Patherya, J. - (1.) This appeal F. A. 33 of 1989 has been filed by the Union of India. The appellant Union of India challenged the decree dated 14th February, 1984 on various grounds and in particular Ground Nos. V, VI, and VII. The said grounds are set out herein below for ready reference: "V. For that the learned Arbitrator went wrong in allowing interest and value of trees according to the demand of the Reference-Claimant. VI. For that the learned Arbitrator was wrong in determining the amount of compensation according to the prevalent market value of the lands on the date of publication of the Notification and as such his award is liable to be set aside. VII. For that the learned Arbitrator was wrong to rely on the documents filed by the Reference Claimant without considering the location of the respective plot of lands and the advantages and disadvantages position of the said plots and not relying the exhibits filed by the appellant herein."
(2.) In support of Ground no. VII, the Union of India/Appellant relies on the registered deed of sale dated 2nd March, 1972 executed by Smt. Nalini Majhi in favour of Ashutosh Das being Exhibit "A" in the proceedings between Majhi and Das. On reading of the said deed of Majhi and Das we find that the said deed is not commensurate with the said ground. The said sale deed being exhibit "A" relied on by the Union of India/Appellant was rejected by the Arbitrator and the reason was that there was a common passage between the two plots. This is not so in the case before us. Therefore, the documents relied on by the Union of India/Appellant cannot be relied on by us too and Ground No. VII is not accepted, therefore rejected.
(3.) In respect of interest, mentioned in Ground V of the Memorandum of Appeal we are not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Arbitrator at 6% p.a.;