2026:JHHC:22175 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI F.A. No. 146 of 2010 The Executive Engineer, Damodar Valley Corporation, Right Bank Thermal Power Station, Maithon, P.O. & P.S.- Maithon, District- Dhanbad, through Sri Yogendra Prasad, Son of Late Sheo Nandan Prasad, Joint Director of Personnel (Estate), DVC, Maithon, P.O. P.S. Maithon, district- Dhanbad, resident of Qr. No. Class-II/20, P.O. Maithon Dam, P.S. Maithon, District- Dhanbad. … … Opposite Party No. 4/Appellant Versus 1. Radha Rani Mandal, Widow of Late Uttam Kumar Mandal 2. Srilata Kumari, Daughter of Late Uttam Kumar Mandal 3. Shrabani Kumari, Daughter of Late Uttam Kumar Mandal Legal heirs of Late Uttam Kumar Mandal, No. 1 to 3 Residents of Village- Barah Bendia, P.O. & P.S.- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad 4. Ashok Kumar Mondal 5. Kishore Kumar Mondal Both sons of Late Bishwanath Mondal, resident of village- Barah Bendia, P.O. P.S. Nirsa, District- Dhanbad … … Applicants/Respondents 6. The State of Jharkhand, through the Chief Secretary, Ranchi 7. The Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. P.S. and district Dhanbad 8. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Dhanbad, P.O. P.S. and district- Dhanbad … … Opposite Parties/ Proforma Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellant : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate Mr. Chiranjeev Mahto, Advocate Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate For the Resp.-State : Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, AC to GP V For the Claimants : Mr. Kalyan Banerjee, Advocate --- CAV on 21.04.2026 Pronounced on 27.07.2026 1. This first appeal has been filed against the Judgement dated 09.04.2010 and Decree sealed and signed on 24.04.2010 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in L.A. Reference Case No.07/2007 on the application filed by the applicants / claimants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act whereby and whereunder the learned court enhanced the market rate and compensation of the acquired land as Rs.5,500/- per decimal for Bahal 2026:JHHC:22175 2 land and Rs.3,000/- per decimal for Baid land and allowed the reference case in favour of the claimants and directed the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 to pay the compensation amount within period as per law, after deduction of the award amount, if the applicants received. The learned court further held that the pleaders will also get 3% of the enhancement amount. 2. The finding of the learned court while enhancing the compensation is quoted as under:- “10. On considering the above discussions, facts of the case and evidence of the applicants witnesses which is on the record, I come to the conclusion that the market rate of the acquired land may be enhanced as the land is bahal and baid land and the compensation amount was paid to the applicants is in less amount as the land was situated at the place of market and the enhancement amount may be fixed as 5,500/- for bahal land and 3,000/- for baid land as per decimal of the land, and in my opinion the awarded amount is hereby modified as Rs. 5,500/- per decimal for bahal land and Rs. 3,000/- per decimal for baid land. 11. In view of the above discussions and after perusal of the evidence of the witnesses I come to the conclusion that the applicants are entitled to get compensation on the modified amount of the acquired land. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered:-…..” (Emphasis supplied) Arguments of the appellant 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the land acquired in connection with this case is related to Mouza- Palurdih, Mouza No.33, P.S.- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad and after issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 1894”), L.A. Case No.3/2002- 03 was initiated and after completion of enquiry under Section 11 of the Act of 1894, the Award was prepared by the Collector on 28.09.2005. The rate of compensation of the acquired land has been enhanced by the learned Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad. 2026:JHHC:22175 3 4. The learned counsel further submitted that in this case, no sale deed was exhibited and the enhancement is on oral statements made by the witnesses who claimed that at the time of acquisition, the property was being purchased @ Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He further submitted that it was for the claimants to produce documents to support their statements, but no such exemplar sale deed has been produced. Learned counsel also submitted that the basis of enhancement is without any cogent evidence and it is based on guess work and therefore, the impugned judgment enhancing the amount of compensation is perverse and calls for interference. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his submissions: (i) (1991) 4 SCC 195 (Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. - vs- State of Kerala) Paragraph- 10 and 15 (ii) (1995) 2 SCC 305 (P. Ram Reddy and Others -vs- Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad and Others) Paragraph- 9 and 12 (iii) Civil Appeal No.5160 of 2013 (Ramanlal Deochand Shah -vs- The State of Maharashtra & Anr.) decided on 05.07.2013 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and enhancement of compensation is fit to be set-aside. Arguments of the claimants (respondents) 7. The learned counsel for the claimants, on the other hand, submitted that admittedly no documentary evidence was produced by way of exemplar sale deed, but the order of enhancement, even if based on oral evidence, cannot be said to be based on no evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that impugned judgment of enhancement of compensation is bad in law. He further submitted that only a meager amount has been enhanced and therefore, enhancement of compensation does not call for any interference. 