ORDER V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - In this appeal, the State of Punjab challenges award of learned Additional District Judge dated November 12, 1981 vide which reference made by the respondents herein under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was partly allowed inasmuch as the compensation for acquired land was enhanced from Rs. 20,000/- per acre, as allowed by the Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated November 11, 1981, to Rs. 35,000/- per acre. 2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the State acquired 32 kanals of land for a public purpose, namely, for allotment of houses to weaker section of the society and landless workers in rural areas vide notification dated March 1, 1977 issued under Section 4 of the said Act. The Land Acquisition Collector determined the market value of the land @ Rs. 20,000/- per acre. Dis-satisfied with the compensation assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, respondents sought reference under Section 18 of the said Act, with the result already indicated above. 3. As in every land acquisition appeal as also in this, the only question is as to what was the market value of the acquired land when notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. 4. The parties did lead evidence on the crucial issue aforesaid and the claimants relied upon sale instance Ex. A2 of ten marlas of land which was sold for Rs. 2500/- as also Ex. A3 vide which once against ten marlas of land was sold for Rs. 2500/- on May 26, 1975. The rate per acre of these sale instances comes out to be Rs. 40,000/-. Appellant herein relied upon Ex. R2 to R6. Insofar as sale instances Ex. R2 to R6, relied upon by the State are concerned, no reliance can be placed upon the same for the reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge, namely, all these sale instances are located at far off distance. 5. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the sale instance Ex. A2 actually pertains to May 20, 1977 i.e., the same is post- notification as also that the sale instances, Ex. A2 and A3 are of a small piece of land as compared to the land under acquisition. That being so, the award the Land Acquisition Collector had proceeded on correct premises, further contends the learned counsel. 6. A2 actually pertains to May 20, 1977 i.e., the same is post- notification as also that the sale instances, Ex. A2 and A3 are of a small piece of land as compared to the land under acquisition. That being so, the award the Land Acquisition Collector had proceeded on correct premises, further contends the learned counsel. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the grounds of the case with their assistance, I, however, find no merit in the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, as noted above. Assuming it to be true that sale instance, Ex.A2 pertains to a date after notification under Section 4 came to be issued and, therefore, it should be ignored for determining the market value of the land, sale instance, Ex. A3 is certainly for the period far prior to notification under Section 4 came to be issued. The said instance has been held to be comparable and nothing at all has been urged that might detract from the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on that count. True, both Ex. A2 and A3 are of small pieces of land but the fact cannot be lost sight of that insofar as Ex. A3 is concerned, same pertains to a period about one and half years prior to notification under Section 4 came to be issued in this case. The ever increase in sale price of real estate cannot be ignored. Further, the said instance depicts the market value @ Rs. 40,000/- per acre whereas what has been granted in this case is Rs. 35,000/- per acre. A deduction of Rs. 5000/- and margin of one and half years, as mentioned above, in my view, would really set off the argument based upon Ex. A3 being a small instance. Finding no merit in this appeal, I dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.