MALIK, J. : - These appeals and forty-eight more are directed against the order ofthe First Additional District Judge, Durg, made in connected references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. We propose to deal all the appeals together and the judgment delivered in these appeals shall be read as judgment in all the appeals.

2. The lands are situated in mouza Kasaridih, in tahsil and district Durg. The preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 27-10-1960 for acquisition of 24.37 acres. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29-1-1964. It was detected that Khasra Nos. 839 and 959/14 measuring. 30 acres were inadvertently omitted from the notification and a fresh notification for acquisition of those Khasra numbers had, therefore, to be issued under Sec. 4 on 12-9-1963. Notification under Section 6 in respect thereof, is dated 8-10-1963.

3. On further verification, it was brought to light that Khasra No. 827/2 area 07 acres was notified in excess and should be left out. It was also found that an area of 4.24½ acres out of the notified area was covered by houses and the proposal was not to acquire the land which was built upon. This area was, therefore, to be deleted. The total area for acquisition thus worked out to 20.33½ acres. Out of this area 3.43 acres was such land as was permitted to be diverted to non-agricultural purposes, though in fact, the land continued to be under plough or was Padti (waste land).

4. Persons (recorded land holders) affected by acquisition were 46, out of which 39 filed their claim statements before the Land Acquisition Officer. They claimed compensation at the rate varying between Rs. 1.50 to Rs. 5/-per square foot. They, however, adduced no evidence before the Land Acquisition Officer nor did they file any record of income they derived from their respective lands.

5. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the award on the basis of multiple of 1069 per rupee rental. This is how he worked out the multiple. He had before him the index of sales which took place within 3 years prior to the acquisition. They were in all 325. He left out of consideration 208 sales which did not appear to him bona fide and for fair price. They were transacted by industrialists and businessmen at fancy prices. The transactions indicated, according to him, systematic disposal of small plots at house building site rates though the land was, in fact, used for agriculture and was not developed and diverted for the use as a building site. The Land Acquisition Officer picked out 117 representative sales, determined the rental on basis of up-to-date classification of soil, divided the consideration of those 47 sales by the rental so worked out, and found the multiple of 1069 per rupee rental. The total compensation worked out to Rs. 38307.85 Nps. for 20.35½ acres. Allowing 15% solatium for compulsory acquisition which came to Rs. 5896.05 Nps., the award was made for Rs. 45203.90 Nps. Over and above this amount, the Land Acquisition Officer offered to pay 10 % for the potential value. The land had certain existing advantages, and possibilities of being used as a building site, which he took notice of. For trees and wells upon the land, the Land Acquisition Officer determined Rs. 1504.20 Nps. as the compensation.

6. The Additional District Judge who heard the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, was of the view that the multiple worked out by the Land Acquisition Officer was an arbitrary figure, and that the Land Acquisition Officer was wrong in eliminating 208 recent sales, which were mostly for building purposes. According to the learned Judge, the land acquired was suitable for construction of buildings; there was demand for house-sites; the acquired land fell within the municipal limits of Durg town; the Bhilai Steel Plant was at a distance of 8 miles from the Kasaridih abadi and its sector 9 almost a mile and half away, had its impa