Hon’ble Prakash Krishna, J.—Present appeal arises out of Land Acquisition Reference No. 8 of 1989 and is directed against the award of Civil Court dated 24th August, 1991, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ballia, whereby he granted compensation of 0.09 acres of land at the rate of Rs. 1,80,000/- per acre, out of which claimant/respondent No. 1 is entitled to 3/8 of it; the compensation for trees and construction at Rs. 97,500/- and damages under Clauses (4) and (5) of Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act at Rs. 50,000/- together with interest and solatium etc.

2. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid award, the acquiring body has preferred the above appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

3. The land was acquired for the benefit of the appellant by issuing a notification dated 8th March, 1980 under Section 28 of the U.P. Avas Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, read with Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. By means of the aforesaid notification 0.9 acres of land in village Madhavpur was acquired, which includes plot No. 195 area 0.09 acres. Claimant/respondent No. 1 is the Asami of the said plot No. 195. It is not in dispute that being Asami, he was entitled and has been rightly granted compensation at the rate of 3/8 of the total compensation awarded by the reference Court. The possession of the said plot was taken on 25th March, 1980 and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is dated 22nd September, 1986. It is common case of the parties that the aforesaid land was acquired for the scheme known as Harpur Bhumi Vikas Evam Grah Sthan Yojna. The reference Court as noted above enhanced the compensation by the order under appeal.

4. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid enhancement made by the reference Court the present appeal is at the instance of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad.

5. Sri V.K. Burman, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Parishad has challenged the judgment of the reference Court only on the following two points :

6. Firstly, the rate of compensation granted to the claimant/respondent is towards higher side. In other words the reference Court has granted compensation over and above the market value of the land thus acquired. Elaborating the argument it was submitted that there is no evidence on record to show the cost escalation of the land in the village. Elaborating the argument it was submitted that while determining the final compensation the reference Court has made deduction at the rate of 25% on account of the bulk acquisition, while it should have been at the rate of 30%. Secondly, he submitted that the compensation awarded to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- under Clauses 4 and 5 of Section 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, (para 13 of the judgment of the reference Court) is unjustified and is not tenable in law. There being no reliable or cogent evidence that the claimant has suffered damages to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- by reason of the acquisition which injuriously affected the earnings and compelled the claimants to change their residence and place of business. In contra, the learned Counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 placed reliance upon the judgment of the reference Court in support of his submission.

7. The first point which falls for determination is with regard to the question of amount of compensation towards acquisition of plot No. 195, measuring 0.09 acres. The reference Court under issue No. 1 has noted that as many as 41 sale deeds were produced in respect of the lands lying in village Madhavpur within a period of three years prior to the date of notification. It has treated the two sale deeds dated 10th May, 1977 and 14th February, 1978 as exemplars for determination of the compensation of the market value of the land in question. It has rightly taken into account the aforesaid two sale deeds inasmuch as the sale deeds are with respect to the land, which has been acquired under the notification. The learned Senior Counsel has not disputed for