2026:JHHC:22175 4 8. The sole point for determination in this case is as to whether the learned court was justified in enhancing the rate of compensation for the acquired land. Findings of this Court 9. The case of the applicants (claimants) before the learned court was that lands within mouza Palurdih Mouza no. 33 P.S. Nirsa, Dist- Dhanbad were acquired for installation of Damodar Valley Corporation, Right Bank Thermal Power Station. 1.01 acres of Raiyati lands have been acquired by land Acquisition Department. After issuance of Notification u/s 4, proper enquiry was made by the District Land Acquisition Officer (collector) Dhanbad by starting L.A. Proceeding vide L.A. Case no. 3/2002-03 and after completion of enquiry, Award u/s 11 of the Act of 1894 have been prepared on 28.9.2005 vide Award no. 15 for Rs. 4,86,220.00 paise in the names of the claimants. The compensation was for Raiyati lands recorded as under- Mouza Palurdih Mouza no. 33 Khata no.1 plot no.1138 area 0.01 decimals; plot no.1139 area 0.03 decimal plot no. 1140 area 0.97 decimal Total 1.01 acres. Notice u/s 12(2) was issued in the names of the claimants on 28.09.2005 fixing the date for making payment of the Awarded money which was received under protest on 03.10.2005 vide cheque no. A.H. 986535, Rs. 4,86,220.00. 10. The claimants made out the following case for reference to the court for determination of compensation as per fair market value of the acquired lands: - a. The aforesaid agricultural lands were the only source of livelihood of the claimants for which proper and adequate compensation was not paid according to the present Market rate prevailing in the locality. b. The acquired lands were said to be situated amidst or vicinity of Maithon Dam and town Nirsa and Pandra Market and the lands were 1st class paddy lands over which 3 crops were 2026:JHHC:22175 5 grown every year as there was facility of irrigation from Maithon Dam Reservior. c. The potentiality of the lands was very high; d. There were electric facilities available near the acquired lands which were suitable for construction of house premises. e. Previously in the year 1953-54 vide notification dated 7.12.1953 lands of the claimants were acquired for installation of Damodar Valley Corporation, Maithon Dam Reservior and the present acquired lands were the only source of livelihood. f. In the contiguous village Beldanga, Mouza No. 109, P.S. Nirsa, where lands were acquired for DVC Right Bank Thermal Power station under the Notification being No.10/D.L.A.DHAN-DVC.3/2001-4445 R dt. 22.12.2001 compensation for Bahal lands i.e. 1st class paddy land was given or provided at higher valuation whereas within Mouza Palaurdih, Mouza No.33, P. S. Nirsa, compensation for Bahal land i.e., 1st class paddy land which was awarded or provided was very low while the lands were of same nature and character. g. The market rate of the acquired lands was Rs.10,000/- per decimals. h. The District Land Acquisition Officer (Collector) Dhanbad and the authority of DVC Right Bank Thermal Power Station, Maithon did not apply judicial mind while determining the valuation of the acquired lands. The land acquisition department did not pay proper and adequate compensation for the trees and other construction or structures standing over the acquired lands. i. The claimants were seriously prejudiced and suffered irreparable loss and injury and were deprived from proper and adequate compensation for their lands. j. With aforesaid averments and background, the claimants prayed for reference to the court for determination of fair market value of the acquired property and the reference was made to the court. 11. State only filed attendance, but no written statement was filed. 12. The written statement was filed by the DVC who raised the following points:- I. The reference was not maintainable. It was not known to them as to whether the claimants had received the compensation offered under protest and the claimants be subjected to strict proof thereof; there was no whisper 2026:JHHC:22175 6 regarding receiving the amount under protest on 03.10.2005 or any other date by the applicants at any point of time. II. The compensation paid was as per market price of the acquired land on the relevant period. The rate of different category of land was decided by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and approval from the Government was taken. III. Every land owner accepted the price of the land fixed by the Deputy Commissioner and since then no application alleging less fixation of price of land price was received. IV. The rate of different category of land so fixed by the Deputy Commissioner on the relevant period was on higher side and as such Revenue Department of Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi sought clarification for fixing such higher price of the land, to which Deputy Commissioner replied and after due approval from Revenue Department, payment action was taken by the Land Acquisition Office. V. No land in the vicinity of the project was/is giving 3 crops and Nirsa is far away, around 8 kilometers from Palodih and Pandra market, which is very small one, is also 5 kilometers away from the acquired land. VI. It is also not a fact that the land was situated at Road side rather it was situated in interior area and as such claim made by the claimants were absolutely false. Most of the lands were non-fertile and Tand land (barren land). VII. It was asserted that Beldanga mouza is on the road side and was having facility of High School in that area and the land may be more valued than the area in question that is Paludih Mouza. The figure mentioned of the present market rate that is Rs. 10,000/- per dec. is absolutely false and baseless and no such rate was existed anywhere around at the relevant period when the land was acquired. VIII. It was absolutely false to say that the land Acquisition Department did not pay adequate compensation for the trees and houses standing on Raiyati land, rather District authorities had paid sufficient compensation for the houses and infructuous on Raiyati land. 13. The award prepared by the collector reveals that out of 101 decimals of the acquired land, 100 decimals were Bahal Land and 1 decimal was Baid land and the compensation for Bahal land was fixed at Rs. 3000/- per decimal and the compensation of Baid land was fixed at Rs. 2000/- per decimal and various statutory amounts were 2026:JHHC:22175 7 also included to come to the total compensation as awarded by the collector which was received under protest by the claimants. 14. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Periyar & Pareekanni Rubber Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (1991) 4 SCC 195, it has been held that the transaction relating to the acquired land of recent dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar potentiality or fertility or other advantageous features are relevant pieces of evidence. When the courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands. In proof of the sale transaction, the relationship of the parties to the transaction, the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the date of the sale are to be looked into. These features would be established by examining either the vendor or vendee and if they are not available, the attesting witnesses who have personal knowledge of the transaction etc. The original sale deed or certified copy thereof should be tendered as evidence. The underlying principle to fix a fair market value with reference to comparable sale is to reduce the element of speculation. In a comparable sale the features are: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; (2) it should be a bona fide transaction; (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and (4) it should possess similar advantages. These should be established by adduction of material evidence by examining as stated above the parties to the sale or persons having personal knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof also would focus on the fact whether the transactions are genuine and bona fide transactions. The prices fetched for similar land with similar advantages and potentialities and the bona fide transactions of the sale at time of preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best, evidence of the market value. Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar land is not available. The prices fetched for similar plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. Smaller plots always 2026:JHHC:22175 8 would have special features like the urgent need of the buyer, the advantageous situation, the like of the buyer etc. A reference was also made to an earlier judgement where it was held that in a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant, and he must show affirmatively that the Collector had proceeded upon a wrong basis. The nature and the burden of establishing that he was wrong, depends on the nature of the enquiry held by him and it is equally well settled that where the claimant leads no evidence to show that the conclusions reached in the award were inadequate, or, that it offered unsatisfactory compensation, the award has to be confirmed. 15. In the judgement of P. Ram Reddy v. HUDA, (1995) 2 SCC 305 it has been held that an acquired land could be regarded as that which has a building potentiality, if such land, although was used on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 for agricultural or horticultural or other like purposes or was on that date even barren or waste, had the possibility of being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. Such possibility of user of the acquired land for building purposes can never be wholly a matter of conjecture or surmise or guess. On the other hand, it should be a matter of inference to be drawn based on appreciation of material placed on record to establish such possibility. Material so placed on record or made available must necessarily relate to the matters such as: (i) the situation of the acquired land vis-à-vis the city or the town or village which had been growing in size because of its commercial, industrial, educational, religious or any other kind of importance or because of its explosive population; (ii) the suitability of the acquired land for putting up the buildings, be they residential, commercial or industrial, as the case may be; (iii) possibility of obtaining water and electric supply for occupants of buildings to be put up on that land; (iv) absence of statutory impediments or the like for using the acquired land for building purposes; 2026:JHHC:22175 9 (v) existence of highways, public roads, layouts of building plots or developed residential extensions in the vicinity or close proximity of the acquired land; (vi) benefits or advantages of educational institutions, health care centres, or the like in the surrounding areas of the acquired land which may become available to the occupiers of buildings, if built on the acquired land; and (vii) lands around the acquired land or the acquired land itself being in demand for building purposes, to specify a few. The material to be so placed on record or made available in respect of the said matters and the like, cannot have the needed evidentiary value for concluding that the acquired land being used for building purposes in the immediate or near future unless the same is supported by reliable documentary evidence, as far as the circumstances permit. When once a conclusion is reached that there was the possibility of the acquired land being used for putting up buildings in the immediate or near future, such conclusion would be sufficient to hold that the acquired land had a building potentiality and proceed to determine its market value taking into account the increase in price attributable to such building potentiality. It has also been held that the point as to whether the acquired land has building potentiality or not, while has to be decided upon reference to the material to be placed on record, the market value of the acquired land with building potentiality, is also required to be determined with reference to the material to be placed on record or made available in that regard by the parties concerned and not solely on surmises, conjectures or pure guess. 