JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. (Oral) - By this judgment I dispose of two R.F.As. No. 12 of 1985 (Tarlok Chand v. Haryana State) and 13 of 1985 (Suresh Kumar v. Haryana State), as in the opinion of this Court both the appeals can be disposed of by one judgment because common question of law and fact arises in these cases. 2. These appeals have been directed against the award dated 23.8.1984 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, who awarded compensation of the land of the appellants @ Rs. 31,600/- per acre besides solatium @ 15 per cent on the enhanced compensation. The Court also awarded interest @ 6 per cent annum on the enhanced amount from the date when the appellants were dispossessed till payment. 3. Some facts can be noticed in the following manner: The land measuring 13 acres of the appellants along with other land was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide Notification No. 1451/PK dated 25.7.1973 published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 26.7.1973 and this notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.1.1976 and was published on the same very day. After completing the formalities, the Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 30.3.1983 assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 11,500/- per acre on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The appellants were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and they filed a reference under Section 18, which was sent to the Court of Additional District Judge, Karnal, who entertained the same. In the reference the appellants claimed compensation @ Rs. 60,000/- per acre. This allegation of the appellants (claimants) was denied by the State in its reply and the learned trial Court framed the following issues for the disposal of the reference : 1. What was the market value of the land in suit at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ? OPP 2. What was the value of the standing trees and structure of the tube-well at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 ? OPP 3. Whether the award is invalid ? OPP 4. Relief. 4. OPP 2. What was the value of the standing trees and structure of the tube-well at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 ? OPP 3. Whether the award is invalid ? OPP 4. Relief. 4. Both the parties were afforded opportunity to lead evidence and on the conclusion of the proceedings, the learned trial Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 31,600/- per acre to the present appellants and issue No. 1 was decided accordingly. Issue No. 2 was decided in favour of the respondents and against the appellant. Issue No. 3 was also decided against the appellants and finally vide impugned award dated 23.8.1984 awarded compensation @ 31,600/- per acre to the present appellants besides solatium and interest as indicated above and aggrieved by the said award, the present two appeals. 5. I have heard Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate, on behalf of the appellants, Mr. N.S. Bhinder, District Attorney, on behalf of the State of Haryana, Mr. Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, on behalf of the Market Committee, Taraori for whose benefit the land was acquired and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case. 6. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be proper for me to incorporate paras 6 to 9 of the impugned judgment in order to appreciate whether the reasons advanced by the trial Court are erroneous or otherwise and these paras are reproduced as under : "6. Now first question to be seen is what was the potential value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Ex. P1 is the site plan prepared by Manohar Lal PW1 draftsman, Karnal. He stated that he had prepared the site plan after visiting the spot. In cross-examination he stated that the acquired land was 2 kilometres from the Railway Station and old grain market of Taraori was also at some distance from the acquired land. He next stated that the major abadi was towards East and North of the acquired land and this land was about 4 kilometres from G.T. Road. He also stated that the acquired land was being used as agricultural land. He next stated that the major abadi was towards East and North of the acquired land and this land was about 4 kilometres from G.T. Road. He also stated that the acquired land was being used as agricultural land. PW2 Tarlok Chand one of the petitioners stated that the acquired land was situated in between two roads namely Sonkra road and Nidana Taraori road. He further stated that about 3 killas of the acquired land abuts on Nidana road and about 3-1/2 killas of land abuts the new grain market. He further deposed that the land of grain market and acquired land were in the same compact block. He next stated that Khadi Ashram, Veterinary Hospital and about 40 shops belonging to Chaudhary Narinder Nath were situated near the acquired land. He also stated that in between the G.T. Road and acquired land there were shops and rice shellers. There was a State Ware House at a distance of 15-16 yards from the acquired land and Taraori Abadi was at a distance of 1 kilometre from the acquired land while abadi of Rajput was at a distance of 50 yards. He next stated that industrial institution was at a distance of 100 yards from the acquired land. He further deposed that the acquired land had the potential of the