JAGDISH CHANDRA ( 1 ) THIS regular first appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 14. 1968 passed by Shri G. R. Luthra then Additional District Judge Delhi. whereby he fixed the market value of the land in dispute comprised in Kh. Nos. 452/433 (3 Bighas ). 453/433 (3 Bighas) and 434 (2 Bighas ). in all measuring 18 Bighas situated in village Malikpur Chhavani. Delhi, at the rate of Rs. 8,200 per Bigha. in a reference having been made to him bv claimants-appellants Dewan Anand Kumar. Rai Bahadur Pandit. Janki Nath Atal. Pt. Bhupinder Nath and Smt. Brij Kumar Watel. under Section 18. Land Acauisition Act. 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). against award No. 1525 dated March 14, 1963 (riven and pronounced by Shri Nand Kishore. Land Acauisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as the L. A. C. ). whereby the L. A. C. had assessed the market value of the garden land including the trees and structure at the rate of Rs. 5,500 per Bigha. This land also included the land in Question. The notification under S. 4 of the Act in this case had been issued on July 20. 1962. In this appeal the appellants have claimed the market value of the land in Question at the rate of Rs. 22,222. 22 per Bigha as on July 20. 1962. the date of notification under S. 4 of the Act. ( 2 ) THE total area of land including the land in dispute acquired by means of the aforesaid award measured 267 Bighas 9 Biswas. The L. A. C. while fixing the rate of Rs. 5. 500 per Bigha had taken into consideration the two auction sales conducted bv the Rehabilitation Department of the Government of India as also one mutation No. 369, pertaining to land situated in village Malikpur Chhawni. One of these two aforesaid auction sales Ext. R-l pertained to the land in dispute. The particulars of these two auction sales are set out below: (See Table below) Mutation No. 369 of village Malikpur Chhawni had its sale dated 22-11-1958 regarding Kh. Nos. 387, 388 and 389 and it involved as area measuring 19b-9b and the total price fetched was to the tune of Rs. 1. 25. 000. 00 yielding the average rate of Rs. 6. 40 per sq. yard. The land of this mutation was also garden land. Nos. 387, 388 and 389 and it involved as area measuring 19b-9b and the total price fetched was to the tune of Rs. 1. 25. 000. 00 yielding the average rate of Rs. 6. 40 per sq. yard. The land of this mutation was also garden land. No. Name of Date of Kh. No. Area Sale Average Garden sale Big. Bis. Price per Bigha Ex. R7 Nil 6-6-58 409, 410,1 7-11 42. 500. 00 5. 800. 00 Ex. Rl Jhabu 22. 3. 58 434, 10-0 97. 500/. 6,400. 00 Begwala 453/433, 452/433 As this land had a good Kothi and good main gate. the L. A. C. after making an allowance for some exaggeration and the price of the Rood house, assessed the value of the said land at the rate of Rs. 5. 50 per sq. yard (Rs. 5. 500 per Bigha ). ( 3 ) THE learned Additional District Judge after discussing the various pieces of evidence relied upon by the claimants-appellants as also the respondent- Union of India, preferred to base his decision on the judgment Ext. R-6 dated 11-8-1965 in respect of land comprised in Kh. No. 91 (5b-2m which was situated in another village viz. Raipur Chhawni which is continuous to village Malikpur Chhawni wherein the land in dispute is situated. The learned Additional District Judge found himself induced to rely upon this piece of evidence as the notification under S. 4 of the Act dated 26-10-1961 therein was quite near in time to the corresponding notification in the case in hand which is dated July 20. 1962 and the land subject-matter of the judament Exhibit R-6 had nearly the same situational position as the land in dispute abutting as it did on G. T. Road and not being far off from the land in dispute. The average rate of this land subject -matter of Ext. R-6 had been assessed at Rs. 8,150 per Bigha. and keeping in view the time lag between the notification under S. 4 of Ext. R-6 and the corresponding notification in the case in hand an additional amount of Rs. 50 per Bigha was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge who thus determined the market value of the land in Question at the rate of Rupees 8,200 per bigha as -on July 20, 1962. the date of notification under S. 4 in the case in hand. 50 per Bigha was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge who thus determined the market value of the land in Question at the rate of Rupees 8,200 per bigha as -on July 20, 1962. the date of notification under S. 4 in the case in hand. