S. B. Wad, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals arise out of the acquisition of land belonging to claimants in village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri. The notification undersection 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 23. 1. 1965. ( 2 ) RFA. 386/71 is filed against the judgment of Shri Jagdish Chandraadj, in LAC No. 415/67 pronounced on 29. 3. 1971 relating to Award No. 1958. Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, (as he then was) had relied upon his own Judgmentin LAC. 434/67 Bhaktawar Singh and Another v. Union of India dated 23. 3. 1971. In Bhaktawar Singh s case the learned ADJ, relying on the sale instance ofkhasra No. 1587/1, where one bigha of land was sold for Rs. 5,000. 00, held thatmarket value for block I lands was Rs. 7,000. 00 per bigha and for block 2 landsrs. 5,000. 00 per bigha. Appellants land was classified by the learned ADJ asblock 2 land and was awarded compensation @ Rs. 5,000. 00 per bigha. Theland Acquisition Collector had awarded only Rs. 600. 00 per. bigha for block2 lands. The appellants/claimants had claimed in the appeal that they shouldhave been paid compensation @ Rs. 7,000. 00 per bigha. The Union of India hasfiled an appeal against the Judgment of Jagdish Chandra. ADJ, viz. RFA. 452of 1971. In the said appeal the claimantss have filed the cross-objections. Afterthe decision of this Court in RFA. 122/78, Hoshiar Singh v. Union ofindia, theclaimants have claimed Rs. 14,340. 00 per bigha as compensation for all categoriesof land. ( 3 ) THERE are cross-appeals filed by the Union of India, viz. RFA. 319/71 and RFA. 386/71, urging that the learned ADJ was wrong in relying on hisown decision in LAC. 415/67, i. e. Bhaktawar Singh vs. Union of India. It isspecifically urged that reliance on the sale instance in regard to Khasra No. 1587/1 (Ex. C/l) was wrong. It was also urged that the compensation@rs. 5,000. 00 per bigha awarded to Nav Ratan and Ors. was without properevidence on record. ( 4 ) RFA. 42/74 is filed against the Judgment of Shri O. N. Vohra,district Judge (as he then was) in LAC No. 455/67 in regard to Award No. 1958. The learned ADJ had relied on his own Judgment in LAC No. 458/67,kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Union of india and dismissed the reference holdingthat the claimants were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. The learned ADJ had relied on his own Judgment in LAC No. 458/67,kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Union of india and dismissed the reference holdingthat the claimants were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation. Thelac had awarded Rs. 800. 00 per bigha for block 1; Rs. 600. 00 per bigha forblock 2; and Rs. 400. 00 per bigha for block 3 lands. The sale instance in regardto Khasra No. 1587/1 (where one bigha of land was sold for Rs. 5,000. 00) wascited before the learned ADJ as Ex. A/5. It was also brought to the notice ofthe learned ADJ that his predecessor Shri Jagdish Chandra had relied on thesaid sale instance in LAC No. 434/67, which was the Judgment cited beforeshri O. N. Vohra, District Judge, as Ex. A/3. On evidence recorded by thelearned District Judge he had come to the conclusion that the sale deed inrelation to Khasra No. 1587/1 was sham and bogus. ( 5 ) RFA. 47/74 arising out of LAC. 419/67 and from Award No. 1598is also directed against the order of Shri O. N. Vohra, District Judge. Thelearned Judge has relied on his own decision in Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Unionof India in LAC. 458/67. The learned ADJ dismissed the claim for enhancement of compensation and confirmed the compensation awarded by the Collector which was Rs. 800. 00 Rs. 600. 00 and Rs. 400. 00 per bigha for blocks 1, 2 and3 respectively. ( 6 ) THE next lot of appellants are RFA. 333/87 and RFA. 431/86. RFA 333/87, Risal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India arises out of the order inlac No. 29/83 passed by Shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ on 24. 11. 86. The Award outof which this LAC arose was Award No. 146 of 1980-81. The Land Acquisitioncollector had awarded Rs. 1,800. 00per bigha for block I land and Rs. 1,500 per bigha for block 2 lands. Relying on his own decision in LAC. 316/82shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ, fixed the market value of land for block I at Rs. 7. 000. 