government had the power to issue notification for multiplication factor, as the lands were acquired for the Ministry of Defence, Government of India. (vi) The learned Court below failed to appreciate that the Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, published the Manual for Land Acquisition dated 06.09.2022, notifying the land rates for all the districts in the state for particular classification of lands which is taken as the sole basis for acquisition cases in the State of Arunachal Pradesh as sale deeds or agreement to sell are not registered, to determine the market value of land. The land of the respondents is classified as horticulture plain land and the classification was fixed after joint survey wherein the respondents/appellants had also participated. Under the Manual, such lands are valued at Rs. 150/- per sq.m. which the Ld. Court below enhanced to Rs. 500/- per sq.m. which is erroneous, as the increase in land value are subjected to various aspects. (vii) For that the Learned Court below has made grave error in not considering into account the oral argument and the written submissions submitted by the Appellant/State respondent in its judgment and award. Submissions:- 7. Mr. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General, besides advancing oral argument, supplemented the same by written argument, wherein he has challenged the impugned judgment and award, primarily on two grounds:- (i) The jurisdiction of learned Reference Court in entertaining the reference petition filed on the strength of a fake and forged Power of Attorney. (ii) The reference proceeding was initiated not on the protest of beneficiaries as referred under the law. 7.1 Elaborating his argument on the first point, Mr. Sanjay submits that a perusal of the power of attorney reveals that the document is fabricated and tainted with fraud and the said objection was raised when the written statement was filed, but the learned Reference Court has failed to consider the same. Mr. 7.1 Elaborating his argument on the first point, Mr. Sanjay submits that a perusal of the power of attorney reveals that the document is fabricated and tainted with fraud and the said objection was raised when the written statement was filed, but the learned Reference Court has failed to consider the same. Mr. Sanjay further submits that the power of attorney was executed by a person/land owner, namely, Sh. Tojo Bam at Sl.No.53 in the Power of Attorney dated 09.11.2023 and he was also impleaded as a party at Sl. No.53, in the memo of parties of the reference petition, filed on 21.02.2024, despite the fact that he died on 10.06.2023, and the power of attorney could not have been executed before a Notary Public, as he could not have authenticated the signatures of a dead person and even the power of attorney instrument could not be notarized in absence of the deponents on whose behalf it has been executed, i.e. a dead man cannot be present before the Notary and that the power of attorney was not executed by the landowners individually. Besides, Mr. Sanjay submits that the Power of Attorney does not contain complete and proper description of area and boundary of the land, for which it was sought to be executed nor the addresses of the landowners executing the said power of attorney are mentioned and there was no schedule, attached to the Power of Attorney, containing the description of land with its boundary, whereas the assessment sheet and the Schedule "A" of the deed of acceptance, provides for schedule of land and/or assets in possession of individual landowners. 7.2 Mr. Sanjay also submits that there is no mention or reference about the identity proof of the landowners such as Aadhaar Card, PAN Card or Voter Id Card, etc. in execution of Power of Attorney, including that of Sh. Dagli Riba, the Power of Attorney holder, in whose favour the Power of Attorney is executed and the Power of Attorney is also unregistered and there is also interpolation in the signatures of one Marjum Bam and there was no landowner by the name of Marjum Bam and the signatures of large number of landowners on the power of attorney did not tally with their signatures affixed by them on the deed of acceptance executed before the Deputy Commissioner, Leparada. There is also no mention about the date with their signatures while signing the Power of Attorney on 09.11.2023, which indicates that the Power of Attorney was not executed in presence of the Notary Public on 09.11.2023, and there is no signature of any witness and there is also no identification of the executant. 7.3 Mr. Sanjay further submits that the learned Reference Court has failed to consider that in the written statement, a specific plea was taken that the power of attorney was forged and fabricated and also made a specific denial in para no. 10 that the so called power of attorney is not a genuine document having legal validity and not executed by the ex- landowners and in view of the specific allegation of forgery and fraud and denial of execution of power of attorney by the ex-landowners, it became incumbent upon the learned Reference Court in terms of Section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 to call one attesting witness/Notary Public for the purpose of proving its execution before entertaining the reference case for adjudication on merit, as a legal instrument in favour of Dagli Riba to represent the so called ex-landowners. 7.4 In support of his submission, Mr. 7.4 In support of his submission, Mr. Sanjay has referred to a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez v. Joosa Mariyan Fernandez , (2000) 7 SCC 189 , wherein it has been held by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that the main part of Section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 puts an obligation on the party tendering any document that unless at least one attesting witness has been called for proving such execution, the same cannot be used in evidence and in view of the specific denial and prayer for rejection of the reference case, the learned Reference Court ought not to have proceeded with the case, on the strength of forged and fabricated power of attorney, as the same would amount to playing fraud with the Court and though the learned Reference Court has framed one issue being Issue No.1(B), but it has failed to require Shri Dagli Riba to produce the attesting witness, in terms of Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, which was mandatory in nature and that the learned Reference Court has cast the burden to prove that the alleged power of attorney is forged document lies with the appellants and the burden of proving genuineness of the documents was upon the respondents herein as the facts related to the said documents were within the special knowledge of the respondents and that the learned Reference Court has relied upon a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh , (2006) 5 SCC 558 . But, the said decision helped the appellants when it says that the rule of the burden of proof on the party alleging is not of universal application and there may be an exception to this rule and the present case is a glaring exception to the rule of Section 67 and also Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 7.5 Further, Mr. Sanjay submits that any judgment and order, if obtained by fraud, cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law and fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal. And in support of his submission, he has referred to a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. , (2007) 4 SCC 221 . Mr. And in support of his submission, he has referred to a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. Govt. of A.P. & Ors. , (2007) 4 SCC 221 . Mr. Sanjay also pointed out that the power of attorney holder, namely, Dagli Riba has only adduced oral evidence, and it is well-settled by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. , (2005) 2 SCC 217 , that the Power of Attorney holder can appear, plead and act on behalf of the party, but he cannot become a witness on behalf of the party and he can only appear in his own capacity and no one can delegate the power to appear in the witness box on behalf of himself. 7.6 It is also pointed out by Mr. Sanjay that the Power of Attorney was not a registered document, in terms of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and the said argument was not addressed by the learned Reference Court and that special Power of Attorney was required to be mandatorily registered so that a reference could have been maintained on its strength, if it would not have been tainted with fraud. 7.7 In respect of his second point, Mr. Sanjay argued that the learned Reference Court has failed to consider Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013, which provides that the person interested, having not accepted the award, and under Section 77 proviso 1 and 2, which provides that no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest, shall be entitled to make any application, under Section 64(1) of the LARR Act, 2013 and that on 19.03.2020, a willingness and no change of mind certificate was obtained on behalf of all the landowners with respect to the acquisition of land in question and also its rate as decided by the Deputy Commissioner and the said certificate was also signed by the President and Secretary of the Village Level Committee of Basar village and thereafter, in pursuance of the said document, the Government of India, Ministry of Defence had accorded sanction for acquisition of 537 acres of land on the basis of market value of the land, at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.m. as laid down in the Land Manual, dated 06.09.2022, published by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and the assessment sheet was agreed upon and signed by the landowners on 10.03.2023, without any objection and in presence of the Chairman and Secretary of the Village Level Committee and also in presence of District Land Revenue & Settlement Officer and after the aforementioned steps, having been duly complied with, the preliminary Notification under Section 11(1) of the LARR Act, 2013 was published on 23.03.2023, and thereafter, all the landowners had received 80% compensation on 21.07.2023, without any protest by providing their bank and Aadhaar Card details and on 07.09.2023, declaration under Section 19 of the Act was published and on 19.09.2023, Public Notice under Section 21 of the Act, inviting claims and objections was published and if the amount of compensation would not have been acceptable to them, they could have protested to the rate and quantum of compensation. 7.8 Mr. Sanjay further pointed out that on 01.11.2023, award under Section 23 of the Act was passed and on 13.11.2023, final award under Section 37 of the Act was passed and at no stage any objection was raised by any landowner, much less any protest and that the land of each and every landowner was clearly mentioned in the Schedule of the deed of acceptance and the quantum of compensation, as per the award was duly mentioned in the same and if at all there was any doubt, they could have lodged their protest and would never have signed on the deed of acceptance and the so called power of attorney holder, namely, Dagli Riba has also signed the deed of acceptance at Sl. No.78/79, and the Deputy Commissioner has also personally signed and the District Land Revenue & Settlement Officer also signed as a witness and that the learned Reference Court has committed serious error of law by deciding the reference made by the Power of Attorney holder, without compliance of Section 64(1) read with Section 77(2) second proviso, which clearly stipulates that only those persons/landowners can make a reference who either did not receive the amount of compensation awarded by the authority or who has received the compensation on protest. 7.9 Mr. 7.9 Mr. Sanjay also submits that the judgments cited by the respondents has no application in the facts of the present case and there is no reference of Section 64, and the second proviso to Section 77 and there is only one reference of Section 18 on which in the fact of the case, an observation was made by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court that upon filing of the reference application the protest was implied. However, there is no reference, much less discussion of second proviso to Section 31 of the old Act, which laid down a precondition for making application under Section 18 of the old Act and the provision of Section 64 read with second proviso to Section 77 makes it obligatory that there must be a protest before making the reference as it is a precondition for making the reference and therefore, the protest must precede the filing of reference and in the present case, there is no whisper at any point of time before filing of reference any of the landowner felt aggrieved on the quantum of compensation. In support of his submission, Mr. Sanjay has relied upon a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer v. Shivabai & Ors. , (1997) 9 SCC 710 . 