Judgment Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. 19 Regular First Appeals and 2 cross objections have been preferred by the claimants, while 25 regular first appeals have been preferred by the State against the same judgment and award dated 1st February, 1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Ropar. Thus, these 46 appeals/cross objections arise from a common judgment and are based upon common premise of facts and law. So, it will be appropriate to dispose of all these appeals by a common judgment. 2. The State of Punjab, issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act intending to acquire 83.76 acres of land in the revenue estate of village Batta, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar on 18th September, 1985 (incorrectly recorded in the impugned judgment/award as 12/13th September, 1985), in furtherance to which notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 23rd September, 1985. Upon actual measurement, the acquired land was found to be 82.24 acres. This land was acquired for a public purpose, namely, construction of SYL Canal. The Land Acquisition Collector after following due process, vide his award No. 77 dated 28th March, 1986 awarded the following compensation to the claimants while categorising the land into two different groups. The claimants were totally dis-satisfied with the extent of the amount of compensation awarded to them and they preferred references under Section 18 of the Act. 25 references were preferred which were disposed of by the learned District Judge, Ropar vide his judgment and award dated 1st February, 1991 where the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 90,000/- per acre while removing the categorisation of the respective lands. In addition thereto in LAC No. 222 of 1989, the learned Judge awarded 25% as compensation payable for severance. 3. Mr. Mattewal, learned Advocate General, Punjab contended that the reliance placed by the learned Judge on the settlement (agreement) of the State with the claimants is contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors., 1998(1) Rev. L.R. 175 and further that there was no evidence to justify grant of excess awarded amount of compensation to the claimants and prayed for restoration of the award of Collector. L.R. 175 and further that there was no evidence to justify grant of excess awarded amount of compensation to the claimants and prayed for restoration of the award of Collector. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants stated that on the basis of documentary and oral evidence produced by the claimants on record, they would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs. 3.20 lacs per acre and in any case, on the bare reading of the agreement and keeping in view the compensation that was offered to be paid by the State itself, the claimants would be entitled to get Rs. 1 lac per acre without fail. Reference to the evidence on record would facilitate an objective discussion on the aforestated contentions. The claimants examined PW1 to PW5. PW2, the Patwari, proved Aks-Shijra Ex.P.1. Sale deeds Ex.P.6 and P.7 were produced on record but were not proved in accordance with law. Ex.P.8 to P.21 are the copies of the jamabandis while Ex.P.2 to P.5 are the copies of the judgments and award placed on record. The respondents led no evidence except tendering on record Ex.R. 1 to R.3 the copies of sale deed. 4. As far as the respondents are concerned, sale deeds Ex.R.1 and R.2 are not admissible in evidence because the respondents did not examine either the vendor or the vendee to prove the authenticity of the documents and the genuineness of the consideration paid thereunder. Thus, the only admissible, evidence whatever may be its worth is Ex.R.3 (Aks-shijra). Though Ex. R. 1 and Ex.R.2 are the sale deeds relating to the land of the same village from where the land has been acquired, but they have no evidentiary value. For the same reason Ex.P.6 and P.7, the sale deeds tendered in evidence by the petitioners are also inadmissible though they also relate to the same village. What really remains with the Court as acceptable evidence are the judgments Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5. The details of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 are produced hereunder:- Ex.P.2. Copy of judgment of Additional District Judge dated 8th June, 1990, in case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab wherein compensation of Rs. 1 lac per acre for Chahi, Rs. 80,000/- per acre for Barani and Rs. The details of Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 are produced hereunder:- Ex.P.2. Copy of judgment of Additional District Judge dated 8th June, 1990, in case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab wherein compensation of Rs. 1 lac per acre for Chahi, Rs. 80,000/- per acre for Barani and Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin was awarded in village Sotal, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar which was acquired vide notification under Section 4 dated 18th September, 1985 by following the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Sarwan Singh v. State in village Rora which is as also at Ex.P.4 herein. Ex. P.3. Copy of judgment of the High Court dated 31st August, 1989 in Regular First Appeal No. 2807 of 1987, State of Punjab v. Khushal Singh, pertaining to acquisition of land in village Khera Gajju vide notification under Section 4 dated 13th December, 1982 wherein compensation was enhanced to:- (i) Land abutting Chandigarh-Rajpura road upto depth of 150 feet Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. (ii) Chahi - Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre while relying upon settlement between PS/CM and SUL Action Committee. (iii) Gair Mumkin land - Rs. 60,000/- per acre. Ex. P.4. Copy of judgment of learned Additional District Judge, dated 24th January, 1090 in case titled Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab, relating to acquisition of land in village Rora, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, vide notification under Section 4 dated 18th September, 1985 wherein compensation was granted at the rate of:- Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre for Chahai Rs. 80,000/- per acre for Barani Rs. 60,000/- per acre for Gair Mumkin/Barani-Jadid. Ex. P.5 Copy of judgment of learned Additional District Judge dated 22nd December, 1989 titled Labh Singh v. State of Punjab for apportionment. 5 The learned Reference Court while relying upon Ex.P.2 and considering the location of the land in question held as under:- "There is no evidence on the record that village Rora is adjacent to village Batta or the land regarding which compensation has been awarded vide judgment Ex. P.4 is similar in situation to the land acquired in village Batta. So judgment Ex.P.4 cannot be said to be useful instance for determining the market value of the land. P.4 is similar in situation to the land acquired in village Batta. So judgment Ex.P.4 cannot be said to be useful instance for determining the market value of the land. Regarding judgment copy of which is Ex.P.2 though there is evidence that boundaries of village Batta adjoins the boundaries of village Sotal, but there is no evidence on the record to show that land situated in village Sotal was similar to the land situated in village Batta. There is also no evidence on the record to show that potentiality of the land in village Sotal was similar to the land in village Batta. The State of Punjab had agreed to give them compensation at the rate of Rs. one lac per acre for Chahi land. If all the benefits such as interest, solatium etc., are taken into consideration, the claimants will get more than Rs. one lac per acre. So taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded to the claimants is inadequate. Hence, I award compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre for Chahi land, It has come in, evidence that acquired land is Chahi in nature. PW-1 Dilbagh Singh has stated that land in question was irrigated by government tubewell No. 306. His statement is further corroborated by PW-3 and PW-4. PW-4 Sukhdev Singh, stated that whole of the, land situated in village Batta was irrigated by government tubewell. PW-4 is none else but an employee of the Punjab Government." 