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants urged that the market value of the land in question ought to have been assessed on the basis of the two sale transactions evidenced bv the letter Ext. A-7 dated 13-11-1958 and the sale deed Ext. A-ll dated 18-1-1965. both in respect of an area of land measuring 92b- 4b for a total price of Rs. 10. 70. 000 vielding averaae rate of Rs. 11. 000 per Bigha. The letter Ext. A-7 was issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. Government of India, in respect of sale by auction of Kh. Nos. 404. 405. 414 to 423. 441/32 and 442/31 and the auction purchasers of the same were Yogi Arian Nath and Kuldip Singh. This auction sale had taken place on 25-10-1958 and that land had been purchased by Yogi Arian Nath and Kuldip Singh for the purposes of Gujranwala Co-op. House Building Society Ltd. and thus after obtaining the necessary sale certificate from the Ministry of Rehabilitation they sold away that land in favour of the members of the said Society. Both Exts A7 and All maintain the same price vielding an average rate of Rs. 11. 000 per Bigha which rate. as a matter of fact represents the value of the said land as on 25-10-58. the date of the auction sale. But where is the justification to look to Exts. A-7 and A-ll for determining the market value of the land in dispute when the land in dispute had itself been sold away in the similar auction sale conducted bv the Ministry of Rehabilitation in the same year on 22-3- 1958 and it is a matter known to every one that the sale deed of the disputed land is the best guide for determining the market value thereof if it had taken place near about the time when the notification under Section 4 is issued. The auction sales of 25-10-1958 repressented by Ext. A7 and the auction sale of the land in dispute effected on 22-3-58 and represented bv Ext. The auction sales of 25-10-1958 repressented by Ext. A7 and the auction sale of the land in dispute effected on 22-3-58 and represented bv Ext. R-l both having taken place in the year 1958 much prior to the date of the notification under S. 4. i. e. 20-7-1962. do not appear to be of any appreciable relevance for determinina the market value of the disputed land and if. at all either of these two sales is to be a proper auide for assessing the market value of the land in question, it would be Ext. R-l dated 22-3-1958 of the land in question as against Ext. A-7 representing the auction sale of another land. though quite near the land in dispute as shown in field map Ext. R-5 got prepared and filed by the respondent-Union of India wherein the land in dispute is shown in red and the land of Ext. A-7 in yellow and even both these strips of land having a frontage on G. T. Road. The further fact that the land of Ext. A-7 had been purchased for a House Buildina Society for onwards sale to its various members, and such a Society being in a position to pay the competitively higher price for the purpose of raising a colony over there, goes to diminish the reliability of the averaae rate per bigha of Rs. 11. 000 evidenced bv this sale as a safe or proper auide for determining the market value of the disputed land under normal conditions and circumstances. Thus. we discard the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants urging to rely upon the sale transaction dated 25-10-1958 subiect-matter of Ext. A-7. Even the other sale transactions of the year 1958 including the sale transaction Ext. R-l dated 22-3-1958 in respect of the land in dispute, must be discarded as theirdates are separate from the date of the notification under Sec. 4. i. e. 20-7-1962 by a very long period. In this view of the matter and necessary consequences thereof the reliance placed by the L. A. C. on three rehabilitation auction sale transactions covered bv mutation No. 368 of village Malikpur Chhawni having its sale dated 22-11- 1958. Ext. R-l dated 22-3-1958 pertaining to the land in dispute and Ext. R-7 dated 6-8-1958 yielding respectively the average rates of Rupees 5,500. Rs. 5. 400 and Rs. 5. 800 per Bigha. Ext. R-l dated 22-3-1958 pertaining to the land in dispute and Ext. R-7 dated 6-8-1958 yielding respectively the average rates of Rupees 5,500. Rs. 5. 400 and Rs. 5. 800 per Bigha. for determining the value of the land in question at the rate of Rs. 5. 