Hon’ble Harsh Kumar, J.—This appeal has been preferred by State against the judgement and order dated 19.4.1999 passed by IInd Additional District Judge, Bijnor in L.A.R. Case No. 194 of 1992 Ghanshyam Singh and others v. State of U.P., allowing the reference and awarding compensation at enhanced rate of Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre with 12% additional amount apart from solatium and interest.

2. The brief facts relating to the appeal are that 23.337 acre land was acquired by issuance of notice under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as Act) dated 25.1.1989, published on 22.4.1989, followed by notification under Section 6(1) of the Act dated 28.3.1989, published on 15.7.1989. By above notifications, total 63.748 acre land of 5 villages (i) Shekhupura (ii) Gujarpur Jespal (iii) Danwarpur (iv) Rasoopur and (v) Sihora Girdharpur were acquired and after considering the different exemplars produced before him for respective villages, the SLAO determined the market value and accordingly awarded compensation vide his award dated 14.7.1991. Feeling aggrieved with the award of SLAO, the claimants filed reference under Section 18 of the Act which was numbered as L.A.R. No. 194/92 and was decided by IInd Additional District Judge Bijnore vide its judgment and order dated 19.4.1999, giving rise to this appeal.

3. The lower Court record was received and paper books were filed by both the parties. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents were heard at length on the entire appeal.

4. The learned Standing Counsel argued that the exemplar relied by Additional District Judge, relates to a very small piece of land, measuring only 0.313 acres while the land acquired of village was measuring 23.337 acres so the exemplar was not appropriate for determining the market value of land acquired and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, was right in making a deduction of 25% from the market value on account of the larger area of land acquired; that the learned Additional District Judge acted wrongly and illegally with material irregularity in disallowing above deductions and enhancing rate of compensation exorbitantly and much more than that claimed by claimants in the table given by them in their memo of reference; that the learned Additional District Judge erred in assessing the rate of market value on the basis of alleged urban or industrial development potentiality while the claimants themselves had claimed it to be having potentiality as agricultural land in memo of reference; that the learned Additional District Judge has committed manifest error of fact and law in allowing the compensation arbitrarily and exorbitantly assessing market value at a flat rate of Rs. 2,15,000/- per acre, without taking into consideration the un-controverted different and poor qualities of the land acquired (as mentioned in extracts of khasra & khatauni as well as in award of SLAO) and in awarding 12% additional amount apart from solatium @ 30% and interest, thereon.

5. He argued that making of 25% deduction by SLAO on the ground of land acquired having larger area of 23.337 acres in comparison to the smaller area of exemplar only 0.313 acre was absolutely correct even in view of the fact that area of claimant’s land acquired 3.518 acre, was also more than 10 times compared to the area of exemplar. He argued that in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India and another, (2009) 15 SCC 769, the Apex Court has held that deduction between 20 to 75% of the price is permissible in view of development factor while in Viluven Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujrat, 2005(4) SCC 789, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in view of factors like largeness of area, situation in the interior narrow strip of land, lower level, remoteness from developed locality etc., 20 to 50% deduction may be permissible on account of development charges.

6. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents argued