6. As far as Ex. P.5 is concerned, this can hardly be considered to be a comparable relevant evidence. The land under Ex.P.5 was acquired vide notification dated 22nd December, 1989 which means nearly four years subsequent to the present notification. Ex.P.3 relates to the acquisition of land in village Khera Gajju. It is much further away and the land of these two villages cannot be compared for the purposes of determining fair market value of the land. Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4 can be considered to be relevant awards which would have a bearing on the matters in issue in the present appeal. It is much further away and the land of these two villages cannot be compared for the purposes of determining fair market value of the land. Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4 can be considered to be relevant awards which would have a bearing on the matters in issue in the present appeal. Vide Ex.P.4 the learned Judge had relied on a judgment dated 24th January, 1990 mainly, upon the agreement arrived at by the State Government through the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister to pay compensation to the claimants at least at the rate of Rs. one lac per acre. Admissibility and reliance upon this agreement has been seriously doubted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Surjit Kaur v. State of Punjab and Ors. The Division Bench held that the said agreement does not bind the State to pay similar compensation to other claimants nor could the same, be used as a precedent. In the case of Uttam Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1998-1)118 P.L.R. 67, another Division Bench of this Court took the view that political assurances given by petitioners cannot be enforced, while considering the same assurance and the plea of allotment of plots to the claimants whose land had been acquired. Thus, it will not be safe for this Court to even rely upon Ex.P.4. 7. Ex. P.2 is the document on which the Court can rely. Vide Ex.P.2 the land was acquired in village Sotal vide notification dated 18th September, 1985 and the land owners were granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 60,000/- per care depending upon the nature of the acquired land. On the strength of Ex.P.2 the learned counsel for the claimants had contended that they, in any case, could not have been given lesser compensation that the one awarded vide Ex.P.2. The learned Reference Court noticed that there was no definite evidence to show that the land of village Sotal was similar to the acquired land and as such by applying some guess work, awarded Rs. 90,000/- per acre to the claimants. PW.1 as well as other witnesses had specifically stated, on oath that the...... evidence that the acquired land adjoins the village abadi. Ex.P.1 also indicates that the boundary of village Sotal is adjoining to the acquired land on the one side. 90,000/- per acre to the claimants. PW.1 as well as other witnesses had specifically stated, on oath that the...... evidence that the acquired land adjoins the village abadi. Ex.P.1 also indicates that the boundary of village Sotal is adjoining to the acquired land on the one side. Thus, it cannot be said that village Sotal is in any way much better than the land in village Batta. 8. The cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the land, subject matter of Ex.P.2 is a comparable instance and being a judicial pronouncement have greater value. There has to be definite reasoning why the claimants cannot be granted the same benefit like Ex.P.2. The location of the land and its potential has, by and large, been found to be similar as has come in the oral as well as documentary evidence. It has been repeatedly held by the Honble Apex Court as well as by this Court that in huge acquisition from different revenue estates where the land has been acquired of the same kind and for the same purpose preferably the claimants should be paid the same compensation. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Butta Ram, R.F.A. No. 1605 of 1992 decided on 7th January, 1999, where, after detailed discussion, this Court held as under:- "The proper course which has been approved by the Honble Apex Court for determination of fair market value is to work out the price on the principle of averages and also the adjacent lands should be awarded similar compensation to avoid inequality between the claims of the owners in relation to the land which is somewhat similarly located. In this regard reference can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Khushi Ram and Anr. v. The State of Haryana, 1988 L.A.C.C. 653; Surinder Singh v. Punjab State, (1995-1) P.L.R. 533; Ram Mehra v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1987 Delhi 130; Karrappa Ranghiya v. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 77 and Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and Ors., A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 869." 9. The notification under section 4 in the present case is of the same date as in Ex.P.2. The notification under section 4 in the present case is of the same date as in Ex.P.2. Certainly the onus was upon the claimants to prove before the Court that they were also as entitled to the benefit of Ex.P.2. and it was relevant comparable instance seen from any angle. To great extent the claimants have been able to discharge this onus and even if the agreement of the State to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre is held to be not enforceable in the present case as per dictum of the Division bench in the case of Uttam Singh (supra). Still the claimants to my mind shall be entitled to get compensation in terms of Ex.P2 atleast. The sale instances Ex.P.6 and P.7 produced on record by the claimants, or course, at the time when they were tendered in evidence, were admissible, but because of the subsequent pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court, they are held to be not admissible. Even if sale-deed Ex.P.7 for the sake of arguments is taken to be admissible, the price as per Ex.P.7 would be Rs. 1,60,000/- per acre approximately. Applying the reasonable amount of deduction, in any case, the claimants would be entitled to the compensation of not more than Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. 10. For the reasons afore-stated, the appeals of the claimants are partly accepted to the limited extent that they would be entitled to further enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre, i.e. in all Rs. 1,00.000/- per acre, with all statutory benefits provided under section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28, of the Act. All the State appeals are, however, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.