Indira Shah, J.

Both appeals are against the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Pasighat, East Siang District in Psg. Money Suit No.16/2013 and subsequently reviewed by judgment and decree dated 16.4.2014 passed in Psg. Civil Review Application No.02/2014.

2. I have heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant in LA Appeal No. 01(AP) 2014 and respondent No.1 in LA Appeal No.02 (AP) 2014 as well as Mr. K. Ete, learned Addl. Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh appearing on behalf of the respondent-Deputy Commissioner and Mr. B. Pathak, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the appellants/Union of India in LA Appeal No. 02(AP) of 2014 and respondent No.2 in LA Appeal No.01 (AP) of 2014.

3. The appellant in L.A. Appeal No.01/2014 is owner and possessor of plots of land measuring 249.53 acres, 107.90 acres and 293.10 hectors situated at Sigar Village of Mebo Sub-Division of East Siang District. On 3.9.2002, an Army Officer from 5th Mountain Brigade approached the claimant and the claimant agreed to part with the land for purposed of setting up Army's Headquarters. In view of proposed acquisition proceedings, the claimant did not take steps for cultivation upon the lands. It was only in the year 2010, the Deputy Commissioner sought for willingness certificate from the claimant to part with her land. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner informed the claimant that the minimum requirement of land was 1,300 acres and that too in a single stretch and the claimant was asked to intimate the Deputy Commissions within two days if area of 1,300 acres in a single stretch is available. Though the claimant had more than 2,500 acres but the lands were not compact in nature. In order to have a compact land the claimant had to purchase various plots of land at a huge expense and for that she had to take loan with heavy interest. She made available a compact plot of land of more than 1,300 acres to the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, a joint survey was conducted and the Deputy Commissioner issued a land Calculation Certificate dated 24.8.2015, wherein value of the land was shown as Rs. 2,50,000 per acre exclusive of 2% contingency charges, 30% solatium and 12% interest.

4. The Deputy Commissioner by a subsequent communication dated 20.9.2010 and 11.2.2011 without any rhyme or reason reduced the market value from Rs. 2,50,000 per acre exclusive of 30% Solatium and 12% interest to Rs. 2,50,000 per acre inclusive of 30% Solatium and 12% interest.

5. After the lapse of two years from the date when the market value of the land was assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Notification dated 9.8.2012 under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued and published in the Gazette and local newspaper, whereas, the market value of the land ought to be the as on the date of Notification under section 4 of the Act, i.e., 9.8.2012. Subsequent thereto, on 12.9.2012, the final notification in terms of section 6 of the Act was published in the English dailies. On 21.11.2012, an Award was finalized and filed in the office of the Deputy Commissioner whereby total compensation of Rs. 18,69,84,640.98 P for 747.94 acres of land was awarded. On 3.1.2013 the possession of the land was handed over to the Army Authorities and on 9.1.2013 the payment to claimant vide cheque was made which the claimant received without prejudice to her rights as well as under protest.

6. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation the claimant sought for reference under section 18 of the Act for determination of the compensation by the Court. Accordingly a reference to the Court of District Judge was made by the Deputy Commissioner and the proceeding was registered as Money Suit No. ES (03)/2013. Later the proceeding was transferred to Pasighat and the case was renumbered as Psg. Money Suit No.16/2013.

7. The Union of India as well the Deputy Commissioner contested the reference case primarily on two grounds, viz., the Award bei