00 per bigha and made the Award accordingly. The learned ADJ reliedupon the decision of Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, in LAC 434/67 Bhaktawarsingh and Ors. v. Union of India for coming to the said conclusion. The decisionof another ADJ, Shri S. R. Goyal in LAC. 186,189/81 dated 28. 7. 7. 000. 00 per bigha and made the Award accordingly. The learned ADJ reliedupon the decision of Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, in LAC 434/67 Bhaktawarsingh and Ors. v. Union of India for coming to the said conclusion. The decisionof another ADJ, Shri S. R. Goyal in LAC. 186,189/81 dated 28. 7. 86 was citedbefore Shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ, but he rejected the same on the ground that itrelated to a different village, viz. Masudpur and was covered by a differentaward. ( 7 ) AFTER the hearing of these appeals and before the Judgment waspronounced, another D. B. consisting of Sunanda Bhandare, J. and C. M. Nayyar,j. pronounced a Judgment on 17. 7. 1991 in Hoshiyal Singh v. U. O. I. (RFA. 122/78 ). The land acquired in the said RFA was from Village Mahipalpurpur,as there was no evidence in relation to the market value from Village Mahipal the D. B. was pursuaded to accept the evidence in regard to village Masudpur,which is an adjoining village. Relying on the decision of Shri S. R. Goyal, ADJ. ,in LAC. 186/81 dated 28. 7. 86 and the decision of Shri Padam Singh, ADJ. , inlac. 15/81 decided on 12. 4. 90 (in which the decision of Shri S. R. Goyal, ADJ,was followed) the D. B. accepted Rs. 14,340. 00 per bigha as the market value. An application has been moved by some of the claimants in the present batchof appeals, claiming enhanced compensation @ Rs. 14,340. 00 per bigha, on theground that Village Rangpuri, Mahipalpur and Masudpur are adjoining villagesand the land from the said villages were acquired by the same notificationdated 23. 1. 1965. ( 8 ) A Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894in regard to Village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri was issued on 23. 1. 1965. In LAC434/67 and 458/67 the Land Acquisition Collector had fixed the market valueat Rs. 800. 00, Rs. 600. 00 and Rs. 400. 00 per bigha for blocks 1, 2 and 3 respectively. In LAC. 434/67 Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, raised the compensation tors. 7,000. 00 per bigha for the lands in Block 1. ( 9 ) IN LAC. 458/67 Shri O. N. Vohra, ADJ, did not permit any increasein the compensation and confirmed the compensation at Rs. 800. 00, Rs. 600. 00 -and Rs. 400. 00 per bigha, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. ( 10 ) IN LAC. 7,000. 00 per bigha for the lands in Block 1. ( 9 ) IN LAC. 458/67 Shri O. N. Vohra, ADJ, did not permit any increasein the compensation and confirmed the compensation at Rs. 800. 00, Rs. 600. 00 -and Rs. 400. 00 per bigha, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. ( 10 ) IN LAC. 29/83 Shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ, raised the compensation tors. 7,000. 00 per bigha for block I lands as against the Award of the Landacquisition Collector for Rs. 1800. 00 per bigha for block I land, and Rs. 1500. 00per bigha for block 2 lands. As stated earlier, Shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ, hadrelied upon the decision of Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, in LAC. 434/67. In thelight of these decisions of the ADJ s, it is to be decided as to what was themarket value of the lands in the said village and the date of Section 4 Notification, viz. 23. 1. 1965. ( 11 ) AS regards RFA. 333/87 and RFA. 431/86, Shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ,had relied upon the judgment of Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, in LAC. 434/67,and had "awarded Rs. 7,000. 00 per bigha as the compensation. The Union ofindia had filed an appeal against the Judgment of Shri Jagdish Chandra andin that the amount of compensation had been reduced to Rs. 3,000. 00 per bigha. However, against the decision of Shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ, no appeal or crossobjection has been filed by Union of India. We are, therefore, constrained toretain the compensation at Rs. 7,000. 