16. In the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5160 of 2013 reported in (2013) 14 SCC 50 (Ramanlal Deochand Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra), it has been held that it is trite that in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the question of adequacy of compensation determined by the collector, the burden to prove that the collector's award does not correctly determine the amount of compensation payable to the landowner is upon the owner concerned. It has also been held that it is for the claimant to prove that the amount awarded by the Collector 2026:JHHC:22175 10 needs enhancement, and if so, to what extent. The claimant can do so by adducing evidence, whether oral or documentary which the Reference Court would evaluate having regard to the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act while determining the compensation payable to the owners. To that extent the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff before the Court. It has been further held that in the absence of any evidence to prove that the amount of award by the Collector does not represent the true market value of the property as on the date of the preliminary notification, the Reference Court will be helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement. It has also been held that the Court cannot go by surmises and conjectures while answering the reference nor can it assume the role of an Appellate Court and enhance the amount awarded by reappraising the material that was collected and considered by the Collector. 17. In the aforesaid judgement it has been further held that the law is well settled vide judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Major Pakhar Singh Atwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others” reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 401 that a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. It merely is an offer. The proceeding before the Reference Court is of such a nature that it places the claimant in the position of a plaintiff and the Reference Court is akin to a court of original jurisdiction. It has been held in the said judgement that – “…………. It is for the claimants to seek the determination of proper compensation by producing sale deeds and examining the vendors or the vendees as to passing of consideration among them, the nearness of the lands sold to the acquired lands, similarly of the lands sold and acquired and also by adduction of other relevant and acceptable evidence. …………………. Therefore, if the claimants intend to seek higher compensation to the acquired land, the burden is on them to establish by proof that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and they are entitled to higher compensation. That could be established only by adduction of evidence of the comparable sale transactions of 2026:JHHC:22175 11 the land acquired or the lands in the neighbourhood possessed of similar potentiality or advantages…….” 18. The claimants examined 03 witnesses in support of their case. AW-1 is Sitaram Mandal, AW-2 is Ashok Mandal (Application No.2) and AW-3 is Dhwajadhari Hansda. 19. AW-1 (Sitaram Mandal) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he knows the applicants and the ancestral raiyati property of the applicants situated at Mouza- Palurdih, Mouza No.33, Thana- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad. The ancestral raiyati lands of the applicants have been acquired by the District Land Acquisition Office for the Damodar Valley Corporation, Right Bank Thermal Power Station, Maithon. After preparation of award in the name of the applicants, notice under Section 12(2) was issued and the applicants received the compensation amount with objection in writing. He further stated that the acquired lands of the applicants were Bahal land of first class in which paddy, wheat, etc. were cultivated. He further stated that the lands of the applicants were situated between Maithon Bazar and Nirsa Bazar. He further stated that at the time of acquisition, the sale- purchase value of the ancestral land of the applicants situated at Mouza Palurdih was Rs.10,000/- per decimal, but appropriate compensation against the acquired lands have not been paid to the applicants and therefore, the claim of the applicants is correct. During cross-examination by State, he stated that the acquired lands are 1.01 acres and he has cultivated the acquired lands. He also stated that he had sown three crops i.e. paddy, wheat and vegetables according to the seasons and the rate of the nearby lands of the acquired lands is more than Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He denied the suggestion that the compensation received from the Government is appropriate. During cross-examination by D.V.C, he admitted that the applicants are his relatives in village relation. He also admitted that his 76 decimals of land of Paludih Mouza has also been acquired and he has received Rs.2,66,000/- and Rs.86,000/- approximately for both the plots. He has not filed any L.A. case against payment of less 2026:JHHC:22175 12 compensation to him. He further admitted that he has not seen any sale deed of Paludih Mouza in which the value of the land has been assessed as Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He also admitted that the acquired land is Bahal land of first class and is situated at a distance of 7-8 kilometres from Maithon Bazar and Nirsa Bazar. There is no Bahal land inside the bazar. He denied the suggestion that the State Government has paid the compensation amount more than the market value of the acquired lands in the year 2001. 