500 per Bigha must be ignored when there is in existence a better and safer guide evidenced bv Ext. R-6 copy of the. judgment dated 11-8-1965. and the learned Additional District Judge was thus right in ignoring the valuation assessed by the L. A. C. ( 5 ) THE sale deeds Ext. A-3 dated 9-2-1960. Ext. A-4 dated 29-8-1961 and Ext. A-5 dated 28-3-1959 pertaining respectively to comparatively much smaller pieces of land measuring respectively 200 sq. yards. 225 sq. yards and 200 sq. yards and yielding rates per sq. yard respectively as Rs. 80. Rs. 88. 65 and Rupees 60. 50 are no good guides for assessing the market value of the land in question for the reasons that the lands subiect-matter of those sale-deeds are much smaller plots and are situated in a developed residential colony known as Rana Partap Bagh and thus in no way comparable with the land in dispute which is not situated in any colony and is about a mile away from the abadi of Rana Partap Bagh as pointed out by the L. A. C. in the impugned order. Even the learned counsel for the appellants frankly conceded in the course of arguments that he did not place reliance on these sale-deeds for the determination of the market value of the land in Question. He. however, contended that he relied upon these sale-deeds of three consecutive years simply for the purpose of calculating the rate of increase from 1959 to 1961. so as to make use of the same for making up the rate of Rupees 11. 000 per bigha evidenced by the document Ext. A-7 in respect of the sale dated 25-10-1958 to the date of notification under S. 4. i. e. 20-7-1962. Even this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants does not commend itself for the reasons just pointed out above which render these sale-deeds in no way comparable with the land in question. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also invited our attention to the sale-deed Ext. i. e. 20-7-1962. Even this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants does not commend itself for the reasons just pointed out above which render these sale-deeds in no way comparable with the land in question. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also invited our attention to the sale-deed Ext. A-l dated 9-7-1959 in respect of land measuring 5b-3b out of Kh. No. 806 in a garden known as Roshan Abadi in another village Sadhora Kalan. the worked out average rate of which is Rs. 10. 00 per sq. yd. (Rs. 18. 000 per bigha ). The learned Additional District Judge rightly discarded this sale- deed also for the reason that. as shown from the field man Ext. R-5. the location of this land was comparatively much nearer to the developed residential colony Rana Partap Bagh. as against the land in dispute which is much farther away from the said colony, as a result of which the sale-deed Ext. A-l could fetch a much higher price in the year 1959 which could not be allowed to the land in dispute in that year. ( 7 ) OF all the pieces of evidence produced bv both the parties before the learned Additional District Judge, the judgment Ext. R-6 appears to be the best and the safest guide for assessing the market value of the land in question and the learned Additional District Judge also relied upon the same for this purpose but with an error. Ext. R-6 is a copy of the judgment dated 11-8-1963) passed by Shri Hans Raj. then Additional District Judge. Delhi, and the land subject-matter thereof comprised in Kh. No. 91 measuring 5b-2b and situated in village Raipur Chhawni was acquirecl in pursuance of the notification dated 26-10-1961 issued under S. 4 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge was right in observing that the land of Ext. R-6 had nearly the same situation as the land in dispute both abutting on G. T. Road and not being far off from each other and the correctness of this observation is borne out from the field man Ext. R-5. It would be noted that village Raipur Chhawni in which the land of Ext. R-6 is situated is contiguous to village Malikpur Chhawni wherein the land in dispute is situated and furthermore even the land of Ext. R-6. as mentioned in Ext R-6. R-5. It would be noted that village Raipur Chhawni in which the land of Ext. R-6 is situated is contiguous to village Malikpur Chhawni wherein the land in dispute is situated and furthermore even the land of Ext. R-6. as mentioned in Ext R-6. is under garden as is the