MALIK, J. : - These appeals are directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, dated the 8th March, 1973, passed in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 9 of 1971. The principal question that arises for consideration is the determination of the market value of the land acquired on the date of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The State Government has acquired for public purpose 127.52 acres of land in mouza Kasaridih, in tahsil and district Durg. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 2-12-1959 (published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette dated the 4th December, 1959). Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on the 6th May, 1962. The Land Acquisition Officer gave an award earlier on 6-7-1961, but soon after, discovered that no award could be made without a proper notification under Section 6. Before he could initiate fresh proceedings, for the determination of compensation, one Smt. Suroj Kumari filed a writ petition before the High Court for quashing the award dated the 6th July 1961. The High Court quashed the award, directing the Land Acquisition Officer to proceed afresh in accordance with the provisions of law.

The Land Acquisition Officer fell into an error again. He proceeded on the basis of the previous notices issued under Sec. 9 of the Act instead of issuing fresh notices, which the law contemplated ought to be issued after the publication of the notification under S.6. He did not withdraw the award D/- the 6th July, 1961, and acted on the statements and evidence previously recorded, without giving opportunity to the claimants to put in additional evidence, if they so desired. The matter, therefore, came up again before the High Court and the second award made on 6th October, 1964, was also quashed, because it was based on no enquiry and was without any opportunity having been given to the claimants. Smt. Sarojkumari v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 1966 MPLJ 437 : (AIR 1966 Madh Pra 197) which reports the decision of this Court.

We are dealing now with the third award made by the Land Acquisition Officer on the 4th August, 1969. The procedural errors, whatever were committed earlier in the matter of notices under Section 9, were not repeated, it appears, in the proceedings that commenced after the decision of the High Court on 15-12-1965 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 309 of 1965. At least there is no challenge in that regard. The earlier invalid notices under Section 9, which vitiated the awards made on 6-7-1961 and 6-10-1964 could not, however, invalidate or render nugatory the validity of the Land Acquisition proceedings upto the stage of declaration made under Section 6. The failure to give proper notices under Section 9 could only have the effect of preserving the rights of the claimants which would accrue to them if proper notices had gone to them, necessarily, therefore, from a stage of finality reached by the declaration under Section 6. There can be no doubt about this position of law. To cite an authority, reference may be made to the Tuticorin Municipal Council. Tuticorin v. A. R. A. S. Arunagiri, ILR (1966) 1 Mad 336.

No invalidity attached to the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and the crucial date for determination of the market value would be the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act i.e., the 4th December, 1959.

3. The Land Acquisition Officer made the award on the basis of a multiple per rupee rental. The multiple was worked out by him at 1146. He took into consideration the oral evidence led by the parties which gave the market value of the agricultural lands at Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/- an acre. According to him, the lands were essentially paddy fields with high embankments, water-clogged during rains and to convert them into building sites, would mean an expense of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- an acre. In his view, the sale-deeds which t