7.10 Mr. Sanjay also pointed out that the landowners had the opportunity to lodge a protest at the time of receiving remaining 20% of the compensation with protest and that the name of Dagli Riba is also there in the list of 102 persons, preferring the reference and he could not have been represented through himself as a Power of Attorney holder and similarly, the name of a dead person, namely, Sh. Tojo Bam is also mentioned in the reference application purported to be represented through Dagli Riba as his Power of Attorney holder and this fact proved the fraud of Dagli Riba and under such circumstances, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. 8. Per contra, Mr. Tojo Bam is also mentioned in the reference application purported to be represented through Dagli Riba as his Power of Attorney holder and this fact proved the fraud of Dagli Riba and under such circumstances, it is contended to set aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. 8. Per contra, Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Late Tojo Bam was the absolute owner and possessor of a plot of land measuring 15198.716 sq.m. at Bam village and the said parcel of land was within the 537 acres of land acquired for the appellants for establishment of Corps Ammunition Point and that Section 11 notification was published on 23.03.2023, which contains the name of Tojo Bam at Sl. No.53 and the declaration under Section 19 issued on 07.09.2023, contains the name of Tojo Bam at Sl. No.53 and said Tojo Bam expired on 10.06.2023 and thereafter, his wife Bomme Bam had applied for succession certificate on 26.07.2023, and the said succession certificate was issued on 21.09.2023, and the same was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Leparada for doing the needful in this regard for enabling her to receive the compensation in the name of her husband Late Tojo Bam. 8.1 Mr. Pathak further pointed out that the landowners were not served with a copy of the final award till filing of the application under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 and as such, the Advocate who had drafted the power of attorney had used the list of landowners as available from the Section 11 notification in which the name of Tojo Bam is reflected at Sl. No.53 and there was no intentional suppression of the fact of the death of Late Tojo Bam and that from the Annexure-4, filed by the Union of India and also filed by the Deputy Commissioner, indicates that Bomme Bam, wife of Late Tojo Bam had already appeared before the Deputy Commissioner and submitted the death certificate of her late husband and also the succession certificate in her favour and based on which the amount of compensation was released in her favour and the same can be seen from the Annexure-4 of the L.A. Appeal, that the photograph of Bomme Bam is affixed at Sl. No.53 with her signature against the name of Tojo Bam and the said signature and photo is same as that which was annexed to the succession certificate and in the Power of Attorney, Bomme Bam had signed against the name of Tojo Bam and the same was done under the impression that she is the succession certificate holder to do so and for the oversight, on part of the drafting Advocate of the Power of Attorney, Tojo Bam was described, which ought to have been described as Late Tojo Bam represented by his legal heir/wife Bomme Bam and that the Union of India had for the first time raised this fresh point relating to the Power of Attorney in respect of Tojo Bam and that in the L.A. Appeal No.1/2024, also the appellants have added Tojo Bam as a party at Sl. No.53 and that a bonafide error in description of party was crept in and the same was not relating to any intentional mischief, which can be ratified for being the same due to a drafting error and the same is not a case of false person impersonating someone else. 8.2 Mr. Pathak also pointed out that Power of Attorney being a contract of agency, under the Indian Contract Act is governed by the provisions thereof and as per Section 196 of the Indian Contract Act, 1882, the principal can always ratify the acts of the agent and in support of his submission, he has referred to a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Jugraj Singh & Anr. vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors. (1970) 2 SCC 386 . Mr. Pathak has also pointed out that there is evidence to suggest that 102 executants of Power of Attorney came from different places and assembled in the office of the Notary and the said piece of evidence of PW-1 could not be rebutted in cross- examination and there is no force in the argument advanced by the appellants that the Power of Attorney was not executed individually and it does not contain the Schedule/description of land. In respect of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Power of Attorney is unregistered, Mr. In respect of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Power of Attorney is unregistered, Mr. Pathak submits that as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, registration of a Power of Attorney is not compulsory and the same falls in the ambit of Section 18(f) as a document of which registration is optional and in the present case there is no transaction of property sought to be done through the power of attorney and there is also no clause in the power of attorney that empowers the attorney holder to receive money/compensation on behalf of the principal and hence, no interest over any dues of the principal is created and same cannot be called as agency for profit and there is no anomaly in the name of the parties at Sl. Nos.35 and 79 as contended by the appellants and in respect of mismatching of the signatures in the Power of Attorney is a mere doubt of the appellants, which is not based on any evidence and there may be variation of signatures of the villagers and the executors have not disputed their signatures and hence, a third party cannot come and dispute the same and the Power of Attorney is only for empowering the holders thereof to represent and institute a litigation seeking proper compensation on behalf of all the landowners. 8.3 Mr. 8.3 Mr. Pathak also submits that the Union of India has not questioned the mismatch of the signatures in Appendix-22 and Exhibit-8 and 10 and the said dual stand amounts to approbate and reprobate by contesting signature variation between Exhibit-10 and the Power of Attorney and such dual stand is not tenable and that the learned Reference Court has relied upon the validity of the power of attorney on the ground that the Union of India did not state anything in evidence of DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 about the Power of Attorney or the signatures therein and the Union of India did not cross the PW-1 about the veracity and authenticity of the signatures in the Power of Attorney and it has also not filed any application before the Reference Court for examination of any witness or expert in connection with the Power of Attorney and that the landowners are villagers/horticulturists, who cannot be expected to sign perfectly in different documents which were signed in bulk on different dates and there is presumption available under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 regarding validity and legality of Power of Attorney, which has not been rebutted by any evidence and that the burden of proof of fraud lies upon the party asserting the same. 8.4 Mr. Pathak further pointed out that there is no witness in the Power of Attorney as there is no specification in the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 relating to mandatory attesting of witnesses. Even in Indian Contract Act, 1872 which deals with agency does not require such agency to be witness. Mr. Pathak also pointed out that the Power of Attorney holder, namely, Dagli Riba has also signed the deed of acceptance and the same is an admitted fact and that the issue before the Reference Court was that whether signing of the deed of acceptance would bar institution of reference proceeding and the same was duly answered by the Reference Court by referring the law in this regard and there is no statutory provision or bar that the power of attorney holder cannot be a plaintiff/petitioner himself and that there is no interpolation of the date in the deed of acceptance. 8.5 Mr. 8.5 Mr. Pathak also pointed out that in the written statement, the Union of India has never used the words forged and fabricated and that Order 6 Rule 4 of the CPC provides that plea of fraud etc. must be clearly pleaded with all particulars and in absence of such pleadings, the Reference Court was not obligated to go into the same when the three witnesses of the Union of India i.e. DW-2, DW-3 and DW-4 have not uttered a single word in their examination-in-chief about any issues pertaining to Power of Attorney. Further, Mr. Pathak has pointed out that in terms of Section 68 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT and Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, one attesting witness was required to be called for proving its execution and though the appellants have referred to a decision of Rosammal Issetheenammal Fernandez (surpa), the same relates to the context of a gift deed, which is required to be compulsorily attested by at least two witnesses in terms of statutory requirement of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and that the appellants have not adduced any evidence to prove forgery and fabrication and the said allegations have been used only during the course of argument at the time of hearing of these appeals. 8.6 It is also pointed out by Mr. Pathak that the case of Anil Rishi (supra) is squarely applicable in the instant cases, and though a contention was made by the appellants that the said decision is not applicable in view of Section 67 and 109 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and further, Mr. Pathak pointed out that decisions in the case of State of Kerala v. G. Sreedharan Nair , AIR 2013 Ker 1 and in A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra) , are not applicable in the present case. 8.7 In respect of Issue No.II, Mr. Pathak pointed out that decisions in the case of State of Kerala v. G. Sreedharan Nair , AIR 2013 Ker 1 and in A.V. Papayya Sastry (supra) , are not applicable in the present case. 8.7 In respect of Issue No.II, Mr. Pathak has pointed out that in terms of Section 77 proviso 1 and 2, no person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest is entitled to make application under Section 64(1) of the LARR Act, 2013 and that the application under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 was made to the Deputy Commissioner on 15.12.2023, and the same was forward to the authority by the Deputy Commissioner, vide letter dated 15.01.2024, with the statement under Section 65 and the same is available on the record and that the landowners were not personally present when the award was declared and their bank details were taken long back, when 80% of the estimated amount was paid under provision of Section 40(3) of the LARR Act, 2013 and they were also not aware of the copy of the award dated 13.11.2023, till payment was transferred to their bank account on 21.11.2023 and on such payment, they were not called to sign any money receipt etc. as the bank transfer itself stands as a proof of payment and as such, the question of lodging of protest immediately on getting the payment or receiving it with protest has to be therefore seen in the context of what happened after compensation was paid to the bank accounts and that being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the landowners have filed objection under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 within 6 weeks from the date of the award, such objection stands as their protest to the sufficiency of the amount paid to them. The words objection and protest are synonymous and objection itself amount to protest and the same was clarified by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. , (1994) 4 SCC 67 and the same also stands clarified in several other cases, such as Chandra Bhan (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors. , (2015) 15 SCC 343 and in S.K. Containers Private Limited & Anr. v. Susmita Bhattacharya & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. , (1994) 4 SCC 67 and the same also stands clarified in several other cases, such as Chandra Bhan (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. v. Ghaziabad Development Authority & Ors. , (2015) 15 SCC 343 and in S.K. Containers Private Limited & Anr. v. Susmita Bhattacharya & Ors. , (2017) 14 SCC 326 and as such, filing of the reference application is sufficient to establish that the landowners or the person interested has some protest/objection to the award. 