00 per bigha as awarded by Shri T. S. Oberoi. The appeal of the claimants viz. RFA. 333/87 and RFA. 431/86 standdismissed. ( 12 ) WE may emphasise that the best evidence in regard to compensation is the sale instances proved by the vendor and vendee. The sale instancesshould be from the same village. Where there are no sale instances from thevillage in question, sale instances from the adjoining villages can be considered. If the lands in adjoining villages are also acquired by the same notification, theyare more relevant than the sale instances in the adjoining villages which arenot acquired simultaneously. The sale instancesshould be from the same village. Where there are no sale instances from thevillage in question, sale instances from the adjoining villages can be considered. If the lands in adjoining villages are also acquired by the same notification, theyare more relevant than the sale instances in the adjoining villages which arenot acquired simultaneously. If the High court or the Supreme Court hasdecided the market value of the land in the same area, the same will have greatweight, the reason being that the superior Courts have applied their minds inregard to the potentiality of the land for the purposes of compensation. It iswell known that in Delhi large scale acquisitions covering number of villagessimultaneously is done for the planned development of Delhi, as in the presentcase. This High Court has, therefore, taken the village as a Unit for the purposes of compensation. The old practice of categorising the lands into separateblocks has also been given up by this Court in such cases. This approach hasbeen confirmed by the Supreme Court by upholding the decisions of this Courtin land acquisition matters. ( 13 ) THE Judgment of Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, is the first judgmentin point of time. He has relied upon the sale instance of Khasra No. 1587/1,where one bigha of land was sold for Rs. 5,000. 00. The learned ADJ took thisas the base value for computing the market value of the land. The observationof the Land Acquisition Collector is that the land in the village is governed bythe Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The lands were being more considered asthe land for agricultural purposes as the object of the Delhi Land Reforms Act,1954, was to make the tillers of land as the owners of the land. The land whichwas the agricultural land could not be used for any purpose other than agriculture, such as residential or industrial purpose, without the prior sanction of theauthorities. The learned ADJ accepted the contention of the claimants that thepotentiality of the land was substantially increased for residential and industrialpurposes because of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and the Master Planfor Delhi, 1962. The learned ADJ further held that in the scheme of urbanvillages (as proposed by the Master Plan) not only residential houses for slumdwellers were to be constructed in these villages, including village Malikpur Kohi, but land therein was also required for various industries. The learned ADJ further held that in the scheme of urbanvillages (as proposed by the Master Plan) not only residential houses for slumdwellers were to be constructed in these villages, including village Malikpur Kohi, but land therein was also required for various industries. In view of thisscheme the restrictive provision of Land Reforms Act, 1954, appear to havebeen clearly taken away and, thus, the land in Village Malikpur Kohi assumedmuch potential as building and industrial sites, where all the modern amenitiesprovided in the cities were also to be installed. The learned ADJ did not agreewith the Collector in regard to. sale instance of Khasra No. 1587/1. The Collector had held that the transaction was suspicious and appeared to have beenmade for consideration other than the normal business consideration. The ADJrejected this observation and held that the said sale instance which was beforehim as EX. A/2 correctly represented not only agricultural value but also thebuilding potential as residential and industrial site. The learned ADJ discardedthe other sale instances as not being relevant. ( 14 ) SHRI O. N. Vohra, ADJ, has rendered his decision in LAC. 458/67subsequent to the decision of Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, in LAC. 434/67. Theclaimants have relied upon the decision of Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ. Theunion of India has opposed reliance on the said decision. The Union of Indiaurged that the reliance on the work studies made prior to the finalisation of themaster Plan, as was done by Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, did not correctlyrepresent the potential value of the lands in question. As a matter of fact,village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri