JUDGMENT H. S. Thakur J.—These appeals, and cross objections (in R. F. As Nos. 95, 96, 98 to 102, 104,105, 108, 111 to 126, 128 to 136, 256, 257 and 258 of 1981) are directed against the common award given on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, by Shri Roop Singh Thakur, District Judge, Mandi. Kulu and Lahaul-spiti Districts dated 10th October, h 80. 2. We propose to deal with all these appeals and cross-objections together and the judgment delivered shall be read as judgment in all the appeals and the cross-examinations. It may be pointed out that the learned District Judge has also disposed of all the references, out of which these appeals and cross-objections have arisen, by a common judgment. 3. The acquired area is situated in Muhal Ropa within the municipal limits of Sundernagar Town in District Mandi. An area measuring 295 bighas and 10 biswas involved in these appeals was acquired by the Land Acquisition Collector, Beas Sutlej Link Project (hereinafter referred to as B. S. L. Project’) under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred as the Act). After issuing the necessary notifications under the Act, the Collector assessed the market value of the land at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per bigha. The respondents however, were not satisfied with the assessment made by the Collector and made references claiming the price of the land at a higher rate, ranging between Rs. 26,000 and Rs. 30,000 per bigha. 4. It is pertinent to point out that during the pendency of the reference petitions, the respondents confined their claim only to the enhancement of price of land. 5. The learned District Judge, by a judgment dated 26th June, 1974, assessed the market value of Abadi land at Rs. 6,700 per Bigha, the price of small plots at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per bigha. The then District Judge also allowed certain premium with regard to the area having frontage tc wards. Simla Manali Road. The respondents being dissatisfied with the award of the then District Judge, preferred appeal to this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 14th June, 1979, allowed the appeal, get aside the judgment of the District Judge and remanded the references for disposal in accordance with law. Simla Manali Road. The respondents being dissatisfied with the award of the then District Judge, preferred appeal to this Court. A Division Bench of this Court by a judgment dated 14th June, 1979, allowed the appeal, get aside the judgment of the District Judge and remanded the references for disposal in accordance with law. The main ground for accepting the appeals was that the assessment on the basis of instances of different sales at the relevant period in the neighbouring area was improper as the Court had to hold inquiry and find it as a fact that these transactions were between willing buyers and willing sellers and also in accordance with the sale transaction reflecting the market value of similar land at the relevant time. 6. On remand, the learned District Judge, after according opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in this behalf made a common award, in all the references out of which these appeals have arisen. The learned District Judge, after considering the evidence on record, assessed the market value of the lands at a common rate of Rs. 15,000 per Bigha. - 7. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have preferred these appeals. Except for R. F. As Nos. 97, 103, 106, 107, 109, 110, 127 and 259 of 1981, cross-examinations have been filed in rest of the appeals. The respondents in their cross-objections have claimed compensation of the land at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per Bigha. 8. It is not disputed that notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4th December, 1965 for the acquisition of the land involved in these appeals and an measuring 295 Bighas and 10 Biswas was acquired. 9. The learned District Judge with the agreement of the parties made orders to the effect that the references, out of which these appeals have arisen, be consolidated for recording evidence and decision, and that the proceedings be recorded only in Reference No. 3 of 1979. As such, the evidence as recorded has been reduced has been treated as evidence in all the references. 10. Two main contentions have been raised by Shri Inder Singh on behalf of the appellants. His first contention is that the price assessed by the learned District Judge is mainly based on transactions in which small pieces of land were involved. As such, the evidence as recorded has been reduced has been treated as evidence in all the references. 10. Two main contentions have been raised by Shri Inder Singh on behalf of the appellants. His first contention is that the price assessed by the learned District Judge is mainly based on transactions in which small pieces of land were involved. According to the learned counsel, such transactions cannot be made the basis for determining the price of a large area as involved in these appeals. The second contention of the learned counsel is that even the transactions on which reliance has been placed are not properly proved and, even if proved, are highly irrelevant. 11. It is also pointed out that the road which runs through Sundernagar was declared as a National Highway during the year 1971 whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act for the acquisition of the land in dispute, was issued during the year 1965. As such, it is contended that the price of the land has to be determined at the rate as prevailing during the year 1965. The learned counsel has referred to the statements of the witnesses produced on behalf of the parties as also the sale deeds and judgments placed on record. The evidence so produced would, however, be discussed at a later stage. The learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the area acquired is a trading centre and has got its special value. 