8.8 Mr. Pathak has also pointed out that Dagli Riba has filed the application under Section 64, being the Power of Attorney holder and also the reference case himself and though an argument was advanced by the appellants that he being the landowner could not have done so, yet, such argument is not based on any statutory provision or on any decided precedent. He further submits that no fraud could be established by the appellants before the Reference Court and the issue of jurisdiction has also been wrongly addressed. Mr. Pathak also pointed out that the appellants had not argued on the other issues relating to determination of fair compensation by the Reference Court, but the State respondents have filed their separate argument in this regard and that there is cumulative escalation of the market value and the same was duly considered by the learned Reference Court and it has duly applied the multiplication factor and awarded solatium and interest and that the learned Reference Court has rightly enhanced the market value from Rs.150/- per sq.m. to Rs.500/- per sq.m. based on time tested judicial principle and settled law relating to determination of market value and applied the multiplication factor as 2 as per prevailing Central Government Notification dated 09.02.2016 and the impugned judgment and award suffers from no infirmity or illegality and therefore, it is contended to upheld the same. 9. Per contra, Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellant- the State of Arunachal Pradesh in L.A. App. 9. Per contra, Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellant- the State of Arunachal Pradesh in L.A. App. No.03/2024, submits that initially the State of Arunachal Pradesh has not been made a party in the reference case, however, on filing of an application by the State, the State of Arunachal Pradesh, represented by the Secretary, Land Management was impleaded as respondent No.6 and that the respondent No.6 in its counter affidavit stated that full and final compensation was disbursed on 21.11.2023, and the same was received by the landowners without any protest and as such, after receiving the compensation award without any protest, the landowners/respondents cannot make an application by way of reference under Section 64 of the Act of 2013. Mr. Soki has also pointed out that the learned Reference Court has failed to consider that under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, an application for reference can be made by person interested, who has not accepted the award and that the compensation was disbursed on 21.11.2023, and the same was accepted by the respondents without any protest and they have also signed one non-litigation form and that the statutory provision for filing an application for reference under Section 64 requires that a person interested, so far he has accepted the award and that the learned Reference Court has erred in applying the multiplication factor of 2, under Section 26 (2) of the Act of 2013, as the said multiplication factor is applicable on the market value arrived at by the Collector, under Section 26 (1) of the Act of 2013 and since the market value was not arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner, in terms of Section 26 (1), the market value as per schedule cannot be applied in the present case and that the learned Reference Court has failed to understand that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is a non-cadastral state with restricted market in terms of buying and selling land. The determination of market value as provided under Section 26 (1) is not possible when there is no free market and it is because of this reason that the State Government specified floor price under Section 26 (3) of the Act and the multiplication factor cannot be applied when Government notified rates are used for valuation of land under Section 26 (3). 9.1 Further, Mr. 9.1 Further, Mr. Soki pointed out that the respondents herein had produced document of sale deed to adduce the existence of market value during the hearing of the reference and the State has challenged the legality and validity of the sale deed produced by the respondents and that the said documents were not registered documents as it is neither registered before any Registrar or Sub-Registrar or any Magistrate as per Indian Registration Act, 1908 nor any stamp duty is paid as per Indian Stamp Act and as per Section 26 of the Act, it has to be registered sale deed or agreement for similar land which can be considered. 9.2 It is the further submission of Mr. Soki that the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the Department of Land Management, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh published the Manual for Land Acquisition on 06.09.2022, notifying the land rates for all the districts in the State for particular classification of lands, which is taken as the sole basis for acquisition cases in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the locational advantages and disadvantages were duly considered while arriving at the land rates notified by the Government. Mr. Mr. Soki has pointed out that the land of respondents/appellants is classified as horticulture plain land and the classification was fixed after joint survey, wherein the respondents/appellants had also participated and under the Manual such lands are valued at Rs.150/- per sq.m. which the learned Court enhanced to Rs.500/- per sq.m., which is erroneous as the increase in land value are subjected to various aspects and that Section 26 of the Act grants the power to the State Government to specify a floor price or minimum price per unit area of the land, when the market value has not been specified under the Indian Stamp Act or no registered sale deeds or agreement is available for determination of market value and as such, the judgment and order dated 19.10.2024, has taken away the power of the State Government and the award of such high rate of land shall have cascading effect on various projects being undertaken or in the pipeline in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the award of such rates by the learned Court below having set a minimum price, the cost of compensation of land shall far exceed the cost of the projects being executed and thereby making the projects unviable by the agencies and as such, the same is not in public interest as well and that the award of interest under Section 80 of the Act by the authority is also erroneous on the ground that the compensation amount under the award was fully paid to the landowners and that the learned Reference Court has also failed to appreciate the fact that under Section 30(3) of the Act, the Collector has awarded interest for the period commencing the notification of the Social Impact Assessment Study, till the date of the award. In the instant case, the land was acquired under the emergency clause and as such, the provisions of Section 30(3) and 69(2) are not applicable and even if it is assumed that the compensation awarded by the authority is right, under Section 72 of the Act the interest is to be awarded on the excess compensation amount and not on the entire enhanced compensation and under such circumstances, Mr. Soki has contended to allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 10. Mr. M. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant- Deputy Commissioner, Laparada district, in L.A. App. Soki has contended to allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 10. Mr. M. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant- Deputy Commissioner, Laparada district, in L.A. App. No.04/2024, had subscribed the submission of Mr. D. Soki. 11. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through these memo of appeals and the grounds mentioned therein and also perused the impugned judgment and award, dated 19.10.2024, passed by the learned Reference Court and also carefully gone through the decisions relied upon by learned Advocates of both the parties. Issues before this Court:- 12. In view of the submission advanced before this Court, the issues, to be addressed by this Court, are formulated as under:- (i) Whether the Power of Attorney, based upon which the impugned judgment and award, dated 19.10.2024, in Basar Reference Case No.02/2024, was passed, is a forged Power of Attorney and whether the impugned judgment and award is vitiated on account of the same being passed on the basis of forged Power of Attorney? (ii) Whether a reference can be made/initiated on the basis of an application filed by the landowners, without making any protest at the time of receipt of the compensation, as required under proviso 1 and 2 of Section 77 of LARR Act, 2013? (iii) Whether the learned Reference Court has rightly addressed the issue of application of multiplication factor 2, under Section 26 (2) of the Act of 2013, while the market value of the land is not made available and could not be arrived at by the Collector under Section 26 (1) of the Act of 2013? (iv) Whether the learned Reference Court has correctly determined the market value of the land? (v) Whether the learned Reference Court had arbitrarily awarded 100% solatium upon the market value of the land? (vi) Whether the learned Reference Court has rightly awarded the interest @ 12% per annum, under Section 30(3), while the same are not applicable in the instant case and whether it could be imposed on the entire amount or on the enhanced amount? Discussion and Finding:- Issue No.(I): 13. That, Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, enables the holder of a Power of Attorney to appear, apply and act on behalf of a party to a suit, as his recognised agent. Discussion and Finding:- Issue No.(I): 13. That, Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, enables the holder of a Power of Attorney to appear, apply and act on behalf of a party to a suit, as his recognised agent. In Order III, Rule 2 , the expression used is "recognised agents" and "persons holding Powers of Attorney." Further, Order VI, Rule 14, enables any person, duly authorised by a party to sign the pleading if the party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading. There is no dispute regarding this proposition of law. 13.1 The nature and scope of Power of Attorney has been dealt with by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656 , as under:- "20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee. 21. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata [State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77] this Court held: ‘13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. *** 52. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience. *** 52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee.’ An attorney-holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor." 13.2 In the case in hand, a perusal of the impugned judgment and award dated 19.10.2024, and also the record of the learned Reference Court, reveals that the learned Reference Court had framed as many as 6 issues, while deciding the Reference, out of which in Issue No.1, relates to the Power of Attorney. The main contention of the appellants herein is that the Power of Attorney, allegedly executed by the landowners in favour of Dagli Riba, who is also one of the landowners, is a forged Power of Attorney, as one of the landowners, namely, Tojo Bam suffered demise on 10.06.2023, but the Power of Attorney, containing the signature of Tojo Bam was executed on 09.11.2023. However, it appears from the documents placed on record and also from the submission of Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents, that the signature appeared against the name of Late Tojo Bam is not of the signature of Late Tojo Bam, rather it was the signature of wife of Late Tojo Bam, namely, Smti. However, it appears from the documents placed on record and also from the submission of Mr. B. