Kamlesh Sharma, C.J. - (1.)- These appeals as well as cross-objections are being disposed of by a common judgment, as these arise out of the same award dated 22.12.1990 passed by Additional District Judge. Bilaspur, whereby the reference petitons of the respondents
(2.)-claimants were disposed of and the market value of the acquired land was determined as under:-
(i) Anderli Aval (ii) Andesli Doem (iii) Baharii Aval (iv) Baharli Doem (v) Kharetar/Banjar, etc. (uncultivated) : Rs. 1,200 per bigha.

(3.)These appeals are preferred by the A.C.C. on the ground that the market value of the acquired land, as determined in the impugned award, is not only on the higher side but is also based upon the award Ex. P- 12, the land of Which is not comparable to the acquired land. Learned Counsel appearing for the A.C.C. has taken this court through the evidence on record to point out that there is nothing on record to show that the land of award Ex. P-12, which is situated in village Nalag, is comparable to the acquired land situated in village Panjgain. The learned Counsel has specifically referred to the statement of Inder Singh PW-2 in cross-examination that the acquired land is slopy at some places to the extent of 90, and has stressed that the land in village Nalag is plain and adjacenb-to the road, though he has not been able to point out any evidence on record to substantiate his submission. The learned Counsel has also relied upon the judgments in Pal Singh and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh; Basant Kumar, etc. v. Union of India, etc and Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiue Rao and others'.