land in dispute. Thus looking to the situational position of the land of Ext. R-6 and the land in dispute as also their identical nature, as pointed out above, coupled with the very important factor of their respective notifications under S. 4 of the Act being quite proximate in time to each other, Ext. R-6 appears to be the most suitable piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the land in dispute in the absence of any other piece of evidence enjoying superiority over Ext. R-6 in respect of any of these factors. The perusal of Ext. R-6 shows that it had solely relied upon the sale of the land subject-matter thereof. i. e. field No. 91 (5b-2b) at a public auction held by the Ministry of Rehabilitation on 26-9- 1960 for Rs. 57. 800. Ext. R-6 further shows that the consideration for that sale was paid as under as stated by the petitioner of that case on 19-10-1964: (A) Cash equal to Rs. 5. 780. (b) Balance by adjustment of displaced persons claims purchased from the market at the rate of eleven annas per claim rupee, face value. So. on account of part of the price having been paid by adjustment of. displaced persons claims at the rate of eleven annas per claim rupee, face value the true market price paid by the claimant of Ext. R-6 for Kh. No. 91 on 26-9-1960 was calculated at Rs. 41. 544 as on 26-9- 1960 as follows: (I) Cash paid to the Rehabilitation Ministry Rs. 5. 780. (II) Claims worth Rs. 52. 020 purchased for Rs. 35. 764. That price of Rs. 41. 544 had the worked out rate of Rs. 8. 146 per Bigha. Even though this rate of Rs. 8. 146 per bigha was of the date 26-9-1960 on which date the claimant of Ext. R-6 had purchased that land. the judgment Ext. R-6 proceeded to aseess the market value of that land at that very rate even though the date of notification under S. 4 of the Act in Ext. R-6 was about a year later. 8. 146 per bigha was of the date 26-9-1960 on which date the claimant of Ext. R-6 had purchased that land. the judgment Ext. R-6 proceeded to aseess the market value of that land at that very rate even though the date of notification under S. 4 of the Act in Ext. R-6 was about a year later. i. e. 26-10-1961 and no increase was allowed for the aforesaid intervening period of one year observing that there was no evidence to show that the land price in the locality where Kh, No. 91 was situated, had underdone a change from 26-9-1960 when field No. . 91 was purchased- to 26-10-61. the date of notification under S. 4 in that case. It is a matter of wide knowledge that prices of land have registered increase year by year and it is a matter to be taken judicial notice of by the court and this well founded factual assumption could be rebutted only by satisfactory evidence to the contrary and this error crept in in the judgment Ext. R-6 -and even the learned Additional District Judge did not take note of this omission and thus erred on that count. In D. L. F. Housing and Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India. AIR 1967 Punj 325 (Division Bench at Delhi) appears the following observations: ". . . . . . . . . IT is a matter of common knowledge that prices of land in Delhi have jumped by leaps and bounds progressively since 1950 onwards". In another judgment dated 2-8-1978 a Division Bench of this Court in R. F. A, 105-D/66 and R. F. A. 116-D/66 (both consolidated) made reference to the rising trend of prices between 1959 and 1962 and criticised the Land Acquisition Collector for not adverting to the same. Regarding taking of judicial notice of such increase reference may be made to the Supreme Court authority reported in Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi. (1972) 1 SCC 480 : ( AIR 1972 SC 1417 ). wherein the Supreme Court observed:- "it is well known fact and can be taken judicial notice of that after the termination of the Second World War in 1945. there was a rise in land values due to the increased demand of homestead lands for building purposes,"as pointed out above, the sale-deeds Exts. wherein the Supreme Court observed:- "it is well known fact and can be taken judicial notice of that after the termination of the Second World War in 1945. there was a rise in land values due to the increased demand of homestead lands for building purposes,"as pointed out above, the sale-deeds Exts. A-3 to A-5 pertaining to small bits of land situated in a developed residential colony of Rana Partap Bagh being not comparable