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents, that the signature appeared against the name of Late Tojo Bam is not of the signature of Late Tojo Bam, rather it was the signature of wife of Late Tojo Bam, namely, Smti. Bomme Bam and she had not impersonated or signed as Tojo Bam, she had put her signature in the Power of Attorney on the strength of the succession certificate issued by the District Judge. And on the strength of the succession Certificate, she had received the compensation amount from the District Collector and there also she had signed as Bomme Bam and shenever impersonated her dead husband. 13.3 It is to be noted here that this Court had called for the original documents relating to compensation from the Office of the District Collector, Leparada, and a close examination of the same indicates that Smti. Bomme Bam had put her signature over the document, and thus, the submission of Mr. Pathak stands fortified. But, it appears that in the L.A. Appeal No.1/2024, the appellants had added Late Tojo Bam as a party at Sl. No.53 inspite of being aware of his death. In view of the aforementioned explanation, so forthcoming from the respondent‘s side, the submissions, so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants that impersonating the dead person, the Power of Attorney was executed and as such, the same is forged and fake and failed to command an acceptance of this Court. 13.4 It is a fact that the Power of Attorney is not a registered one. But, it is also well settled that there is no statutory requirement for compulsory registration of the Power of Attorney. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Manik Majumder vs. Dipak Kumar Saha , (2023) 8 SCC 410 . However, this is a split verdict and the matter was referred to larger bench. But, there appears to be no disagreement in respect of the proposition of law, and the disagreement was in relation to the outcome of the appeal. In the said decision, the requirement of registration of Power of Attorney has been dealt with in par No. 57 and 58 as under:- 57. But, there appears to be no disagreement in respect of the proposition of law, and the disagreement was in relation to the outcome of the appeal. In the said decision, the requirement of registration of Power of Attorney has been dealt with in par No. 57 and 58 as under:- 57. Section 17 of the Registration Act speaks about documents of which registration is compulsory, while Section 18 deals with documents of which registration is optional. Clause (f) of Section 18 states that all other documents not required by Section 17 to be registered, may be registered at the option of the parties. In other words, the documents which are compulsorily registrable are listed under Section 17 and such list is exhaustive. The documents, registration of which is optional, are specified in clauses (a) to (e) of Section 18 but this list is not exhaustive. 58. Under clause (f) of Section 18 ‚all other documents? which do not require registration under Section 17 are also optionally registrable such as the power of attorney, document relating to adoption, etc. A power of attorney is not a compulsorily registrable document when it is duly notarised. It carries the presumption of being valid in view of Section 85 of the EVIDENCE ACT . Since a power of attorney does not come within the ambit of Section 17 or clauses (a) to (e) of Section 18, registration of a power of attorney is optional. An attorney holder may execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor or principal, provided he has been specifically given power to sell the property of the principal. 13.5 Indisputably, herein this case the Power of Attorney was executed only for filing the reference under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 and not for any transaction in respect of any immovable property or for receiving the compensation amount as the compensation is deposited in the individual account of the landowners by bank transfer. In view of above the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.D. Sanjoy left this court unimpressed. In view of above the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. S.D. Sanjoy left this court unimpressed. 13.6 It is also not in dispute that the Power of Attorney does not contain any schedule/description of the land and it appears that there is no dag/patta/kharsa number or any revenue map describing the area, being the Arunachal Pradesh a non-cadastral state and the individual ownership is governed by the customary laws and respected through such traditions only. Further, it appears that in the draft award, dated 01.11.2023, there was no description about the demarcation of individual owners land, located in the Bam village. And as such, the respondents cannot be faulted with for not describing the land in the Power of Attorney. But, there is no dispute about location of the land in Bam village and the said description is enough to identify the land. The Deputy Commissioner of the Leparada District, in the written statement filed by him, and also in the evidence filed by him had never disputed the same. Though it is contended that there is anomaly in the name of the parties at Sl. Nos.35 and 79 and there is mismatch of signatures of many landowners in the Power of Attorney with that of the deed of acceptance, yet, the same could not be established by the appellants by adducing any cogent evidence. Further, there is also no legal requirement of examination of attesting witness of the Power of Attorney, like an will. 13.7 Now coming to the contention of the appellants that the Power of Attorney is a forged and fake document, this court is of the view that the burden to establish the same lies upon them. Reference in this context can be made to a decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Rishi (supra), wherein it has been held that the burden to establish the same lies upon the party, who contends the same. Relevant paragraphs of the said decision are reproduced herein below for reference:- "8. The initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff in view of Section 101 of the EVIDENCE ACT , which reads as under:- "101. Burden of proof.— Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. The initial burden of proof would be on the plaintiff in view of Section 101 of the EVIDENCE ACT , which reads as under:- "101. Burden of proof.— Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person." 9. In terms of the said provision, the burden of proving the fact rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues and not the party who denies it. The said rule may not be universal in its application and there may be an exception thereto. The learned trial court and the High Court proceeded on the basis that the defendant was in a dominating position and there had been a fiduciary relationship between the parties. The appellant in his written statement denied and disputed the said averments made in the plaint. 13.8 In para No. 19 again it has been held as under:- "19. There is another aspect of the matter which should be borne in mind. A distinction exists between burden of proof and onus of proof. The right to begin follows onus probandi. It assumes importance in the early stage of a case. The question of onus of proof has greater force, where the question is, which party is to begin. Burden of proof is used in three ways:- (i) to indicate the duty of bringing forward evidence in support of a proposition at the beginning or later; (ii) to make that of establishing a proposition as against all counter-evidence; and (iii) an indiscriminate use in which it may mean either or both of the others. The elementary rule in Section 101 is inflexible. In terms of Section 102 the initial onus is always on the plaintiff and if he discharges that onus and makes out a case which entitles him to a relief, the onus shifts to the defendant to prove those circumstances, if any, which would disentitle the plaintiff to the same. 13.9 In the instant case, since the contention is being made by the appellants that the Power of Attorney is a forged document; therefore, it is their duty to establish the same. 13.9 In the instant case, since the contention is being made by the appellants that the Power of Attorney is a forged document; therefore, it is their duty to establish the same. But, they had made no effort to establish the same by adducing any cogent evidence. Thus, the burden could not be discharged by them. Though Mr. Sanjoy, the learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the rule of the burden of proof on the party alleging is not of universal application and there may be an exception to this rule and the present case is a glaring exception to the rule of Section 67 and also Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, yet, Mr. Sanjoy has failed to demonstrate before this court as to how present case is an exception to the elementary rule. Mere referring to Section 67 and also Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, is not sufficient. Thus, the said submission of Mr. Sanjoy failed to command an acceptance of this court. 13.10 Further, it is to be taken note of that none of the landowners, who had given the Power of Attorney to Mr. Dagli Riba, had ever disputed the Power of Attorney, before the learned Reference Court and also before this Court. Instead, from the Affidavit in reply, filed by the respondent No. 1 to 103, in the I.A. (C) No. 122/2025, that 38 land owners had filed separate individual affidavit before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 17146/2025, which was filed by the Union of India assailing the order dated 12.03.2025, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in I.A.(C) No. 231/2024, in L.A.Appeal No. 01/2024, ratifying the Power of Attorney, dated 09.11.2023, by registered deed of ratification, given in favour of Dagli Riba, which was annexed with the said reply as Annexure-1 colley . It also appears that Mrs. Bomme Bam, wife of Late Tojo Bam, had also filed registered deed of ratification of the Power of Attorney, dated 09.11.2023, as Annexure-2, and other land owners also had executed registered deed of ratification in favour of the Power of Attorney holder and said ratification was was done in terms of Section 196 of the Indian Contract Act. Bomme Bam, wife of Late Tojo Bam, had also filed registered deed of ratification of the Power of Attorney, dated 09.11.2023, as Annexure-2, and other land owners also had executed registered deed of ratification in favour of the Power of Attorney holder and said ratification was was done in terms of Section 196 of the Indian Contract Act. 13.11 Thus, it appears that the very foundation of the challenge to the Power of Attorney dated 09.11.2023, being a forged document, got no legs to stand upon and the same deserved to be overruled and accordingly, the same stands overruled. 13.12 I have also carefully gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Sanjay, learned counsel for the appellants and I find that the same would not come into his assistance. Also I have considered the submission of Mr. Soki, learned counsel for the appellant in L.A. App. No. 03/2024 and Mr. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant in L.A. Appeal No, 04/2024, in this regard and in view of the discussion and finding above, this Court is unable record concurrence with the same. Under the given facts and circumstances, the Issue No.(I) has to be answered in negative and accordingly, the same stands answered. Issue No.(II) 14. Moving forward to the Issue No.(II), I find that proviso 1 and 2 of Section 77 of the Act of 2013, provides that no person, who has received the amount of compensation, otherwise than under protest, is entitled to make application under Section 64(1) of the LARR Act, 2013. It appears that the application under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 was filed to the Deputy Commissioner on 15.12.2023, and the same was forwarded to the Reference Authority, by him vide letter dated 15.01.2024, with statement under Section 65. It also appears from the record that the landowners were not personally present, when the award was declared and their bank details were already collected when 80% of the estimated amount was credited in their accounts. And they were also not aware of about declaration of the award on 13.11.2023, till the payment was credited in their accounts on 21.11.2023. It also appears from the record that the landowners were not personally present, when the award was declared and their bank details were already collected when 80% of the estimated amount was credited in their accounts. And they were also not aware of about declaration of the award on 13.11.2023, till the payment was credited in their accounts on 21.11.2023. Besides, they were also not called to sign any money receipt etc., as the bank transfer itself stands as a proof of payment and on such count, the question of lodging the protest immediately on getting the payment or receiving it with protest, has to be examined in the context of aforementioned facts and circumstances. