The market value of land acquired for a public purpose is to be determined as on the date of the notification under S. 3 of the Act or the market value on 1st September, 1939, whichever is less, and the land is to be valued not merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time of acquisition, but also by reference to the uses to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the future.

KHARE, J. :- These are seven connected first appeals arising out of compensation proceedings under the U.P. Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation of Refugees) Act No. 26 of 1948, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). An area of land, measuring 19.99 acres belonging to several proprietors and situate in Lekhraj Muzbita within the Municipal Limits of the city of Meerut, was acquired under a notification dated 29th January, 1950, for the rehabilitation of certain refugees, who formed a society under the style of Jain Pursharthi, Housing Cooperative Society, Meerut. Possession was delivered to the Society on 27th June, 1950. The land acquired belonged to various proprietors, who claimed compensation at the rates varying from Rs. 5/- to Rs. 12/- per square yard. On a portion of the land there were tenants, who claimed compensation for their tenancy rights as well as for trees, wells and buildings standing on their land.

The Land Acquisition Officer calculated the value of the land treating it as agricultural land. He also allowed some compensation for trees, wells and the constructions. On a request being made by some of the proprietors and tenants references were made to the Court of the learned District Judge who, after considering the entire evidence led before him, arrived at the conclusion that the land which was being acquired should be treated as a potential building site. He, however, was of the view that the northern portion of the land which was acquired was of greater value than the southern portion which was separated from the northern portion by means of a Kachcha road. He, therefore, allowed compensation to the owners and the tenants treating the land as a potential building site. The compensation allowed for the land to the north of the kachcha road was at the rate of Rs. 1/8/-per square yard, while the compensation allowed for the land lying to the south of the kachcha road was at the rate of Re. 1/- per square yard. The learned District Judge further fixed the proportion in which the landlords and the tenants were to receive compensation. He found that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the buildings. trees and wells was adequate.

2. With the consent of the parties all the references made to the learned District Judge were disposed of by one common judgment dated 10th November, 1953. Six appeals have been filed by the State of U.P. against the valuation fixed by the learned District Judge on the ground that it was too high and compensation should have been allowed treating the land as agricultural land. Appeals Nos. 63, 64, 78 and 81 are directed against four sets of proprietors namely, Sm. Asharfi Devi, Dr. Maqsud Husain, Sm. Gomti Devi and Joti Prasad respectively, while the remaining two appeals filed by the State Government are directed against two sets of tenants, namely, Khalrati and others (Appeal No. 79 of 1954) and Ramji Lal (Appeal No. 80 of 1954). Appeal No. 67 of 1954 has been filed by Dr. Maqsud Husain on the ground that the rate at which the compensation has been awarded by the learned District Judge is too low and that it should have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 5/- per square yard. Another ground was that no compensation had been awarded to the appellant in respect of six biswas land of plot No. 1551.

3. The judgment of the learned District Judge clearly shows that due to inadvertence no compensation has been allowed in respect of the land of plot No. 1551. The area of the plot is six biswas and there can be no reason why compensation should not have been allowed for the land of plot No. 1551 also. The learned Standing Counsel has conceded before us that the claim of the appellant (Dr. Maqsud Husain) in respect of the compensation for the area of plot No. 1551 is well-founded and that he should get compensation for that land also at the rate which is held to be reasonable for the southern portion of the land, which has been acquired.

4. The valuation fixed by t