to the bigger area of land in dispute which is not situated in any residential colony, are no guide even for determining the increase for the purpose of upgrading the market value of the land subject-matter of the Judgment Ext. R-6 which though comparable to the land in dispute is equally incomparable with the strips of land subject- matter of sale-deeds Exts. A-3 to A-5. This does not mean that they ought to be ignored altogether. When instances of precisely parallel cases are not available they would help to determine but allowance should be made for difference in the condition. They are to be ignored when better instances are available for determining the increase in prices. For this purpose the best instances appear to be furnished bv Ext. R-l. Rehabilitation auction sale dated 22-3-1958 of the land in dispute itself, yielding the rate of Rs. 5. 400 per bigha and the basic sale- deed dated 26-9-1960 pertaining to the land subject-matter of the judgment Ext. R-6 yielding the average rate of Rs. 8. 146. 00 per Bigha. Thus. it is obvious that the rate of Rs. 8. 146. 00 per Bigha awarded in the judgment Ext. R-6 has to be upgraded so as to be brought to the level of 26-10-1961 the date of notification under Section 4 in that case and then again to the level of 20-7-1962 the date of notification under Section 4 in the case in hand. ( 8 ) THE worked out rate of Ext. R-l Rehabilitation Auction Sale is Rs. 5. 400. 00 per Bigha. The perusal of Ext. R-l shows that its full price was paid in the form of verified claims. So calculating at the rate of -/11. 00 annas a rupee, the rate of Rs. 5. 400. 00 per Bigha comes to Rs. 3. 712. 00 per Bigha. ( 9 ) THE learned Additional District Judge enhanced the aforesaid rate of Rupees 8. 146. R-l shows that its full price was paid in the form of verified claims. So calculating at the rate of -/11. 00 annas a rupee, the rate of Rs. 5. 400. 00 per Bigha comes to Rs. 3. 712. 00 per Bigha. ( 9 ) THE learned Additional District Judge enhanced the aforesaid rate of Rupees 8. 146. 00 (which he took as Rs. 8. 150. 00) per Bigha to Rs. 8. 200. 00 per Bigha as on 20-7- 62 the date of notification u/sec. 4 in the case in hand in a totally arbitrary manner without reference to any material in that regard by way of increase during the period from 26-10-61 to 20-7- 1962 the dales of notifications under Section 4 of the Act respectively of Ext. R-6 and the case in hand and this increase of Rs. 50. 00 per Biffha by the learned Additional District Judge looks grievously inadequate. ( 10 ) FROM the two rates, i. e. Rupees 3. 712. 00 per Bigha of 22-3-58 and Rs. 8. 150. 00 per Bigha of 26-9-1960 the increase for a period of two years and six months comes to Rs. 4. 438. 00 per Bigha and on the basis of that increase for that much period the increase for the period from 26-9-1960 to 20-7-1962 the date of notification under Section 4 in the case in hand comes to Rs. 3. 250. 00. In this manner the value of the land in dispute comes to Rs. 11,400. 00 (Rs. 8. 150. 00+rs. 3. 250. 00) per Bigha. ( 11 ) IN view of what has been stated above, we assess the market value of the land in dispute at Rs. 11. 400. 00 per Bigha. The claimants-appellants shall thus be entitled to enhancement of compensation in respect of the land in dispute by calculating the market value of the land in dispute in all measuring 18b at the aforesaid determined rate of Rs. 11. 400. 00 per Bigha minus the market value thereof already paid to them. as also usual Solatium at the rate of 15% together with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till the date of payment. 11. 400. 00 per Bigha minus the market value thereof already paid to them. as also usual Solatium at the rate of 15% together with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of dispossession till the date of payment. Copy of this judffment be sent to the L. A. C. for making the calculation accordingly for payment to the claimants-appellants as per their shares mentioned in the statement "under Section 19 of the Act. The appeal thus succeeds and the judgment under appeal is modified to the extent indicated above. ( 12 ) IN view of the divergent rates of compensation asserted by both the parties involving huge gap between the two and the rate of compensation allowed by us in this appeal and the necessary element of guess work involved in the determination thereof parties are left to bear their own costs.