was not included in one of the proposedurbanised villages in the Master Plan. Secondly, as a fact, the observations thatthe land had clay and. other mineral deposits in the said work study did notapply to Village Malikpur Kohi, but areas near Mahipalpur and Masudpurvillages. Shri O. N. Vohra, ADJ, accepted these submissions of the Union ofindia. The learned ADJ, further agreed with the Land Acquisition Collectorthat the land in question has to be treated only as an agricultural land andsince it was governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, use of the land fornon-agricultural purposes, such as industry or residential houses could be doneonly with the specific sanction of the authorities. The learned ADJ, further agreed with the Land Acquisition Collectorthat the land in question has to be treated only as an agricultural land andsince it was governed by the Delhi Land Reforms Act, use of the land fornon-agricultural purposes, such as industry or residential houses could be doneonly with the specific sanction of the authorities. ( 15 ) AS regards the sale instances, Shri O. N. Vohra, ADJ, consideredthe following sale instances from the same village : ( 16 ) THE Land Acquisition Collector has taken the average of therates per bigha in the sale instances and had held that the market value wasrs. 800. 00, Rs. 600. 00 and Rs. 400. 00 per bigha for blocks 1, 2 and 3 respectively. It may be seen that Ex. A/i related only to bighas and is four years prior tosection 4 Notification in the present case. So also Ex. A-2 is only for 6biswas and is three years prior to the date of Section 4 notification in the present case. Sale instance at Serial No. 4 of the above chart (4 bighas) and at 6 (24 bighas) are of the date 26. 10. 64 and 19. 8. 64 respectively. The rate at whichthe land was sold is Rs. 344. 00 and Rs. 500. 00 per bigha respectively. They comenearer inpoint of time to the date of notification under Section 4 in the presentcase, viz. 23. 1. 65. But the claimants had relied upon the sale instance at serialno. 3 dated 28. 3. 64 in regard to Khasra No. 1587/1 (I bigha) where the ratewas Rs. 5,000. 00 per bigha. This sale instance was relied upon by Shri Jagdishchandra, ADJ. When the matter came before Shri O. N. Vohra, ADJ, theunion of India made an application to lead the evidence to show that thesale instance in regard to Khasra No. 1587/1 was bogus and sham. The learnedadj, therefore, gave opportunity to the Union of India as well as the claimants to lead the evidence to show the genuineness of the said transaction. Onthe appreciation of evidence the learned ADJ recorded the followingfindings: ( 18 ) IN regard to this transaction, the following circumstances havebeen established on the record : (I) The sale was by Lala who was petitioner in LAC No. 458/67 infavour of Bhoru and Chandgi who were petitioners in LACNo. 348/68. Onthe appreciation of evidence the learned ADJ recorded the followingfindings: ( 18 ) IN regard to this transaction, the following circumstances havebeen established on the record : (I) The sale was by Lala who was petitioner in LAC No. 458/67 infavour of Bhoru and Chandgi who were petitioners in LACNo. 348/68. Both Bhoru and Chandgi are not residents ofvillage Malikpur Kohi and had no agricultural land in villagemalikpur Kohi. Chandgi is a resident of village Jaunti whichis on the border of Delhi and is at at a distance of about 20miles from Malikpur Kohi while Bhoru is a resident of villagenizampur which adjoins village Jaunti according to the unchallenged statement of Shri Ram Chander, Naib Tehsildar (RW. 1 ). examined in LAC No. 417/67. (ii) Original deed of sale was not produced by Chandgi and Bhorubefore the Revenue Officer during mutation proceedings asstated by Kanwar Singh and has not been produced incourt. (iii) Mutation in respect of this sale was rejected by the Revenueofficer as admitted by Kanwar Singh and stated by Shri Chandgiram, patwari, vide his statement dated 13. 1. 