being developed into industrial area. In cross-examination he stated that on 26.7.1973 there was a panchayat in village Taraori but about 7 years ago Municipal Committee came into existence. He next stated that nearest sheller was about 65 or 70 yards from the acquired land and two shellers were in existence on 26.7.1973. RW1 in cross-examination stated that 8 killas of the acquired land opened towards Mandi side. He next deposed that there were about 55 shops already constructed in the land which was acquired for mandi Township. He also deposed that Sonkra and Nidana roads adjoined G.T. Road as well as Railway Station. So, from the above evidence it is clear that the acquired land is situated in between two roads namely Sonkra Taraori Road and Nidana Taraori road and it is adjacent to the New Grain Market and in fact the present land has also been acquired for the new grain mandi. So, from the above evidence it is clear that the acquired land is situated in between two roads namely Sonkra Taraori Road and Nidana Taraori road and it is adjacent to the New Grain Market and in fact the present land has also been acquired for the new grain mandi. Further there are about 40 shops belonging to Mohinder Nath near the acquired land and many rice-shellers are situated near the acquired land and the acquired land, now according to PW2, is within Municipal limits. Khadi Ashram as well as abadi of Rajputs is at a distance of 50 yards from the acquired land. Therefore, I have no manner of doubt that the acquired land has got the potential of being developed into residential or commercial area and as such the value assessed by the Land Revenue Collector on the basis of classification treating it as agricultural land is erroneous and unsustainable. 7. Now the further question for consideration is as to what was the market value of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In order to prove the market value, the petitioners have examined PW3 Nathi Ram, PW4 Om Parkash Registration Clerk, PW5 Hans Raj petition and deed writer besides the statement of one of the petitioner namely Tarlok Chand as PW2. PW3 stated that they had purchased land measuring 21K-11M for Rs. one lac from Gorishankar vide registered sale deed whose copy is Ex. P2. He next stated that they had paid Rs. 15,000/- as earnest money and rest of the sale consideration was paid before the Sub Registrar. He further stated that they were already in possession of the land which they had purchased. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion that in order to avoid right of pre-emption, they had got mentioned inflated price in the sale deed Ex. P2. He also deposed that land was situated adjoining their rice sheller. PW4 Sh. Om Parkash registration clerk stated that Ex. P2 was the correct copy of the original sale deed. PW5 Hans Raj petition and deed writer stated that Ex. P2 was the correct copy of the sale deed, and its area was 21K-11M. He further deposed that on 21.9.1971 he had scribed agreement between the parties Ex.P2 and through this agreement Rs. Om Parkash registration clerk stated that Ex. P2 was the correct copy of the original sale deed. PW5 Hans Raj petition and deed writer stated that Ex. P2 was the correct copy of the sale deed, and its area was 21K-11M. He further deposed that on 21.9.1971 he had scribed agreement between the parties Ex.P2 and through this agreement Rs. 15,000/- were paid as earnest money and that amount was paid in his presence. In cross-examination he denied that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- was not paid by the vendee to the vendors. PW2 Trilok Chand stated that Pandit Gorishankar had sold land 21 Kanals and some marlas to Sh. Panna Lal in the year 1972 which was being used for cultivation. He also stated that Mohinder also sold 60 yards of land to Dr. Atreja @ Rs. 60 or 65 per sq. yards in the year 1972. Ex. P2 copy of the sale deed dated 25.9.1972 shows that land measuring 21K-11M was sold for Rs. One lac out of which Rs. 15,000/- were paid as earnest money while Rs. 85,000/- were paid before the Sub Registrar. The copy of sale deed Ex. P3 shows that Sh. Mohinder Pal sold one plot measuring 20 x 30 sq. ft. for Rs. 4500/- to Shri Subash Chander Aneja on 10.2.1972. The price per square yard comes to Rs. 67.50. This sale deed Ex. P3 cannot be taken into consideration because it is not mentioned in the site plan as to where this plot is situated. Even PW2 has not stated in his statement that the plot which was sold through sale deed whose copy is Ex.P3 was situated near the acquired land. The land which PW3 had purchased in the year 1972 through sale deed whose copy is Ex.P2, according to him was at a distance of 400 yards from the Railway Station. While according to PW1 the acquired land was at a distance of 2 kilometres from the Railway Station. So, the acquired land is at a distance of 1-1/2 K.M. from the land which PW3 had purchased through the sale deed whose copy is Ex.P2. There is no dispute about it that Rs. 85,000/- had been paid before the Sub Registrar. The agreement has not been produced to prove that Rs. 15,000/- were paid through the agreement. However, PW5 Sh. There is no dispute about it that Rs. 85,000/- had been paid before the Sub Registrar. The agreement has not been produced to prove that Rs. 15,000/- were paid through the agreement. However, PW5 Sh. Hans Raj petition and deed writer stated that he had scribed agreement on 21.9.1971 and through this agreement vendee had paid Rs. 15,000/- in his presence and he had made entry at serial number 1374 on 21.9.1971 in his register. Therefore, keeping in view the statement of PW5 I hold that the land measuring 21K-11M was sold for Rs. one lac. The price per acre comes to Rs. 37,123/- in round figure. 