The determination of fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is based on the fair market value of the acquired land, considering proximity, potential value, and comparable sale deeds.

B.S. Verma, J.

Since all these appeals have arisen out of the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2011 passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Land Acquisition Cases No.103/09, No.104/09, No.105/09, No.106/09, No.107/09, No.108/09, No.109/09, No.110/09, No.111/09, No.112/09, No.113/09, No.114/09, No.115/09, No.116/09, No.117/09, No.118/09, No.119/09, No.120/09, No.121/09, No.122/09 and No.123/09, therefore, for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are being decided by this common order.

2. All these appeals, preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), are directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.5.2011 passed by III Additional District Judge, Dehradun, in aforementioned land acquisition cases, whereby the reference court has allowed the references thereby awarding compensation of land under acquisition @ Rs.5,950/- per sq.mt. and also directed to pay additional amount of 12% on the enhanced amount, as per Section 23(1-A), 30% solatium thereon and interest @ 9% till one year from the date of possession and thereafter @ 15% till actual payment.

3. Since all the references were arisen out of same notification therefore the reference court treated the L.A. Case No.103/2009 as a leading case and all the evidences have been led by the parties in that reference case. Plot no.355-A situated in Niranjanpur Dehradun was acquired by the State Government for Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Dehradun. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official Gazette on 3.7.2006 followed by notification under Section 6(1) of the Act, which was published on 17.7.2006. Publication was made in two Hindi newspapers, namely, Doon Darpan and Amar Ujala, regarding notifications to that effect. Consequently, the total area of plot no.355-A measuring 16980 sq.mt. was acquired and possession thereof was taken on 2.6.2008. After completing other formalities, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, SLAO) passed Award on 31.12.2008 whereby compensation @ Rs.833.55 per sq.mt. was awarded to the claimants with all other statutory benefits, including 30% solatium, 12% additional amount and interest under Section 28 of the Act, after making 20% deduction.

4. The claimants were not satisfied by the Award made by the SLAO hence they filed applications under Section 18 of the Act before the Collector Dehradun to make reference to the court, for adjudication of market value of the compensation, upon which different reference cases were registered before the reference court. The reference cases were subsequently transferred to III Additional District Judge for hearing and disposal. The references have been made mainly on the ground that the compensation awarded by the SLAO is inadequate, while the claimants have claimed that they are entitled to compensation @ 7000/- per sq.mt. as per circle rate. It was also asserted that the land under acquisition is having commercial potentiality and the land is situated in prime location, in the heart of city, within the limits of Nagar Nigam, Dehradun on the Main Saharanpur Road and is at a distance of 4 Kms. from Bindal Chowk.

5. On behalf of the appellants, it was alleged that the compensation paid by the SLAO is just and proper and that has been awarded on the basis of selected sale deed dated 23.12.2005. On behalf of the claimants, it was asserted that the SLAO was bound to award compensation for the land under acquisition on the basis of circle rate as well as on the basis of highest exemplar sale deed executed within one year from the date of notification under Section 4. The claimants alleged that the SLAO has not considered the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the period 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2007.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Reference Court:-

i) Whether the amount of compensation determined by the SLAO is inadequate?

ii) At what rate, the claimants are entitled to get the compe