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed this out at the time of hearing and there appears to be substance in the same. 14.1 Further, it appears from the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh (supra) that filing of an application for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 will manifest their intention and same has to be considered as the protest against the award. Same proposition of law is reiterated in the case of Chandra Bhan (supra) and in S.K. Containers Private Limited (supra) also . Notably, in the case of S.K. Containers (P) Ltd. (supra) Hon‘ble Supreme Court, while dealing with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 held as under:- "4. Once an application under Section 18 of the Act is filed, the presumption under law is that the owner or the person interested in the land has certain objections with regard to:- (i) measurement of the land, (ii) amount of compensation, (iii) persons to whom it is payable, and (iv) apportionment of the compensation." 14.2 Under such circumstances, filing of a reference application is sufficient to establish that the landowner or the person interested has some protest/objection to the award. I have also considered the submission of Mr. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General in this regard and in view of the proposition of law laid down in the cases discussed herein above I am unable to record concurrence to the same. I have also considered the submission of Mr. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General in this regard and in view of the proposition of law laid down in the cases discussed herein above I am unable to record concurrence to the same. 14.3 In the instant case, there is no dispute that the reference was made to the leanred Reference Court by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the application made by Dagli Riba, the Power of Attorney holder of the respondent No.1- 103, wherein he is also a land owner and his name is incorporated therein as such. In view of the legal proposition, as discussed in the foregoing para, Shri Dagli Riba, on the basis of the Power of Attorney, can sign the application under Section 64 of the Act of 2013, and also appear in the court on behalf of the other respondents from Sl.No. 1 to 103. 14.4 It is fact that there is no reference to Section 64 of the Act of 2013 in the said decisions. But, it appears that Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013 are operating in the same field. While Section 18 of the Act of 1894 deals with reference to the Court, Section 64 of the Act of 2013, deals with reference to the Authority and this Authority, as per Section 52 of the Act is the Presiding Officer and has to be a District Judge, in view of Section 53 of the Act. It is well settled that when the provisions of the two acts are in sync, it is permissible to study them together, being in parimateria. And under such circumstances, the proposition of law, so laid down in the case of Ajit Singh (supra) and Chandra Bhan (supra) and also in the case of S.K. Containers Private Limited (supra) can be gainfully applied to the facts and circumstances herein this case and application of the said ratios, to the facts and circumstances herein this case, and on such count, filing of a reference application, has to be treated as sufficient to establish that the landowner or the person interested has some protest/objection to the award. 14.5 I have considered the submission of Mr. Soki, learned counsel for the State respondent No.105 in L.A. App. 14.5 I have considered the submission of Mr. Soki, learned counsel for the State respondent No.105 in L.A. App. No.1/2024 and for the appellant in L.A. No. 03/2024, in this regard and in view of the aforementioned discussion and finding, I find no substance in the same. I have also carefully gone through the decision in the case of Shivabai (supra) referred by Mr. Sanjay, learned Senior counsel for the appellants and I find that in the given factual back drop of the case in hand, the law laid down in the said case would not come into his assistance. Notably, in the said case Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "9. No doubt they had filed the writ petition in the High Court for seeking reference. But the High Court's order was only for making reference on verification and to find out the correct factual position. The officer himself was in collusion with the claimants and without making any enquiry he made the reference. Subsequently, some persons were impleaded to the reference. That itself indicates that all was not going well. It is now settled position in law that the claimants who receive compensation under protest and who make application under Section 18(1), alone are entitled to seek a reference; third parties, who have been impleaded, have no right to claim higher compensation by circumventing the process of reference under Section 18. Under these circumstances, the reference itself is without any jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Thereby, the award of the reference court is clearly illegal. On appeal, the High Court has not considered all these perspectives and found it convenient to rely on another judgment to uphold the award of the civil court." 14.6 Thus, a careful perusal of the aforesaid proposition, in the case of Shivabai (supra), would indicate that the proposition of law, laid down in the said case, proceeds on their own facts and clearly distinguishable from the present case. And as such, the same would not be applicable in all force to the present case. Moreover, in the said case, the Hon‘ble Court had not taken into account its earlier decision in the case of Ajit Singh (supra). And as such, the same would not be applicable in all force to the present case. Moreover, in the said case, the Hon‘ble Court had not taken into account its earlier decision in the case of Ajit Singh (supra). That being so, the decision in Shivabai (supra) to the considered opinion of this court, cannot be read as binding precedent in view of Constitutional Bench Decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . 14.7 Under the given facts and circumstances, the Issue No.(ii) has to be answered in affirmative and accordingly, the same stands answered. Issue No. (III):- 15. Moving forward to the Issue No.III, regarding the application of multiplication factor, it appears that the learned Reference Court, in paragraph No.101 of the impugned judgment, has held that the petitioners (respondents herein this appeal) are entitled to a multiplication factor 2.00, under Section 26 (2) of the LARR Act, 2013. The learned Reference Court has held that the acquired land is classified horticulture land, and the said land falls under rural area, and accordingly, the District Collector had assessed the award. The learned Reference Court further held that though the respondent (appellant herein) had taken a plea that the petitioners/respondents herein are entitled to multiplication factor of 1, under Land Acquisition Manual of 2022, and multiplication factor under Section 26 (2) is not required to be applied and the same is to be applied only in case of determination under Section 26 (1). Thereafter, the learned Reference Court had held that the said contention does not find favour from any law or any judicial decision and a reading of Section 26 (3) makes it evident that the principle to be adopted for determination of market value under Section 26 (3) is by adopting the said method under Section 26 (1) for adjoining land, which can be valued as per Section 26 (1) and as such, the determination under Section 26 (3) is also essentially a determination under Section 26 (1), but by relying upon data of adjoining land. The learned Reference Court also held that the Government has notified various rates previously and issued one Notification dated 15.11.2010, and the rate fixed therein, when compared with the Notification dated 06.09.2022, it is found that there is little change in the market value and as such, the floor value so fixed in the Notification dated 06.09.2022, is not based on any contemporary evaluation of market price, but is based on the older Notification itself without any updation. 15.1 The learned Reference Court also held that the observation made in the Land Acquisition Manual of 2022, in Para IV.3, regarding non- applicability of multiplication factor is not based on any provisions in the LARR Act, 2013 and that what legislature has not specifically omitted cannot be omitted by an executive Notification and that the interpretation given in the Notification dated 06.09.2022, is also contrary to the objects and reasons of the Act of 2013, as Clause 13 of the Statements of Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2013 postulates the comprehensive compensation package which a landowner would get in rural area and "Market value calculated will be multiplied by a factor of two in the rural area." 15.2 Further, the learned Reference Court had held that the reason for non-applicability of multiplication factor as cited in the Notification, dated 06.09.2022, are also not based on any judicial decision of a competent Court and such restrictive interpretation, regarding applicability of multiplication factor cannot override the expressed provision of the LARR Act, 2013 and that the Manual of 2022, does not expressly prohibit multiplication factor in para IV.6. In arriving at such a decision, the learned Reference Court also relied upon a decision of this Court in WP (C) No. 426(AP)/2016 ( Tipak Tayeng v. State of AP & Ors. ) and there is no existing Notification, under Section 26 (2) of the LARR Act, 2013, as of now, in Arunachal Pradesh and there is also one Notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Rural Development, being Notification No.S.O.425(E), dated 09.02.2016, which prescribed an uniform multiplication factor of 2.00 for all rural areas and that in terms of Section 107 of the Act of 2013, the more beneficial among the Central and State notifications has to be applied. 15.3 The learned Reference Court further held that the multiplication factor of 2.00 based on the Central Government Notification dated 09.02.2016 was applied in the Shi Yomi District for acquisition of land in rural areas in Ref. Case Nos.1/2021, 2/2021 and 3/2021 and the same was upheld by this Court in L.A. Appeal No.1/2022 and other connected cases, vide judgment and order dated 20.07.2023. Thereafter, the learned Reference Court has held that the provision of Section 26 (2) of the LARR Act, 2013, the market value is to be multiplied by a factor specified in the First Schedule. As per the First Schedule of the LARR Act, 2013, the appropriate Government may notify the factor to be 1 to 2 based on the distance of the project from the urban areas and there is no dispute that the acquired lands in issue, fall in rural area being classified under horticulture cultivation. 15.4 The reason, so assigned by the learned Reference Court, in applying multiplication factor 2.00, in the impugned judgment, seems to be justified and reasonable. It is not in dispute that the State of Arunachal Pradesh is a non-cadastral State. In the award, dated 13.11.2023, the District Collector had applied multiplication factor of 1.00, based on the Notification dated 06.09.2022. It also appears that the Manual was notified on 06.09.2022, and indisputably, the same is not legislative enactment or rule made under Section 109 of the LARR Act, 2013, but a compilation of executive instructions, regarding land acquisition in Arunachal Pradesh. This Manual cannot be used to take away the benefit of the central legislation, especially in view of the mandate of Section 107 of the LARR Act 2013, which also prohibit making of such less beneficial provision. 