The main legal point established in the judgment is that the circle rate determined under statutory rules should be the basis for awarding compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

Delivered by Hon'ble P.C. Verma, J.

1. This appeal, preferred under Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Is directed against the judgment/award dated 19-8-2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge/First Fast Track Court, Nainital, Whereby the market value of the land In question has been assessed at Rs. 17,400/- and 30% solatium thereon and 12% interest has also been directed to paid.

2. Brief facts of the case are that 16.38 acres of land was acquired In Village-Ujjain, Tehsil-Kashipur for U.P. Housing and Development Board. For that purpose notification under Section 28 of U. P. Housing and Development Board Act was issued on 11-1-1975. The follow up notification under Section 32 of the said Act was issued on 3-4-1976 and possession was taken of the land on 15-5-1976. The appellants were not given any amount of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer probably on the ground that they are not owners of land, though their land In plot no. 126-C measuring 30 acre and that of plot no. 127-C measuring 30 acre was also included In the aforesaid acquired land. It appears that initially the present appellants filed a petition before the Allahabad High Court which was disposed of on 09-02-1987 and against the said order the appellants knocked to the doors of the Apex Court. From where it was directed that since the aforesaid land has been acquired as such If they make an appellant

before the Collector the same shall be-referred under- Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to the District Judge, Nainital. Accordingly, on the request of the appellants the collector made the reference, which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 3 of 1997. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing them the Impugned judgment/award was given by the learned Additional District Judge against which this first appeal has been preferred. The claim of the appellant was contested before the reference court by the respondents on the ground that land total measuring .60 acres of plot no. 126-C and 127-C In fact belonged to Gaon samaj, and appellants were only recorded as occupants under c1ass-3. As such -the learned reference court was required not only to give its finding on the market value of the land In question but also as to the rights of the appellants over the said land. In view of the observations and directions of the Apex Court and the High Court passed In the writ petition no. 1001 of 1995, after recording the evidence of, witnesses produced on behalf of the parties and perusing form-45 prepared under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, the reference court held that the appellants we-re occupants as 'asaamee' In the plot no. 126-C and 127-C total measuring .60 acres. The said court after considering the claim of the parties as to the market value of the land assessed It at Rs. 6/- per square feet and directed that amount of compensation be paid to the tune of Rs. 17,400/- for area measuring .6 acre (i.e. 2900 sq. yard) with 30% solatium and 12% Interest there on from 15-5-1976. Aggrieved by which this appeal has been flied by the claimants for- enhancement of amount of compensation. (It appears that learned reference court committed clerical error in multiplying unit of 'Sq. feet' with 'sq, yard').

3. We heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned reference court has assessed the market value of similar land @ of Rs. 6/- per square feet on the ground that other land of the -same area which was acquired with land In question was also valued at the said rate by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. However, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the land in question is adjoining to the main road unlike the land which was taken In to consideration by the reference court. It is further argued that the land in question should not have been valued less than Rs. 50/- Square feet. On perusal of the oral evidence adduced by the parties we found that P