- (1.) This bunch of First Appeals was heard at length on 8.12.2016 and 9.12.2016. Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants were noted in the order dated 9.12.2016 as under:- "Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Madhav Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant. No one appears on behalf of the claimant-respondent even in the revised call. Learned senior advocate refers to various paragraphs of the impugned judgment as well as the award of the S.L.A.O. and submits as under:- (i) Reference court also found the sale-deed instance at serial no.9 before the S.L.A.O. to be the correct exemplar for determination of market value of the acquired land of village Kukra by the notification in question and yet enhanced the compensation to Rs.27,000/- per bigha without pointing out any discrepancy in the determination of market value by the S.L.A.O.. (ii) Reference court has committed a manifest error of law and facts to enhance the compensation more than twice without there being any relevant evidence before it for determining the market value of acquired land at Rs.27,000/- per bigha. (iii) The reference court has erred in relying upon the statement of P.W. 2, namely, Sri Indrajeet Singh, who was merely a power of attorney holder of one of the claimants. (iv) The reference court awarded additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 despite the fact that the acquisition was made by notification under Section 4 of the Act, published on 29.11.1975 and the award was made by the S.L.A.O. on 25.2.1977, which dates are much prior to the amendment by Act 68 of 1984. He relied upon the decision of Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs. etc., (1989) 2 SCC 754 and Major Pakhar Singh Atwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR (1995) SC 2185 (para 9). 1 (v) The reference court has committed a manifest error of law in awarding solatium @ 30% instead of 15%, despite the fact that the acquisition was made and the award was declared by the S.L.A.O. much prior to the amending Act 68 of 1984 and as such the provisions were not applicable to award solatium at the enhanced rate of 30%. (vi) While determining the compensation on the basis of various sale-deed instances, the reference court has not considered the smallness of the area sold under the sale-deeds and the largeness of area under the acquisition and as such determination of the market value of the acquired land @ Rs.27,000/- per bigha is wholly erroneous and most excessive. Judgment reserved."
(2.) I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants. No one is present on behalf of the claimants-respondents.
(3.) Perusal of the facts of the case and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants give rise to the following questions:- (i) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the market value determined by the reference court @ Rs.27,000/- per bigha with respect to the acquired land of village Kukra, is excessive (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference court is justified to award additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act (iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, the reference court has committed error of law in awarding solatium @ 30% instead of 15% Facts:- ;