15.5 Notably, Section 107 of the Act of 2013, read as under:- "Nothing in this Act shall prevent any State from enacting any law to enhance or add to the entitlements enumerated under this Act which confers higher compensation than payable under this Act or make provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement which is more beneficial than provided under this Act." 15.6 It appears from this Section that it does not stop individual States from making their own laws that give people more benefits than this Act does when it comes to land acquisition. The states can offer higher amount of compensation or better terms for rehabilitation and resettlement than what this Act provides. But, it cannot enact any law or makes any provision for payment of lesser amount of compensation than provided under this Act. 15.7 Though much emphasis was laid upon the Land Manual, notified on 06.09.2022, by the appellants herein, yet it appears that the learned Reference Court had rightly dealt with the issue with cogent reason. And on such count, the argument so advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be acceded to. 15.8 It appears that while determining the value, the learned Reference Court has also kept in mind the Statements, Objects and Reasons of the Act of 2013, which postulates the comprehensive compensation package, which a landowner would get in rural area and it provides that to ensure comprehensive compensation package for the landowner, a scientific method for calculation of the market value of the land has been proposed and the market value calculated will be multiplied by a factor 2.00, in the rural area. 15.9 It appears that the Government of India had issued one Notification being Exhibit-19, dated 09.02.2016, under Section 22(2) read with First Schedule fixing the uniform multiplication factor 2.00 in respect of rural area. The said Notification was published in the Gazette of India on 9 th Feb, 2016 and it read as under:- NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 9th February, 2016 S.O. 425(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by column no. 3 of serial no. 2 of the First Schedule read with sub-section (2) of section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), the Central Government, hereby, notifies that in case of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied shall be 2.00 (two). [F. No. 13011/04/2015-LRD] HUKUM SINGH MEENA, Jt. Secy. 15.10 In that view of the matter, the contention of Mr. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and also of Mr. Soki, learned counsel for the respondent No.105 in L.A. App. No.01/2024 and appellant in L.A. App. No.03/2024, left this Court unimpressed. On the otherhand, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1—103. Sanjay, learned Additional Solicitor General for the appellant and also of Mr. Soki, learned counsel for the respondent No.105 in L.A. App. No.01/2024 and appellant in L.A. App. No.03/2024, left this Court unimpressed. On the otherhand, I find substance in the submission of Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1—103. 15.11 Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to hold that the learned Reference Court had rightly applied multiplication factor taking note of statement, object and reason of the Act of 2013 and also taking note of relevant Notifications, presently occupying the field. Issue No. (IV):- 16. Now, coming to the Issue No.(IV), as to whether the learned Reference Court had rightly decided the "market value" of the land is concerned, I find that the Act of 2013 has provisions that provide for fair compensation to property owners, whose land is acquired under the Act. Section 26 of the Act 2013, provides that the Collector, being responsible for deciding the market value of the land, by analyzing previous sales and to decide a price, that is agreeable by the owner of the land. This Section highlights the aim of the Act to balance both public interest and the interests and rights of landowners. The Act of 2013 is a socialistic legislation and aims at providing a justified value of the land to the owner and for their rehabilitation and resettlement. The Collector has been given powers to decide matters by the Act. 16.1 "Market Value" of a land has been highlighted in the case of Maj. Gen. Kapil Mehra v. Union of India , 2014 (145) DRJ 497 (Civil Appeal No. 2545-2546/2012), wherein Hon‘ble Supreme Court has dealt with the issue as under:- "10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer 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 and (iv) market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land. 11. 11. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value. 12. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat (2005) 4 SCC 789 , 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. 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. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-Ã -vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition......" 16.2 In Haridwar Development Authority vs. Raghubir Singh and Others , (2010) 11 SCC 581 , Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held that: "It is well settled that an increase in market value by about 10% to 12%, per year, can be provided, in regard to lands situated near urban areas having potential for non-agricultural development. 16.3 In the case of New Okhla Industrial Development District Authority vs. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs. & Ors., 2024 SCC Online SC 1691, Hon‘ble Supreme Court has considered the relevant factors to be considered in determining market value of the land. The Court has divided such factors into three categories: - "35..... (i) Characteristics of the land: The valuation of land is undeniably influenced by its inherent characteristics. A parcel of land endowed with advantageous features that enhance its accessibility and usability tends to command higher market price and thus, a greater valuation in comparison to lands lacking such attributes. Key factors contributing to such features include connectivity via roads and other means of transportation, the size and shape of the land, availability of essential utilities such as electricity and water, the evenness or levelling of the land's surface, width of frontage, and nature and status surrounding etc.; (ii) Future potentiality of the land: In addition to its characteristics, the valuation of land is also influenced by its potentiality. Lands with the potential to be used for commercial or residential purposes; that are located in or near a developed area; or which are proximate to tourist destinations, are perceived to hold greater value in the future. Consequently, landowners may anticipate higher future prices and accordingly demand higher sale prices compared to lands lacking these attributes. Accordingly, these features also lead to an increase in valuation; and (iii). Factors denoting market sentiment: Market sentiments are powerful drivers of land valuation. Consequently, landowners may anticipate higher future prices and accordingly demand higher sale prices compared to lands lacking these attributes. Accordingly, these features also lead to an increase in valuation; and (iii). Factors denoting market sentiment: Market sentiments are powerful drivers of land valuation. Even if a particular piece of land possesses all desirable features, its valuation can still suffer if the market onditions at the time of publication of the notification under Section 49 of the 1894 Act were unfavourable. Factors such as economic recessions, political instability, speculative investments or real estate crisis can impact the perceived value of the land. Thus, these extraneed economic and political factors must also be considered when assessing land valuation." 16.4 The learned Reference Court, while determining the market value of the land, had taken judicial notice of the market value of the land in Aalo Reference Case No. 02/24, which was determined by a Notification, dated 15.11.2010, as based market rate and the same was issued by the then Deputy Commissioner, West Siang District, and the present area in question also was under the Deputy Commissioner, Aalo at that point of time and the same rates were notified by the State Government vide No. LR-43/81 (Vol. 2) Pt. dated 16.05.2012 (P.Ex.11), and also the category and prices as notified on 16.05.2012, is same as that of the Notification dated 15.11.2010. The learned Reference Court also taken judicial notice of the Notification of 15.11.2010, though the same is not forming part of the exhibited documents and that Leparada district was later created from the erstwhile West Siang District and no independent notification of market value was published for the Leparada District. The learned Reference Court had also taken note of the difference of land value in Annexure-6 of the Land Acquisition Manual, notified on 06.09.2022, with that of the land value notified on 16.05.2012, by the State Government, as shown in the chart below and the same has not been updated, instead market value has been to be lesser in the Notification of 06.09.2022 for Laparada district, which according to the learned Reference Court, is against all trends of growing process of properties and inflation. Comparative Chart Cultivable Land (WRC) near motorable road Cultivable Land (WRC) without motorable road Cultivable Land under horticulture, agriculture, forest Under developed cultivable land with gentle slop and flat area with motorable road Under developed cultivable land with gentle slop and flat area without motorable road Under develoed uncultivable road. Rate as per DC, West Siang letter dated 15.11.2010 Rs.200 Per sqm. Rs.175 Per sqm. Rs.150 Per sqm. Rs.115 Per sqm. Rs.115 Per sqm. Rs.200 Per sqm. Rate as per 2022 Notification Rs.200 Per sqm.(WR C plain) Rs.175 Per sqm. Rs.115 Per sqm. Rs.100 Per sqm. Rs.100 Per sqm. Rs.200 Per sqm Uncultivated 16.5 The learned Reference Court had, thereafter, proceed to held that, it is clear from the records that the market value of the land was based on Notification of 15.11.2012 (SIC-15.11.2010), which was never updated. Rather, the market value is shown either to be lesser in the Notification of 06.09.2022, for Leparada district or without change of price, is against all trends of growing process of properties and inflation and as such the same, without there being any enhancement on horticulture plain and hill land even after 11 years, is completely illogical, unjustified, unfair and injustice to the land owners, which is also amounting to defeating the vary object of the beneficial legislation of LARR, Act, 2013 more particularly to the provision of section 107 of the Act. 16.6 The learned Reference Court has further held that as per records, Initial Approval (AIP) in this case is stated to be of 2010, and thereafter, the matter was under process for a long time and then on 01.05.2020, the Deputy Commissioner forwarded market value of the land to the Ministry of Defence to be Rs.150/- per sq. mtr. in the category of Horticultural land. The said rate was taken vide Notification dated 16.05.2012 (Exhibit 11 of the PW-1), thereafter, the Respondent No.1 had again forwarded the Market value @ Rs.150/- based on a later Notification dated 06.09.2022 (Exhibit 12 of the PW-1). The Preliminary Notification was issued before 23.03.2023. The process of acquisition commences only on issuance of Notification under Section 11 and in the administrative process for identification of land approvals etc. do not involve the land owners, for which the land owners had no occasion at that stage to object to anything because the legal process of the acquisition was yet to begin. The process of acquisition commences only on issuance of Notification under Section 11 and in the administrative process for identification of land approvals etc. do not involve the land owners, for which the land owners had no occasion at that stage to object to anything because the legal process of the acquisition was yet to begin. 16.7 The learned Reference Court had also held that the preliminary Notification was issued on 23.03.2023 (Exhibit 4) and the provision of urgency clause of Section 40 was invoked in the case and that the market value cannot be rolled back to 2009-2010, when LARR Act, 2013 was not notified. And while making the determination of the compensation under the LARR Act, 2013, the Collector, therefore, ought to have awarded updated market value of the land considering that the Award was made afresh in the year 2024 taking into the consideration of enquiry made U/S 26/28 of the Act on market value. The learned Reference Court then dismissed the case of May George vs. Tahsildar & others, (2010) 13 SCC 98 . It is to be noted here that in the said case, Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "14. Section 9 of the Act provides for an opportunity to the "person- interested" to file a claim petition with documentary evidence for determining the market value of the land and in case a person does not file a claim under Section 9 even after receiving the notice, he still has a right to make an application for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act. Therefore, scheme of the Act is such that it does not cause any prejudicial consequence in case the notice under Section 9(3) is not served upon the person interested." 