20. AW-2 (Ashok Mandal) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he is the Applicant No.2 of the case and he knows the acquired lands bearing Plot Nos.1138, 1139 and 1140 measuring a total area of 1.01 acres situated over Mouza-Palurdih, Mouza No.33, Thana- Nirsa, District- Dhanbad. The acquired lands are Bahal dhani lands of first class. The Jharkhand Government has acquired the lands for Maithon Right Bank Thermal Power Station. The award of the acquired lands has been prepared in the name of all the three brothers and the District Land Acquisition Officer has paid the award amount to them, but the award amount is less than the present market rate. They have accepted the award amount with objection and they have filed the objection petition for enhancement of the award amount. He further stated that the acquired land is Bahal land in which two crops were produced and there was facility for irrigation. There were Sakhuwa, Sangwan, Neem and Arjun trees over the embankment of the acquired lands. Maithon Bazar, Nirsa Bazar and Chirkunda Bazar were situated around the acquired lands and all the facilities were there for transportation. He further stated that the present rate of sale-purchase of bahal land in Paludih Mouza is Rs.10,000/- per decimal. The acquired lands were the only means for their livelihood and due to acquisition of the same, they were facing starvation. He stated that they have not been paid appropriate compensation for the acquired lands and therefore, their claim is correct. He further stated that less rate of compensation has been paid in Palurdih Mouza by the Maithon Right Bank Thermal Power Station in comparison to the other nearby mouza. During cross-examination, 2026:JHHC:22175 13 he admitted that he had informed the Amin at the time of measurement that the land is bahal land. He also admitted that he had informed the officers at the time of acquisition that the rate of the land is Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He has not produced any document in court to show the aforesaid assessment. He denied the suggestion that the Government has paid the compensation of the acquired lands on higher rate than the rate at that time. 21. AW-3 (Dhwajadhari Hansda) filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit stating that he knows the applicants. He stated the same facts as stated by AW-1 (Sitaram Mandal). During cross-examination, he admitted that the acquired lands are bahal lands situated adjacent to his house and its value was Rs.10,000/- per decimal. He used to grow paddy and wheat over the acquired lands and he has cultivated the lands. His lands are situated adjacent to the acquired lands, but he has not sold any land in Palurdih Mouza, nor he has been a witness in any sale of land of any other person within that mouza. He admitted that the villagers informed him that the value of the acquired lands is Rs.10,000/- per decimal. 22. The appellant did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence. 23. This court finds that all the three witnesses of the claimants have made only oral statements that the land was valued @ Rs. 10,000/- per decimal but have not referred to any sale deed much less, sale deed no. 5591 dated 01.08.2003 which was marked as exhibit -1 by tendering to the court on 23.01.2010 that too after all the witnesses were already examined, cross examined and discharged. The order- sheet of the learned court reveals that the three witnesses of the claimants were examined prior to 23.01.2010. 24. Moreover, the acquisition of land in the present case is of the year 2001 and the exhibit 1 is dated 01.08.2003 that too from another village. Since the witnesses of the claimants have not referred to exhibit-1 during their oral evidence, there is no evidence to even suggest as to whether the concerned village, to which exhibit-1 relates, is even adjoining to the Mouza- Palurdih involved in this case. Further other parameters to test as to whether exhibit-1 could be 2026:JHHC:22175 14 treated as an exemplar sale have not come in the evidence of the witnesses of the claimants. In order to use a sale deed as exemplar sale deed for arriving at the market value of the acquired land, it has to be compared in the light of date of acquisition of land, its location, size, potentiality and usage vis-à-vis the exemplar sale deed. 25. From the records of the court concerned, this court finds as per order dated 23.01.2010 passed by the learned court, that a document was produced before the court being sale deed no. 5591 dated 01.08.2003 which has been marked as exhibit-1. Upon perusal of the exhibit-1, it appears that it is of a different mouza, that is, mouza Paundra bearing mouza no. 95. Whereas, the acquired property in the present case is in mouza Palurdih bearing mouza no. 33. Further, the area sold through exhibit-1 is only 4 and ½ decimals of baid land for total value of Rs.25,000/- [Rs.5555.55 per decimal]. This court finds that the aforesaid sale deed cannot be relied upon to fix the quantum of compensation as the deed is of different mouza whose distance from the acquired land has not come during evidence as this deed was not even referred to in the oral evidence of the claimants and further the deed dated 01.08.2003 (exhibit-1) is of much subsequent date from the date of notification issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 