12. It is the common case of parties that the land involved in these appeals is of the same category and could fetch equal price and that in case there was any variation it was almost of negligible character. Accordingly, it was stressed that the price be determined at the same rate. As such, we proceed to determine the price of the entire area involved in these appeals at a common rate on the basis of the evidence placed on record. 13. The evidence adduced may now be discussed. Shri Gurbachan Singh APW4 who was one of the petitioners in a reference, stated that Simla Mandi National Highway Road runs through the acquired land and that the area was suitable for opening markets as also for the construction of residential houses. 13. The evidence adduced may now be discussed. Shri Gurbachan Singh APW4 who was one of the petitioners in a reference, stated that Simla Mandi National Highway Road runs through the acquired land and that the area was suitable for opening markets as also for the construction of residential houses. It is further stated by him that after 1959-60, the price of land in the locality had a rising trend and the price in fact had doubled or tripled during 1964-65. According to this witness, the price of land in the vicinity of the land in dispute was not less than Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 50,000 per Bigha. Shri Hari Ram (APW-2) has stated that he purchased 13 Biswansis of land in Muhal Ropa during the year 1963 for Rs. 1,000. According to him, the sale deed was registered but he had lost the same. The witness has admitted that he purchased this small area for construction of a shop. Shri Gobind Ram (APW-3) has also stated that he sold 13 Biswansis of land to one Shri Hari Ram for Rs. 1,600 during the year 1960 alongwith hrs brother. Shri Hukam Chand (APW-4) has stated that he alongwith his brother sold one Biswa of land during the year 1963 or 1964 to Shri Thakur Das for Rs. 1,200 through a registered sale deed. Shri Daya Ram (APW 5), who was also one of the petitioners, has deposed that the value of the land in dispute was not less than Rs. 40,000 per Bigha at the relevant time. 14. In rebuttal, the appellants also examined some witnesses Shri Karam Singh Thakur (RAW-1) stated that during the year 1965, he purchased land from Smt. Sagar Dassi, who was a keep of late Raja Lakshman Sen of Suket at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per Bigha and that he constructed a house there on. It is further admitted by him that he had good relation with the Raja of Suket and the land was sold to him at a concessional rate. It is also admitted by him that Bhojpur is the main business centre of Sundernagar Town and the land purchased by him is at a distance of 1 1/2 Miles from Bhojpur bazar whereas the land in dispute adjoins Bhojpur bazar. It is also admitted by him that Bhojpur is the main business centre of Sundernagar Town and the land purchased by him is at a distance of 1 1/2 Miles from Bhojpur bazar whereas the land in dispute adjoins Bhojpur bazar. Shri Gian Chand (RAW-2) has stated that he purchased a piece of land in the name of his children at the rate of Rs. 2250 per Bigha during the year 1964. It is admitted by him that Bhojpur is the main business centre of Sundernagar Town and that the bazar had started extending towards Muhal Ropa and a number of shops were constructed on the road-side. According to this witness, the land purchased by him 11/2 miles away from Bhojpur bazar. Shri Keshav Ram (RAW-3) has stated that according to the entry in roznamcha wakyati, an area measuring 279 square metres was sold to Ashwani Kumar for Rs. 90 in 1970. The wit ness, however, expressed his inability to dispose whether the transaction was genuine or fictitious, Shri Shiv Saran (RWA-4) stated that his father gave him land in Muhal Ropa measuring 3 or 4 biswas but he paid no price for it. In his cross-examination, however, he admitted that the price of land in Muhal Ropa during the year 1964-65 was Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 50,000 per Bigha. Shri Jinnu (RAW-5) staged that he purchased 8 Bighas of land for Rs. 3,000. It is, however, admitted by him that at the time when he purchased this land he was a tenant and had given up his rights in 18 bighas of land in favour of his landlord. Shri Bal Chand (RAW-6) stated that late Raja Lakshman Sen had sold land near the land in dispute at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per Bigha during the year 1964-65. Ex. APW. 5-A is the copy of registered sale deed through which one Biswa of land in Muhal Ropa was sold for Rs. 1200 to Shri Thakur Dass as stated by APW-4. APW-2-A is also a copy of registered sale deed whereby l/3rd of 2 Biswas of land was sold by Devi Chand and Gobind Ram to Shri Hari Ram for Rs. 1,000 as stated by APW-2. Ex. APW. 1200 to Shri Thakur Dass as stated by APW-4. APW-2-A is also a copy of registered sale deed whereby l/3rd of 2 Biswas of land was sold by Devi Chand and Gobind Ram to Shri Hari Ram for Rs. 1,000 as stated by APW-2. Ex. APW. 1/3 is a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Mandi dated 25th May, 1976, whereby the price of land in Muhal Pungh within Sundernagar municipal area was assessed at the rate of Rs. 13,000 per Bigha. Ex. APB is the copy of judgment delivered by the learned District Judge. Mandi on 29th December, 1979. This award pertains to the acquisition of an area measuring 402 square metres along with a residential house and the latrine. It was under such situation that compensation for the land was determined by the District Judge, Mandi at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per Bigha. 