8. The respondents have produced mutations Ex.R2 and Ex.R3. Mutation Ex.R2 relates to land measuring 8 kanals and through sale deed dated 13.5.1971 this land was sold for Rs. 5,000/-. The average price per acre comes to Rs. 5,000/-, mutation Ex. R3 relates to sale deed dated 9.11.1972 and through the sale deed dated 9.11.1972 land measuring 23K 8 M was sold for Rs. 21,000/-. The price per acre comes to Rs. 7,179.47. Both these mutations cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason that even the Collector while giving award had not relied upon these mutations and had given higher award of Rs. 11,500/- per acre. 9. The petitioners have also produced into evidence Ex.R4 the award dated 6.8.1979 of Sh. R.K. Gupta, Additional District Judge, Karnal. This award relates to the land which was acquired through the same notification through which the present land had been acquired and even the purpose was also the same i.e. for setting up New Mandi Township. The learned Additional District Judge had awarded compensation @ Rs. 31,600/- per acre. There is no evidence that this award has been set aside in appeal. Therefore, relying upon this award Ex. P4 which is the best evidence in the present case, I hold that the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 31,600/- per acre. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the trial Court has committed a patent illegality in discarding the document Ex.P2. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it is proved on the record that the land measuring 21 kanals 11 marals was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the trial Court has committed a patent illegality in discarding the document Ex.P2. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, it is proved on the record that the land measuring 21 kanals 11 marals was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It is further proved that Rs. 15,000/- were paid by way of earnest money on 21.9.1971 at the time of execution of agreement and Rs. 85,000/- were paid at the time of registration of the sale deed to the vendor. He further submitted that this transaction dated 25.9.1972 is the best evidence on which both the Courts should have placed reliance and in this manner the appellants are entitled to compensation @ Rs. 37,125/- per acre besides solatium @ 30 per cent and other incidental benefits because the amendment in the Act was introduced on 24.9.1984 w.e.f. 30.4.1982. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was given on 30.3.1983, subsequent to 30.4.1982. 8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no satisfactory proof with regard to the payment of Rs. 15,000/- because the agreement of sale dated 21.9.1971 has not been produced on the record. Moreover, the situation of the land relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is at a distance of about 1-1/2 KM from the acquired area. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the award Ex. R4 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge is that best instance. This award was passed regarding the land which was acquired through the same notification vide which the land of the appellants has been acquired and even the purpose of the acquisition of the land was same. In these circumstances, the compensation which has been assessed by the Court of Additional District Judge @ Rs. 31,600/- is just compensation as per Section 23 of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that against this very notification certain appeals were filed by the State Government and cross-objections were also filed by the land-owners and vide judgment dated 15.9.1980 the award of the Court has been upheld and there is no further scope of interference. 9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the arguments of Mr. 9. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the arguments of Mr. Pipat should be partly accepted as this Court finds that the solatium @ 15 per cent awarded by the Court below is erroneous and against the provisions of the Act itself. But so far as the amount of compensation is concerned, there is no scope of further enhancement in view of the award Ex.R4, dated 6.8.1979 and in view of the judgment dated 15.9.1980 given by the High Court in RFA No. 2257 of 1979. 10. Resultantly, both the appeals are partly allowed, the judgment dated 23.8.1984 is hereby modified and it is hereby declared that the appellants shall get solatium @ 30 per cent as per the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act which lays down "In addition to the market-value of the land, as above provided, the Court shall in every case award a sum of thirty per centum on such market-value, in consideration of the compulsory nature of the acquisition." This amendment has been introduced into the Act on 24.9.1984 but its operation has become effective w.e.f. 30.4.1984. The appellants shall also be entitled to other incidental benefits such as interest as per the provisions of Sections 23(1A) and 28 of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. Both the appeals are partly allowed. Appeals partly allowed.