16.8 The learned Reference Court also held that a reading of the Notification dated 06.09.2022, shows that it mentions that registration of sale deeds is not compulsorily followed in Arunachal Pradesh for sale of land between indigenous tribals. It is noted in Para IV. 1.1. of the Land Acquisition Manual of 2022, that sale does not generally happen and they are not registered. As per Para IV.1.2., the notifications issued from time to time had been used to notify rate for districts for which Notifications were not earlier issued. It is noted in Para IV. 1.1. of the Land Acquisition Manual of 2022, that sale does not generally happen and they are not registered. As per Para IV.1.2., the notifications issued from time to time had been used to notify rate for districts for which Notifications were not earlier issued. Para IV.2., also requires the periodical review of the rates, and that Leparada District was created out of West Siang district in the year 2018, and hence the rates of the West Siang was adopted for the same. One application under RTI dated 01.03.2024 (08.03.2024 SIC) (Exhibit 26 of PW-1) was filed seeking information about the Notification dated 06.09.2023 (06.09.2022 SIC). The RTI reply does not disclose any substantial material relating to basis of determination of the rates. 16.9 The learned Reference Court has also held that proviso to Section 26 of the LARR Act, 2013 mandates that "the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11" and in the instant case the date of Notification was 23.03.2023, whereas the rates are actually taken from Notification of 16.05.2012. As such, there has been a blatant departure from the provisions of Section 26 (1). Even when floor price under Section 26 (3) is specified, the third proviso to Section 26 (3) requires that ".... the Collector shall, before initiation of any land acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the prevalent market rate in that area." No such exercise has been carried out as apparent from the documents and the pleadings. This failure to adhere to the provisions of Section 26 (1) and 26(3), including the failure to update the market value, as on the date of preliminary Notification, cannot be used to the detriment of the land owners to give them lesser compensation. 16.10 Thereafter, the learned Reference Court had held that the vicinity of the land in question to the NH-13, the use of the acquired land for horticultural and 70% buildability are definitely positive factors weighing in favour of higher compensation and the valley areas in hills are used for cultivation and the same comprises of the most suitable parcels of land. The learned Reference Court had also discussed some case laws, such as Ambya Kalya Mhtre & Ors. The learned Reference Court had also discussed some case laws, such as Ambya Kalya Mhtre & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 9 SCC 325 and Udho Dass vs. State of Haryana & others, (2010) 12 SCC 51 , and Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 432 and thereafter, held that in view of the proposition of law, laid down in the said cases it has power to examine the evidence relating to valuation of the land and arrived at a fair market value. 16.11 Then the learned Reference Court had held that perusal of the Notifications dated 16.05.2012 and 06.09.2022, clearly shows that the market value has not been updated at all over a span of 11 years till payment in 2023. The Collector could not lead any evidence or produce any document relating to such updating of market value. Nor any justification could be provided as to why the rates have not increased over 11 years. It then observed that it is also clear from the records that no objections were heard during assessment of the compensation under the LARR Act, 2013 and as such the petitioners, therefore, have a clear right to project and establish a higher rate of compensation in reference. It has also held that the sale deed of commercial plot can be accepted as indicative rate, but the sale deed of adjoining area and similar nature of land for horticulture area can be taken into consideration as an indicative of rates. As such, if P. Ext-15 to 17, the land being located under Bam village, could be taken as an indicative market price and also the P. Ext- 22 being the land located within the district which is of Jhoom land feasible for horticulture purpose, but, the sale deed of commercial land at Basar, land at (Gori Nyigam village) cannot be taken into consideration as it is far away from the acquired land. 16.12 The learned Reference Court then taking into consideration of P. Ext- 15, 16, 17 & 22 to 25, Sale deeds as exhibited by the petitioners, held that the average sale price comes to Rs. 16.12 The learned Reference Court then taking into consideration of P. Ext- 15, 16, 17 & 22 to 25, Sale deeds as exhibited by the petitioners, held that the average sale price comes to Rs. 1686.25/- per sqm, rounded of at Rs.1,686/- and that the said sale deeds are for smaller areas, hence, appropriate deduction for developmental cost for larger plots should be made as per law laid down by the Apex Court and thereafter, it has held that on making 70% deduction from the sum of Rs-1686/-, the market value would be around Rs. 506/- per sqm excluding the 70%. 16.13 Indisputably, said exhibits are not registered sale deeds and most of them are small areas of land purchased for commercial purpose and also not located in the vicinity of the acquired land but in the locality of Basar Town. But, the learned Refernence Court had held that the said deeds are indicative of market price of the acquired land. 16.14 Under the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the learned Reference Court had held that it has to be evaluated that whether the sale deeds exhibited by the petitioners can form a basis of determination of the true market value and that P. Exhibit 22 bears the seal of the Executive Magistrate and Exhibit 15 to 17 executed in presence of Advocate with seal. Considering the fact that Arunachal is a non-cadastral area, sale deeds alone may not be the conclusive factor for finding market value as per provisions of the LARR Act, 2013, particularly when the exemplar produced is small. Hence, reliance on such sale deeds may only give some indications, which alone cannot be conclusively relied upon to determine the market value. 16.15 The learned Reference Court had also held that other alternative established judicial method of finding contemporary market value is of giving cumulative escalation to an old established rate. It is settled law that cumulative escalation of prices from a base year, can be granted to arrive at a contemporary market value of land in cases, where exemplar relating to current value is not available. This is in recognition of the fact that property prices escalate over a period of time. It is settled law that cumulative escalation of prices from a base year, can be granted to arrive at a contemporary market value of land in cases, where exemplar relating to current value is not available. This is in recognition of the fact that property prices escalate over a period of time. Thereafter, it had discussed the cases of General Manager, ONGC vs. Ramesh Bhai Jivan Bhai Patel & another , (2008) 14 SCC 745 , Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana , (2015) 15 SCC 200 , Ranjit Singh & others vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (1992) 4 SCC 659 , Union of India vs. Harpat Singh & others, (2009) 14 SCC 375 , Krishan Kumar vs Union of India , (2015) 15 SCC 220 and the case of Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Thakur Dwara Kalanul-Maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) & others, 2023 SCC Online SC 1361 and thereafter, following the above precedents, it had held that the petitioners herein are also entitled to increase in rates from the 2010 as base year of determination of market value, conducted by the DC Aalo, and the same was approved by the Govt. on 16.05.2012, as such, the rates fixed by the Collector determined the market value in 2010 cannot be freezed for more than 13 years when inflation in general has increased all prices. 16.16 The learned Reference Court then held that the petitioners have claimed that in Ref. Case No. 1/2021, 2/2021 and 3/2021, in respect of land acquired for the Indian Army, in Shi Yomi District, the price of horticultural land has been given annual cumulative escalation of 10% per annum to arrive at a rate of Rs. 353/- per sqm., in 2021 from a base rate of Rs. 150/- per sqm., in 2012. The said principle has been upheld by the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench by judgment dated 20.07.2023, in LA Appeal No. 1/2022, and other connected cases. 353/- per sqm., in 2021 from a base rate of Rs. 150/- per sqm., in 2012. The said principle has been upheld by the Gauhati High Court, Itanagar Bench by judgment dated 20.07.2023, in LA Appeal No. 1/2022, and other connected cases. Thus, it is permissible to incorporate the annual escalation of 10% per annum on the based rates fixed in the year 2010 approved in 2012, and there calculation in the present case for 13 year from 2010 to 2023 are as under:- Year 10% Amount increase by 10% based on price per annum (in Rs.) 2010 (base year) 150 150 (base price) 2011 10% on 150 165 2012 10% on 165 181.50 2013 10% on 181.50 199.65 2014 10% on 199.65 219.61 2015 10% on 219.61 241.57 2016 10% on 241.57 265.73 2017 10% on 265.73 292.73 2018 10% on 292.73 321.53 2019 10% on 321.53 353.69 2020 10% on 353.69 389.06 2021 10% on 389.06 427.76 2022 10% on 427.96 470.76 2023 10% on 470.76 517.84 16.17 The learned Reference Court had accepted the year 2010 as base year, as in the same the DC Aalo, had determined the market value and although, the approval was done by the Govt. on 16.05.2012 and that the land in question is a horticulture land and 1 (one) single point has been awarded in term of Manual for Land Acquisition notification, 2022 at the rate of Rs- 150/- per sqm. Thereafter, it had held that the acquired land being a horticulture land, the enhanced market value has to be determined herein with recourse to provisions of Section 69 of the LARR Act, 2013 read with Section 26 of the LARR Act, 2013 to be either Rs. 506/- in previous calculation method and Rs. 517.84/- on inflation calculation method. And the petitioners should be compensated, accordingly, either of the one method at the said enhanced rates. 16.18 Thereafter, taking note of Section 107 of the Act as well as considering the buildability area of 70% and the acquired land being adjoining to various sistricts, such as Subansiri, Lower Siang, Leparada and west Siang District, the learned Reference Court had rounded of the rate at Rs 500/- as market value per sq.mtr., and therefore, the compensation for market value payable to the petitioners shall be determined at the rate of Rs-500/- per sqm., which would, thus, stand at around Rs. 1,08,65,80,933/- for total area of 21,73,161.866 sqm., acquired under category of Horticulture land, instead of the earlier determined compensation of Rs. 32,59,74,250.80/-. 16.19 The above method, so adopted by the learned Reference Court, i.e. a cumulative increase of 10% to 15% per year, was held to be permissible in the absence of other acceptable evidence, by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Jogendra Singh vs. State of U.P. , (2008) 17 SCC 133 , in the following paragraphs:- "11. This Court in a series of judgments has taken judicial notice of the fact that there is a steady increase in the market value of land and has adopted the procedure of increasing the market value in the relied-upon transaction, at a given rate per year. 12. In ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] this Court held that in regard to urban and semi-urban areas, in the absence of other acceptable evidence, a cumulative increase of 10% to 15% was permissible with reference to acquisitions in the 1990s. In the decades preceding 1990s, the quantum of increase was considered to be less than 10% per annum. This Court however observed that transactions beyond five years before the acquisition, should be considered with caution and may not always be a reliable guide. 13. These cases relate to an acquisition in the year 1979. The relied-upon award related to an acquisition of the year 1969. The general increase between 1969-1979 can be taken to be around 8-10% per annum. If the said increase is calculated cumulatively, we find that the total increase for ten years would be around 100%. Therefore the assessment by the Tribunal affirmed by the High Court, does not suffer from any infirmity. 