15. Our attention has been also drawn to a judgment Ex. P. 11. This is a judgment of Division Bench of Delhi High Court. In this judgment, an area out of khasra No. 421 measuring 2 biswas was acquired by a notification under Section 4 of the Act on May 13, 1958. The said khasra number was comprised of four parts, that is, 421/1 to 421/4 and a Biswas of land consisted of khasra No. 421/1 and 421/2. On that khasra number a double storeyed building had been constructed and the actual construction stood on 3 Biswas of land bearing khasra No. 421/3, khasra No. 421/4 measured one Biswa which was a rear compound of the building. The owner had suggested that the entire khasra number alongwith construction be acquired as the area of two Biswas out of this khasra number was required for the full and unimpaired use of the building. The learned District Judge allowed compensation of the land so acquired at the late of Rs. 500 per Biswa. The Land Acquisition Collector preferred an appeal to Delhi High Court, Himachal Bench, but the same was dismissed Ex. APW. 1-B is a copy of the award pertaining to Pungh area made by the Additional District Judge, Mandi on 25th May, 1976. The area involved in this reference was proposed to be acquired by a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 4-12-1965. The market value of the area was assessed at Rs. APW. 1-B is a copy of the award pertaining to Pungh area made by the Additional District Judge, Mandi on 25th May, 1976. The area involved in this reference was proposed to be acquired by a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 4-12-1965. The market value of the area was assessed at Rs. 13,000 per Bigha and the area acquired measured 142 Bighas and 2 Biswas. 16. From the foregoing evidence, it is apparent that the sale transactions enumerated above pertain to small areas ranging from some Biswansis to a few biswas. The learned Advocate General has not challenged the genuine ness of these transactions. But as pointed out earlier above, he has contended that sale transactions pertaining to small areas cannot be a be is for determining price of comparatively a much larger area. He has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, [AIR 1971 SC 2015], The relevant observations may be reproduced : "In our opinion the High Court overlooked the tact that the plots which were the subject-matter of the sale deeds Exhibits 1 to 4 were comparatively of small areas and it is well known that when a large area like the one which was the subject matter of acquisition has to be sold it cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots can be sold.” 17. According to the transactions of sale and awards referred to above, the price of land per Bigha ranges in between Rs. 2,250 to Rs. 30,000 per Bigha. The above transactions show that small plots of some biswansis or Biswas were sold or purchased almost at a fency price and were meant for construction of a small shop or a residential house. Accordingly, such transactions cannot be taken as the basis for determining the value of a huge area measuring 295 Bighas and 10 Biswas. According to Thakur Karam Singh (RAW-1), he purchased land near to the land in dispute at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per bigha whereas Shri Gian Chand (RAW-2) purchased land in November, 1954 at the rate of Rs 2,250 per Bigha. The areas to these witnesses were sold at concessional rates and are situated at a distance of 1 1/2 kilometres from the bazar area. As such, these transactions are not helpful to determine the issue. 3,000 per bigha whereas Shri Gian Chand (RAW-2) purchased land in November, 1954 at the rate of Rs 2,250 per Bigha. The areas to these witnesses were sold at concessional rates and are situated at a distance of 1 1/2 kilometres from the bazar area. As such, these transactions are not helpful to determine the issue. It is a settled law that in case the area involved in an award is comparable to the land in the reasonable proximity of the acquired land, the sale of land out of such area would be a reliable material to afford a basis for the determination of the compensation. As the some time, advantages and facilities of the land and the admitted rise of price of land can also be taken into account. 18. There may, however, be special circumstances under which the sale of small plots may also be reasonable basis for determining even the value of a large area acquired. Reference may be made to a decision in The State of Maharastra v. Baburao Dnyanoba Chiddarwar and others, [AIR 1973 Bom 231]. The relevant observations may be quoted : "The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not an absolute proposition and in given circumstanced, in our view, it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by small plots of lands especially in a case where compensation of land with building potentiality is to be determined and the land is to be valued. Having taken into account this building potentiality of S. No. 2 the prices fetched by neighbouring plots would serve as a good guide for determining the compensation. It cannot be forgotten that survey number 2, which is the land in question, is situated within the Municipal limits of Pusad. On 2 sides it is surrounded by residential building occupied by well to do people. There appears to be a scarcity of accommodation in Pusad as deposed to by N. A. W. 2 Dattatraya Sarnaik. These facts must be taken into consideration while determining the compensation for survey number 2. On 2 sides it is surrounded by residential building occupied by well to do people. There appears to be a scarcity of accommodation in Pusad as deposed to by N. A. W. 2 Dattatraya Sarnaik. These facts must be taken into consideration while determining the