in the present case. 26. The fact also remains that the witnesses have stated that the lands were being purchased and sold at the time of acquisition at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per decimal which they claimed to be the market value of the acquired land, but have failed to produce any sale deed, much less any comparable sale deed to support their statements. If the aforesaid, as claimed by the claimants, were true, they ought to have supported their statement by producing the sale deeds, which they failed to produce. Rather, the claimants have completely failed to make out a case for enhancement of compensation. It was the case of the claimants that all the necessary enquiries were done and procedures were followed before for assessing and offering compensation to the claimants for the acquired land, which they received under protest. 2026:JHHC:22175 15 27. The impugned judgement reveals that the learned court, after having recorded the case of the respective parties and having recorded the examination and cross examination of the witnesses of the claimants as the State or DVC did not lead any evidence, straightaway arrived at the conclusion that the compensation awarded was less as the property was situated in the market place and enhanced the compensation amount as mentioned above. The finding of the learned court that the land was situated at the market place is ex-facie perverse in view of the fact that although A.W. 1 stated in his evidence-in-chief that the acquired land was situated at Maithan Bazar and Nirsa bazar, but during his cross examination in paragraph 18, he has clearly stated that the land was situated at a distance between 7-8 K.M. from Maithan Bazar and Nirsa Bazar. The finding of the learned court that the property was situated at the market place has been completely demolished by the cross examination of A.W. 1 which has not been taken note of by the learned Court and while recording that the property was situated in market place in order to enhance the compensation amount, the learned court has committed perversity. 28. In the present case the claimants were seeking enhancement of compensation and in view of the aforesaid judgements they were having the status of plaintiff before the reference court and it was for them to prove by evidence that the compensation offered by the Collector was inadequate and less than the market value of the acquired property and also prove through evidence the market value of the property and the extent of enhancement of compensation they were seeking before the court. The claimants being the plaintiffs had the initial burden to prove that the compensation as offered by the collector was inadequate and not as per market value of the acquired property. 29. This Court is of the considered view that the claimants had miserably failed to lead any cogent evidence for the purposes of enhancement of compensation or to even demonstrate that the 2026:JHHC:22175 16 compensation awarded was less than the market value of the acquired land and they completely failed to discharge their initial onus to show that the compensation arrived at by the Collector and offered to them which they accepted under protest was inadequate in any manner. This would be the position in the light of the judgments, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, whose ratio has been fully discussed above. It has been clearly held by the Hon’ble supreme court, as mentioned above, that the claimant is in the position of a plaintiff before the Court and in the absence of any evidence to prove that the amount of award by the Collector does not represent the true market value of the property as on the date of the preliminary notification, the Reference Court will be helpless and will not be justified in granting any enhancement as the court cannot go by surmises and conjectures while answering the reference nor can it assume the role of an Appellate Court and enhance the amount awarded by reappraising the material that was collected and considered by the Collector. It has also been held that it is for the claimants to seek the determination of proper compensation by producing sale deeds and examining the vendors or the vendees as to passing of consideration among them, the nearness of the lands sold to the acquired lands, similarity of the lands sold and acquired and also by adduction of other relevant and acceptable evidence. Therefore, if the claimants intend to seek higher compensation for the acquired land, the burden is on them to establish by proof that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and they are entitled to higher compensation. That could be established only by adduction of evidence of the comparable sale transactions of the land acquired or the lands in the neighbourhood possessed of similar potentiality or advantages. 30. Considering the evidences placed on record by the claimants/plaintiffs, this court is of the considered view that the claimants having completely failed to discharge their initial onus through cogent evidence that the compensation offered to them was inadequate or was not as per the market value of the acquired 2026:JHHC:22175 17 property, they were not entitled for enhancement of compensation. In such circumstances, there was no occasion for the learned court to enhance the compensation. 31. Accordingly, the enhancement of compensation by the impugned judgement and award is set-aside. 32. This First Appeal is accordingly allowed. 33. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 34. Let the records received from the learned court concerned be sent back. 35. Let this Judgment be communicated to the concerned court through “Fax/E-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Date of Pronouncement:27.07.2026 Pankaj/- Date of Uploading: 28.07.2026 AFR