The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the market value of the acquired property and the application of previous judgments to enhance compensation.

This first appeal arises out of the judgment of the Ist Additional District Judge, Varanasi dated 4.3.1983. The facts of the case in brief are that a land acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1894) was issued on 29.11.1978 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued on 19.6.1979. The land of the appellant fell within the ambit of this land acquisition notification. The area of land of the appellant measuring 0.66 acres was situated in village Bhagatpur Pargana Sheopur, District Varanasi. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award and the compensation awarded under the award was at the rate of Rs. 175.48 paise per decimal.

2. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation under the award, the appellant (Shyam Behari Lal, now deceased) filed land acquisition reference in the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Varanasi. The following issues were framed:

"1. What was the market value of the property acquired on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ?

2. Whether the claimants are not entitled to enhancement as alleged in para 7 of the written statement ?

3. To what amount of compensation, if any, are the claimants entitled ?"

3. With regard to the issue no.1, namely, the market value of the property in question, according to the appellant, market value of the land in question should have been between Rs.6,000/- to Rs.8,000/- per biswa. In support of this claim the appellant relied upon the exemplar in the nature of a sale deed dated 24.1.1978 executed by one Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of Sachchidanand, Vibhuti Narain and Janranjan, which was with regard to 2 biswa of land of Plot No. 261 and the same was sold for Rs.12,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per Biswa.

4. The case of the appellant further is that the land in question was situated at a distance of about two furlongs from the Sheopur market and used to yield three crops in a year. In his cross-examination, he has further stated that some land was also grove.

5. On behalf of the respondents, reliance was placed on a judgment dated 28.8.1982 passed in another land acquisition reference no. 212 of 1980, Ram Lakhan Vs. Collector, in which compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.350/- per decimal of land of this very Scheme.

6. The further objection of the respondent was that the sale deed in respect of the land of Smt. Kamla Devi cannot be relied upon as an exemplar as the said sale deed was executed on 24.1.1978, i.e. prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894.

7. The court below after hearing the parties and having gone through the evidence on record, further relying upon a decision awarded in a similar land acquisition reference no. 212 of 1980, Ram Lakhan Vs. Collector has enhanced the compensation entitlement of the appellant to Rs. 350/- per decimal besides solatium at 15% and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of possession till the date of payment or deposit in the court.

8. I have heard Sri Vinod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Siddharth Singh Shrinet, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the oral testimony of the appellant Shyam Behari (now deceased) which was filed as paper no. 27 Ka in the proceedings in the court below dated 22.2.1983, copy of which has been filed at page 8 of the appellant's paper book. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the land in question was situated in village Bhagatpur Pargana, Sheopur. It has also been stated that the said plot is about two furlongs from the Sheopur Bazaar and that the appellant is growing three crops and vegetables in a year. It has also been stated that the said land is on the border of village Sheopur and the said border of the three villages is about 40 feet from the plot in question. In cross-examination the appellant has f