compensation for survey number 2. In our view, the proper method of determining the compensation in respect of such a land situated within the municipal limits in a place where there is scarcity of housing accommodation and the land is surrounded by residential localities would be to find out how many residential plots of a reasonable size could be made out of the field in question. Allowance should be made for the land which would be required to be left vacant on account of roads, lanes, park etc, and the land which would then be available for being sold as plots should be taken into account and to this land must be applied the rate at which normally plots were sold at about the date of notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act in adjoining areas, but from the price so calculated the cost of development should be deducted and the price so arrived could be treated as compensation for the whole of the acquired land. Such manner of determination of compensation is in view clearly permissible. Merely because the land is agricultural and it is labelled as such does not necessarily mean that the land must be valued as agricultural land." 19. It is under such like special circumstances as observed in the afore said judgment that a sale transaction of a small plot may be made a basis for assessing compensation of a larger area. Under such a situation, allowance has to be made for the land which would be required to be left vacant for severe 1 purposes. For the area so left out, the compensation would not be paid. The circumstances, however, as reflected in the above decision are not relevant to land in question. 20. Under such a situation, allowance has to be made for the land which would be required to be left vacant for severe 1 purposes. For the area so left out, the compensation would not be paid. The circumstances, however, as reflected in the above decision are not relevant to land in question. 20. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in P. R. Modi v. The Collector, Durg, [AIR 1975 MP 57], while determining the compensation of the land acquired, relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in Raghubans Narayan Singh v. Uttar Pradesh Govt., [AIR 1957 SC 465] which reap thus : "Market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under Section 23 of the Act means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for a property having die regard to its existing condition, with all its existing advantages, and its potential possibilities when laid out in its most advantageous manner, excluding any advantages due to the carrying out of the scheme for the purposes of which the property is compulsorily acquired." In the every judgement, the Court further observed as under: "The method of valuation by belts, i. e. by artificially dividing the land into plots, is generally discouraged for the obvious reason that it involves a considerable extent of arbitrainess. Without calling in aid the opinion of experts in town planning lay out and designing, the Judge would not be able to appreciate how best the land could be used. A colonizer has to take into account the needs of the prospective purchasers of plots the minimum amenities of town life which they would expect, like roads, water connections electricity, drainage facilities and proper approach roads. These amenities cost a great deal." 21. As observed earlies above, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued by the end of the year 1955. While determining the compensation for the land acquired several years before, the price today may appear low but the Court have to determine the price as prevalent at the time of the issuance of the requisite notification under Section 4 of the Act. 22. It is not possible to determine the price with a meticulous accuracy and time it is permissible to Act on artificial guess work when no exact formula is possible. 23. 22. It is not possible to determine the price with a meticulous accuracy and time it is permissible to Act on artificial guess work when no exact formula is possible. 23. It is not shown by the learned Advocate General how the transactions of sale referred to above are not properly proved, in some of the transactions referred to above relevant witnesses have been produced and they were properly cross-examined. However, as observed earlier above, such transact lions cannot be made the basis for determining the compensation for a large area as involved in these appeals. I he proved transactions pertain to small plots purchased for special reasons. 24. We have perused the judgment of the learned District Judge. He has considered the evidence produced by the parties and has assessed the compensation for the entire area at Rs. 15,000 per bigha. A copy of the award Ex. APW, 1-B, which has been placed on record, shows that an area measuring 84 bighas and 6 biswas was acquired in Pungh, Tehsil Sundernagar, and a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4th December, 1965. The learned Additional District Judge, Mandi by the award dated 25th may, 1976, determined the compensation of the entire area at the flat rate of Rs. 13,000 per Bigha. This area is also stated to be within the municipal bounds of Sundernagar Town- The area involved in the instant appeals is stated to be at some advantageous location as compared to Pungh area. Accordingly, the learned District Judge was fully justified m assessing the market value of the land involved in these appeals at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per Bigha. As such, no fault can be found with the award and we affirm the same. 25. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals as also the cross-objections are dismissed. The parties are, however left to bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.