16.20 The decision in Sardar Jogendra Singh (supra) was subsequently followed by Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridwar Development Authority (supra), wherein, it has been held as under:- "12. We are therefore of the view that the value arrived at by the Collector, and accepted by the Reference Court and the High Court requires to be increased by 12% in view of the fact that the preliminary notification was one year after the relied upon sale transaction. Accordingly, by increasing the value of Rs. 26.25 by 12%, we arrive at the market value as on 7-12-1991 at Rs. 29/40, rounded off to Rs. Accordingly, by increasing the value of Rs. 26.25 by 12%, we arrive at the market value as on 7-12-1991 at Rs. 29/40, rounded off to Rs. 29/50 per square foot. 16.21 It also appears that, the learned Reference Court had taken note of following factor, which according to the learned Reference Court are positive factors for entitlement of higher price by the land owners:- (i) The land in question is adjoining to the NH-13; (ii) The land was being used for habitation and horticultural purpose; (iv) 70% buildability; (v) Most suitable parcels of land with valuable trees; 16.22 These factors, as taken note of the learned Reference Court, are never disputed by either of the appellants. Though Mr. Sanjay, the learned Additional Silicitor General for the appellant, submitted that the learned Reference Court had wrongly relied upon the Notification of land rate in the year 2010 and had wrongly and arbitrarily enhanced the market value to Rs.500/- per sq.meter and that Rs.150/- is the justified, said submission of Mr. Sanjay left this Court unimpressed in as much as the learned Reference Court had made elaborate discussion on both the method of calculation of the market value and assigned reason in arriving at such a finding. The appellant side could not demonstrate before this court as to how the method of determining the market value of the land is illegal or arbitrary. 16.23 Thus, having examined the finding, so arrived at by the learned Reference Court and in the light of given facts and circumstances on the record and also in the light of the proposition of law laid down in the cases discussed in the foregoing paragraph, this court is of the view that no illegality or impropriety is committed by the learned Reference Court in determining the market value of the land in question and the same appears to be based on sound principles of law and also in consonance with the statement, object and reason of the Act of 2013, and on such count the finding of the learned Reference Court in respect of "market value" requires no interference of this court. According, Issue No. (IV) is decided in affirmative. Issue No.(V):- 17. According, Issue No. (IV) is decided in affirmative. Issue No.(V):- 17. Moving forward to the Issue No.(V), as to whether the learned Reference Court had arbitrarily awarded 100% solatium, I find that the learned Reference Court in the impugned judgment, after discussion of Section 69 of the Act of 2013 had held that - the payment of Solatium in the Award is statutory in nature and the solatium is fixed to be 100% of the compensation amount as per Section 30 (1) of the LARR Act, 2013. The provision for mandatory award of solatium with award by the Authority is expressly mentioned in Section 69 of the 2013 Act. 17.1 It is to be noted here that Section 69 of the Act of 2013, reads as under- "69. Determination of award by authority (1) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired including the Rehabilitation and Resettlement entitlements, the Authority shall take into consideration whether the Collector has followed the parameters set out under section 26 to section 30 and the provisions under Chapter V of this Act. (2) In addition to the market value of the land, as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum on such market value for the period commencing on and from the date of the publication of the preliminary notification under section 11 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. (3) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award a solatium of one hundred per cent over the total compensation amount. (3) In addition to the market value of the land as above provided, the Authority shall in every case award a solatium of one hundred per cent over the total compensation amount. 17.2 A five Judges Constitutional Bench of Hon‘ble Supreme Court answering a reference, had the occasion to deal with the issue of solatium and interest in the case of Sunder vs. Union of India India , (2001) 7 SCC 211 , as under:- "Once it is held as it inevitably must be that the solatium provided for under Section 23(2) of the Act forms an integral and statutory part of the compensation awarded to a landowner, then from the plain terms of section 28 of the act, it would be evident that the interest is payable on the compensation awarded and not merely on the market value of the land. Indeed the language of S.28 does not even remotely refer to market value alone and in terms talks of compensation or the sum equivalent thereto. The interest awardable under Section 28 therefore would include within its ambit both the market value and the statutory solatium. It would be thus evident that the provisions of Section 28 in terms warrant and authorise the grant of interest on solatium as well." 17.3 It has also been held as under:- "In our view the aforesaid statement of law is in accord with the sound principle of interpretation. Hence the person entitled to the compensation awarded is also entitled to get interest on the aggregate amount including solatium. The reference is answered accordingly." 17.4 Thereafter, Hon‘ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Tarsem Singh and Others , (2019) 9 SCC 304 , held as under:- 11. Before embarking on a discussion as to the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act, it is important to first understand what is meant by the expression ‚solatium?. In Sunder v. Union of India India, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 211 , a Bench of five Judges of this Court laid down the nature of solatium as follows : (SCC p. 229, paras 21 and 22) "21. It is apposite in this context to point out that during the enquiry contemplated under Section 11 of the Act the Collector has to consider the objections which any person interested has stated pursuant to the notice given to him. It is apposite in this context to point out that during the enquiry contemplated under Section 11 of the Act the Collector has to consider the objections which any person interested has stated pursuant to the notice given to him. It may be possible that a person so interested would advance objections for highlighting his disinclination to part with the land acquired on account of a variety of grounds, such as sentimental or religious or psychological or traditional, etc. Section 24 emphasises that no amount on account of any disinclination of the person interested to part with the land shall be granted as compensation. That aspect is qualitatively different from the solatium which the legislature wanted to provide ‘in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition’. 22. Compulsory nature of acquisition is to be distinguished from voluntary sale or transfer. In the latter, the landowner has the widest advantage in finding out a would- be buyer and in negotiating with him regarding the sale price. Even in such negotiations or haggling, normally no landowner would bargain for any amount in consideration of his disinclination to part with the land. The mere fact that he is negotiating for sale of the land would show that he is willing to part with the land. The owner is free to settle terms of transfer and choose the buyer as also to appoint the point of time when he would be receiving consideration and parting with his title and possession over the land. But in the compulsory acquisition the landowner is deprived of the right and opportunity to negotiate and bargain for the sale price. It depends on what the Collector or the court fixes as per the provisions of the Act. The solatium envisaged in sub-section (2) ‚in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition? is thus not the same as damages on account of the disinclination to part with the land acquired.? (emphasis supplied) Thus, the solatium that is paid to a landowner is on account of the fact that a landowner, who may not be willing to part with his land, has now to do so, and that too at a value fixed legislatively and not through negotiation, by which, arguably, such landowner would get the best price for the property to be sold. Once this is understood in its correct perspective, it is clear that ‚solatium? Once this is understood in its correct perspective, it is clear that ‚solatium? is part and parcel of compensation that is payable for compulsory acquisition of land. 17.5 In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the learned Reference Court had arbitrarily awarded 100% solatium in the impugned judgment and award, as it is provided in the Section 69 of the Act of 2013 held that - the payment of Solatium in the Award is statutory in nature and the solatium is fixed to be 100% of the compensation amount as per Section 30 (1) of the LARR Act, 2013. Issue No.(VI):- 18. Moving forward to the Issue No.(VI), as to whether the land owners are entitled to get 12% interest under Section 30(3) of the LARR Act, 2013, the learned Reference Court had awarded interest as under in the following para:- 179. The petitioners are also entitled award of 12% interest under Section 30 (3) read with Section 69 (2). 180. The petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 72 of the LARR Act, 2013 on the enhanced compensation as statutorily provided for 9% for the first year and thereafter @ 15% per annum. 181. The petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 80 of the LARR Act, 2013 on the unpaid compensation as statutorily provided for @ 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter. 18.1 In State of Punjab Vs. Amarjit Singh , (2011) 4 SCC 734 , Hon‘ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "5. While market value and compensation are factors to be assessed and determined by the court, no such judicial exercise is involved in regard to additional amount payable under Section 23(1A) and solatium payable under Section 23(2) as they are statutory benefits payable automatically at the rates specified in those sub-sections, qua the market price. No reasons need be assigned for grant of additional amount or solatium." 18.2 When the finding of the learned Reference Court, in respect of awarding of solatium and interest is considered in the light of the aforesaid proposition of law and also in the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunder (supra), it cannot be said that the learned Reference Court has arbitrarily awarded the solatium and interest. The contention of the appellants, therefore, fails to mandate acceptance of this Court. The contention of the appellants, therefore, fails to mandate acceptance of this Court. In view of above, the Issue No.(VI) has to be answered in affirmative and accordingly, the same stands answered. 19. It is worth mentioning herein this context that the "Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, a Resettlement Act, 2013" was with the following primary objective: (i) To define and direct a land acquisition process more participatory, involving consultation with local self-government and the Gram Sabha and to bring transparency in the process. This land acquisition process's goal is the development of vital infrastructure and urbanisation, both of which are required for public purposes. (ii) To guarantee that the landowners, whose property is being acquired, receive equitable and fair compensation while taking into account all the economic and social factors and also to guarantee appropriate procedures and rules for the same. (iii) To rehabilitate and resettle the affected landowners and their families that depends on the property, either directly or indirectly and suffers when it is brought. 20. And this Court has kept in mind the above objectives, while dealing the issues raised in these appeals and the rival submissions, so advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. 21. In view of the aforementioned discussion and finding, this Court finds no merit in these appeals and accordingly, all the three appeals stand dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.