71, copy of whichhas been produced in LAC No. 418 of 1967 and in some othercases. (iv) Possession did not pass to Bhoru and Chandgi. According to theextracts from Khasra Girdawari Exts. R-4 to R-7, Lala continued to remain in cultivating possession of this land upto thetime when possession of this land was taken by the Governmenton account of acquisition. This fact has been disputed by Bhoruand Kanwar Singh while Chandgi has not come into the witnessbox. According to both these witnesses Bhoru and Chandgi. purchased this land for constructing tanks for washing Chinaclay which was being extracted from neighbouring areas. Incross-examination, Bhoru has stated that he could not manufacture China Clay as the land was acquired. Badam has told adifferent story by staling in cross-examination that Bhoru andchandgi carried on the bussiness of washing China Clay for 3 to4 years after purchasing the land. purchased this land for constructing tanks for washing Chinaclay which was being extracted from neighbouring areas. Incross-examination, Bhoru has stated that he could not manufacture China Clay as the land was acquired. Badam has told adifferent story by staling in cross-examination that Bhoru andchandgi carried on the bussiness of washing China Clay for 3 to4 years after purchasing the land. When it is borne in mindthat the Government took possession of the land 3 or 4 yearsafter the alleged sale in favour of Bhoru and Chandgi and thereis no mention in the sale deed of the fact that land was purchased by these persons for the purpose of constructing tanks forwashing China Clay and there is no material at all on the recordto justify that China Clay was being extracted from the neigh220 bouring area, it is not possible to accept the oral version ofbhoru and Kanwar Singh that there was change in possession inthe face of the entries in the Khasra Girdawari when it is well- established that as regards agricultural land entries in Khasragirdawari constitute important piece of evidence in regard topossession. (v) Compensation assessed on account of this land was received bylala as deposed by Devi Ram Sharma (RW. 2) in LAC No. 417of 1967. This fact has not been denied by Bhoru or Kanwarsingh. On the other hand, it is stated that the payment wasreceived under mistake and Bhoru and Chandgi were subsequently paid compensation in respect of this land. This oralversion is not supported by any receipt. It is difficult to relyupon this oral version when the circumstances- are such that Lalaand his son, Kanwar Singh, who happened to be Circle Sarpanchof the Ilaqua and thus an influential person are highly interestedpersons, as they are petitioners in twocases being LAC Nos. 458/67 and 450/67. (v1) According to what has been stated by the witnesses examinedon behalf of the petitioners, the sale deed was attested bykanwar Singh, son of the vendor himself, and the receipt allegedto have been executed in respect of payment of Rs. 500. 00 wasdrafted by him and was attested by him. " ( 18 ) IN the light of the sale instances and the evidence before the threelearned ADJs in regard to village Malikpur Kohi, it is to be examined as towhich sale instance is reliable sale instance for determining the market value onthe date of Section 4 Notification. 500. 00 wasdrafted by him and was attested by him. " ( 18 ) IN the light of the sale instances and the evidence before the threelearned ADJs in regard to village Malikpur Kohi, it is to be examined as towhich sale instance is reliable sale instance for determining the market value onthe date of Section 4 Notification. It may be noted that Shri Jagdish Chandra,adj, had disregarded the observations of the Land Acquisition Collector thatsale instance in regard to Khasra No. 1587/1 was suspicious as it was. made forulterior purpose and that is why the evidence was led by the Union of India toshow that it was not a genuine sale transaction. We have quoted the findings ofshri O. N. Vohra, ADJ, and we are in complete agreement with the learnedjudge. We, therefore, agree with the further finding of the learned ADJ thatthe said transaction in regard to Khasra No. 1587/1 is not a genuine saletransaction and cannot be relied upon for fixing the market value in the present case. That leaves us to the two instances of the year 1964 at serial Nos. 4 and 6, which are nearer in point of time to the Section 4 Notification. Although sale instances at serial Nos. 1 and 2 are for the years 1961 and 1962,i. e. prior to the present notification and although they are for very small piecesof land, they will have some relevance in fixing the market value, as is done bythe Land Acquisition Collector. ( 19 ) HAVING considered the sale instances we will now consider thepotential value of the lands in village Malikpur Kohi. Shri Jagdish Chandra,adj, while relying on the work studies prior to the Master Plan of 1962 hadcome to the conclusion that the lands had a great industrial and residentialpotentialities. We had, therefore, held that the land