K.S. Rathore, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the DLC has not been held at the time of notification under Section 4 (1) issued to acquire the land belonging to the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner represented before the respondents to hold the DLC meeting. The representation of the petitioner was accepted and the DLC has reviewed the market rate but it was made effective from 17.08.2004.

3. Aggrieving with the cut off date the petitioner filed this present petition and submits that since the DLC has revised the market rate on the representation filed by the petitioner, therefore, he should be given benefit of revision and the revision should be made effective from 23.01.2003.

4. Per contra learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Garg submits that the DLC rates are not binding for awarding compensation, even otherwise the petitioner is at liberty to represent before the Land Acquisition Officer and other competent authorities with regard to the prevailing market rate, which may be higher than the rate fixed by the DLC. But it is for the petitioner to prove the prevailing market rate of the land.

5. He furthe