In determining compensation for acquired land, the court must consider several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and potential, its location, and the impact of neighboring land use.

V. D. Misra, C. J.—This judgment will dispose of R. F. As. Nos. 451 to 459 of 1980 since these arise out of a common judgment.

2. The appeals are directed against the judgment of Shri C. S. Sauhta, Land Acquisition Court (District Judge Solan and Sirmur Districts at Nahan) who by a common judgment enhanced the compensation awarded to the claimants in respect of the acquired land.

3. By a notification dated 16th February, 1974 issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), land measuring 206 bighas 15 biswas, situated in village Mantaru Wala, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, was acquired for the purpose of timber depot. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was subsequently issued in 17th June, 1974.

4. The Land Acquisition Collector came to the conclusion that the acquired land was of four categories. These were : (1) Obar Aval, (2) Obar II, (3) Baniar Kadim, and (4) Gairmumkin Abadi. For the first category Rs. 3,000 per bigha, for the second category Rs. 2,000 per bigha, for the third category Rs. 550 per bigha, and for the fourth category Rs. 3,000 per bigha were awarded. The claimants being dissatisfied asked for a reference under Sec tion 18 of the Act which was duly made to the District Judge.

5. All the references were consolidated by the District Judge. Though an issue regarding the classification of the acquired property was settled, it was given up by the parties who only pressed the following issue; "Whether the acquired property has been assessed adequately and compensation awarded is low ?"

6. After recording the evidence produced by the parties, the District Judge proceeded to treat the whole of the acquired land as Obar Aval and enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000 per bigha. The State has challenged the award by these appeals.

7. We may straightaway record that at the conclusion of the hearing we were of the opinion that it is a fit case where the cases should be remanded for further evidence and the respondents had no objection.

8. Before we refer to the merits we may notice the objection of the respondents. It is contended that all the appeals are barred by limitation. This objection is based on the contention that the certificate of the Copying Agency showing the date of the copies being ready for delivery is not correct and has been manipulated.

9. Certain relevant dates may now be noticed. The impugned judgment is dated 29th April, 1980. Application for copies was made on 5th July, 1980. According to the certificate the date of preparation of the copies is 25th October, 1980 and the date of delivery is 27th October, 1980. Now if these dates are correct, it is conceded by the respondents that the appeals are within limitation. But the respondents have placed on record a certified copy of a notice dated 5/6th September, 1980 having been issued by the Copying Agency to the Deputy Commissioner informing him that the copies were ready for delivery and they should be collected forthwith (Annexure-E in R. F. A. No 456 of 1980). Certified copies of the entries of the Copying Agency register-have also been placed on record. One is Annexure R2 in R. F. A. No. 457 of 1980. There is an entry in the column of "No. of copies required" of notice having been issued on 5th September, 1980 in respect of the copies being ready. Now this copy was prepared on 1st January, 1981 and delivered on 2nd January, 1981. But another copy of the same register relating to this relevant entry, which has been placed on record by the respondents, is Annexure-D in R. F. A. No. 456 of 1980. The relevant column does not show any such entry. This copy was applied for on 28th November, 1980 and was delivered on 26th December, 1980. Whether the entry in question was there on record and the Copying Agency has made a mistake in not noting it down in Annexure-E as suggested by the respondents, or these entries have been made between 26th December, 1980 and 1st January, 1981 is at the moment a mystery. However,