should not be merelytreated as agricultural lands for the purposes of compensation. Shri O. N. Vohraadj, on evidence cited before him, had held that observations of Shri Jagdishchandra, ADJ, based on the work studies, are not applicable to Malikpur Kohi. He, therefore, treated the land as a mere agricultural land. On closer examination of the approach of the two learned ADJs. it can be seen that they are notcontradictory or mutually exclusive. It is true that to start with the lands invillage Malikpur Kohi at the relevant time were agricultural lands. He, therefore, treated the land as a mere agricultural land. On closer examination of the approach of the two learned ADJs. it can be seen that they are notcontradictory or mutually exclusive. It is true that to start with the lands invillage Malikpur Kohi at the relevant time were agricultural lands. But it isalso true that with the permission of the authorities the industries could be setup in the area. So also the residential houses could be built. The developmentof villages around Delhi is so fast that with or without permission the industrialand the residential activities are being carried out in these villages. The population of Delhi is increasing at such a rapid pace that the movement for, industrialisation and urbanisation has become a fact of life. A judicial notice has, therefore, to be taken of these realities. Shri Jagdish Chandra, ADJ, when considering the potential value of the land for industrial and residential purposes hadadded only Rs. 2,000. 00 towards the said potential value over and above thesale instance in regard to Khasra No. 1571/1. The observations in the workstudies prior to the Master Plan,of l962 may not be applicable as such to thisvillage, but the trend in the fast appreciation of landed property indicated inthe said work studies cannot be ignored. At the same time the development ofthese villages as of today, i. e. about 27 years after Section 4 notification shouldnot trouble our mind as any rate of compensation on today s bais would be atan extremely low rate. These villages were gradually coming under the development areas under the Master Plan of Delhi. Village Malikpur Kohi was nearerpalam Road, leading to the Palam Airport. Considering all aspects of thematter we hold that Rs. 3. 000. 00 per bigha would be the proper market value ofthe lands in Village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri on l3. 1. 65 when the Section 4notification was issued. The rate of Rs. 3000. 00 per bigha would be applicable toall lands as we do not approve of the division of lands in blocks 1, 2 and 3cansidering their potential value. ( 20 ) THAT takes us to the last question raised in various applicationsfiled on behalf of the claimants for increase in compensation on the basis of therecent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA 122/78 Hoshiarsingh etc. ( 20 ) THAT takes us to the last question raised in various applicationsfiled on behalf of the claimants for increase in compensation on the basis of therecent decision of the Division Bench of this Court in RFA 122/78 Hoshiarsingh etc. v. U. O. I. In that case the lands were located in Village Mahipalpur. No sale instance was available in village Mahipalpur and, therefore,agreeing with the claimants the Division Bench has relied upon the decisions inregard to lands in village Masudpur, which the village adjoining villagemahipalpur. The claimants therein had submitted that in LAC. 186/81 decidedon 28. 7,86 the ADJ had fixed the market value at Rs. 1,800. 00 per bigha. Thejudgment also notes that the appeal against the said LAC filed by Union ofindia stands admitted in this Court. . Another decision relied upon by theclaimants was LAC. 15/81 decided on 12. 4. 90. On that basis the claimants hadclaimed Rs. 14. 340. 00 per bigha as compensation. The same was accepted by thedivision Bench. After the decision of the Division Bench in RFA. 122/78 thethe applications were moved in various appeals by the claimants claiming thecompensation@ Rs. 14,3407-per bigha. ( 21 ) THE decision of the ADJ in LAC. 186/81 fixing the market valueat Rs. 1800. 