An appellate court has the power to examine the materials on record and ascertain whether the finding of the trial court can be upheld or reversed, and is not bound to remand the suit simply because the trial court's decision is not supported by reason.

( 1 ) IN this appeal , an award dated 21st March, 1996 passed by the Court of Arbitrator [judge Special Court (EC Act) Durgapur appointed under section 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (1952 Act)] in L. A. Case No. 1 DIA/71-72 is under challenge.

( 2 ) MR. , Chandra Sekhar the learned counsel for the appellants, points out that while arriving at the valuation of the land acquired, the Court had not given any reason on the basis whereof it had arrived at a valuation of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) per acre. He had taken us through the decision and had pointed out to the lacunae in the judgment.

( 3 ) MR. Lahiri, learned counsel for the respondents, points out from the judgment that the Court had discussed the commercial valuation or other utility of the land in detail, though it might not have discussed the valuation available on the basis of the exhibits on record. He then contends that the claimants are entitled to solatium and additional compensation as payable under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the decision in F. M. A. 254-259 of 1994 with F. M. A 117 of 1994 (Union of India v. Sudhangshu Kumar Mukherjee and Ors. , disposed of on 4th September 2001. In the said decision the land was also acquired under the said 1952 Act. Therefore, this Court should award the same relief as was granted in the said decision. Finding of the Reference Court:

( 4 ) AFTER having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, it appears that in the said order the importance of the land has been discussed. In the decision itself it has pointed out that there were market, cinema hall and other various amenities and the land is situated near bazaar. Therefore, the land is valuable. True, that while calculating the valuation under section 8 (2a) of the 1952 Act, the land is to be treated as it was requisitioned. The land was stated to be "baid" which is agricultural land. But still then the vicinity of the land may be a factor for determining the valuation. If the land is situated around a place nearer to the market or Railway Station and the area is otherwise developed at the time when the land was acquired, in that event, the valuation of the ":baid" land can also be said to be of some value. Therefore, it is not true that the learned Arbitrator has not at all considered the question of valuation in order to come to the conclusion. That apart, he has referred to Exhibits 1 to 6, which are Deeds of transfer in respect of sale of land in the vicinity and having regard to those Deeds, he has arrived at the calculation that a sum of Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees twelve thousand only) per acre would be the value of the land acquired. In fact, the dates of the respective Deeds have not been mentioned in the order itself. Mr. Das has pointed out that in the absence of the dates of the Deeds, the judgment does not appear to be supported by appropriate reasons. But that will not defeat the order passed, simply because reference to the respective date of the Deeds has not been made. The exhibits are on record. If on the basis of these exhibits, the Court arrives at a decision in that event, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the finding having regard to the Deeds, which are on record, in case the finding can be supported by those Deeds. Rules of procedure to be followed in an appeal under section 11:

( 5 ) AN appeal is provided under section 11 of the 1952 Act against an award of the Arbitrator passed under section 8 of that Act to the High Court. The Act does not provide for any procedure to be followed by the High Court in deciding the appeal. Though the Act had restricted application of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in respect of a proceeding under section 8 of the Act before the Arbitrator and in relation to service of notice under section 12 and 15 respectively and had provided for the procedure to be followed by the Arbitrator in section 8 for