00 per bigha was cited before Shri T. S. Oberoi, ADJ, but he did notfollow the same on the. ground that it related to another village, viz. Masudpurand not to village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri. We hold that the learned ADJwas quite right in ignoring the alleged land value invillage Masudpur. Similarly,although the Union of India s appeal in RFA. 507/90 was rejected by thedivision Bench of this Court, the price fixed by the LAC out of which the RFAarose is not relevant for our immediate purpose as the said appeal alsorelated to village Masudpun The submission of the counsel for the claimantsis that Masudpur is an adjoininig village and lands in the said village wereacquired by the same notification dated 23. 1. 65 by which-lands in villagemalikpur Kohi/rangpuri were acquired. The submission of the Counsel hasno merit. If we are to go by the theory of adjoining villages, the entire Delhiwould be covered by it since by the process of one village adjoining anotherthe entire area will be covered. 1. 65 by which-lands in villagemalikpur Kohi/rangpuri were acquired. The submission of the Counsel hasno merit. If we are to go by the theory of adjoining villages, the entire Delhiwould be covered by it since by the process of one village adjoining anotherthe entire area will be covered. Apart from this, there is afactual differencein the situation and potentiality in the lands in village Malikpur ,kohi andvillage Masudpur, as demonstrated by Shri O. N. Vohra, ADJ referred toabove. The correct position for ascertaining the market value is the sale instances in the same village. Once the sale instances in village Malikpur Kohi/rangpuri are available, the land price in other villages, although adjoiningand though covered by the same notification, would not furnish direct evidencefor determining the market value. We, therefore, reject the submissions ofthe Counsel for the claimants to enhance the claimants claim for compensation@ Rs. 14340. 00 per bigha. ( 22 ) BEFORE leaving the judgment, we are constrained to make a fewobservations regarding the working of the Land Acquisition Department indelhi Administration and contest of these appeals by the Counsel for Unionof India. Although anappeal filed by the Union of India against the Judgment of the ADJ in LAC. 186/91 is pending in this Court, this fact was notbrought to our notice by the Counsel for Union of India. This decision of theadj in LAC. 186/81 has been substantially relied upon by another ADJ inlac. 15/81. When the appeal against the said decision of the ADJ in LAC. 15/81 came before us (RFA. 567/90) the only question pressed by the Counselfor Union of India was in regard to the payment of interest after theamendment in the Land Acquisition Act in 1984. But when we found that thedismissal of the said appeal by the Division Bench was relied upon in RFA. 122/78- Hoshiar Singh v. Union of India, we sent for the file. What isdiscovered on the file is shocking. The Union of India, bad purchased stampworth Rs. 1,19,300. 00. Obviously, the intention was to file an appeal againstthe quantum of compensation awarded by the ADJ. However, the grounds ofappeal mostly relate to the payment of interest in terms of the Amending Actof 1984. The appeal memo was drafted by Mr. Gulab Chandra, Advocate,who also appeared before us in RFA. 567/90. 1,19,300. 00. Obviously, the intention was to file an appeal againstthe quantum of compensation awarded by the ADJ. However, the grounds ofappeal mostly relate to the payment of interest in terms of the Amending Actof 1984. The appeal memo was drafted by Mr. Gulab Chandra, Advocate,who also appeared before us in RFA. 567/90. Since the question regardingpayment of interest after the Amending Act of 1984 are now fully settled bythe decisions of the Supreme Court and since that was the only questionargued before us by the Counsel for the Union of India, the appeal was dismissed by us. We had not noticed at that stage that a stamp of Rs. 1,19,300. 00was affixed by the Union of India. This is only discovered now. The purchaseof stamp worth Rs. 1,19,300. 00 would show that the claim would be over acrore of rupees. The claimants have been benefitted because Union of Indiadid not argue the matter on compensation. Apart from the lack of interestand ineffiency in the Land Acquisition matters on behalf of the Land Acquisition Department, these facts raise grave suspicion about the credibility ofthe working of the said Department. We, therefore, direct that a copy of thisjudgment be sent to the Lt. Governor for appropriate action. ( 23 ) FOR the reasons stated above the appeals of the claimants andthe appeals of the Union of India are partly allowed to the extent stated above. The claimant would be entitled to solatium and interest according to the lawprevalent at relevant time. There shall be proportionate costs.