JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment, I dispose of R.F.A. Nos. 2014 of 1986, Inder Singh v. State of Haryana and other, RFA No. 2013 of 1986, Ranga Singh v. Haryana State and other, RFA No. 2164 of 1986, Gursharan Singh and others v. Haryana State and RFA No. 2165 of 1986, Sukhchain Singh v. Haryana State and others as all these four appeals can be disposed of by one judgment arising out from the same award. 2. These appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 3.6.1986 pased by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hisar vide which he maintained the amount of compensation which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector holding that the market value of the land in question was not more than Rs. 45,000/- per acre on 18.3.1983 and that the appellants are not entitled to any compensation. Apart from this, the learned Additional District Judge granted solatium at the rate of 30%. He also granted additional amount equivalent to 12% of the amount of compensation as provided under Section 23(1-A) of the Act from 18.3.1983 till the date of the award i.e. 13.8.1984. He further ordered that Collector shall also pay interest on such excess at the rate of 9% per annum from the date he took the possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court. In case of failure to make this payment of such excess within one year from the date on which possession was taken, interest at the rate of 15% per annum shall be calculated from the date of the expiry of the said period of one year on the amount of such excess or part thereof which has not been paid in the Court before the date of such expiry. 3. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 18.3.1983 vide which land measuring 35 Kanals 15 Marlas bearing Khasra No. 225, 226 and 426, min. situated at village Uklana, was acquired by the State Government for public purposes namely for the construction of bus stand Uklana. Notification under Section 6 was also issued later on. The Collector gave the award on 13.8.1984. According to the Collector, it was agricultural land consisting of Tal, Nehri, Gair Mumkin and Banjar Quadim. Area of 8 Kanals of Khasra No. 226/20 was found under cultivation. Notification under Section 6 was also issued later on. The Collector gave the award on 13.8.1984. According to the Collector, it was agricultural land consisting of Tal, Nehri, Gair Mumkin and Banjar Quadim. Area of 8 Kanals of Khasra No. 226/20 was found under cultivation. The Collector also assessed a sum of Rs. 180/- by way of compensation for the standing crop. It was also observed that area measuring 6 Kanals 4 Marlas of Shri Indar Singh has been acquired. With regard to the area which was acquired of other land owners, it has been so stated in para No. 2 of the impugned judgment. 4. The claimants/landowners demanded compensation before the Land Acquisition Collector at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per kanal and few claimants demanded compensation ranging from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 1500/- per square yard. The rate which was supplied by the District Collector was Rs. 45,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per acre. 10 trees were also found standing in the acquired area and the Forest Officer assessed their value at Rs. 425/-. With regard to the superstructure the compensation was assessed at Rs. 19090/-. In short the amount which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was accepted by the land owners under protest and they were not satisfied with the compensation. They filed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. Notice of the references was given to the State. Written statement was filed. The following issues were framed :- 1. What was the market value of the suit land at the time of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 18.3.1983 ? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of the suit land. If so, to what amount ? OPP 3. Relief. 6. The claimants led oral as well as documentary evidence. Raj Kumar, Gian Chand, Hargobind Patwari, Jagan Nath, Sukhchain, Devender Pal, Ramesh Kumar, Surja Ram, Inder Singh, Mange Ram and Dilbag Singh appeared as witnesses of the appellant. 7. Documents were also tendered i.e. the copies of the sale deeds Exs. P.1, P.2, P.3, P.13, P.15 and site plan Ex. P.4. Other document were also placed on the record. 8. Raj Kumar, Gian Chand, Hargobind Patwari, Jagan Nath, Sukhchain, Devender Pal, Ramesh Kumar, Surja Ram, Inder Singh, Mange Ram and Dilbag Singh appeared as witnesses of the appellant. 7. Documents were also tendered i.e. the copies of the sale deeds Exs. P.1, P.2, P.3, P.13, P.15 and site plan Ex. P.4. Other document were also placed on the record. 8. On the other hand, the State produced Rajinder Singh building clerk, and Shri Sube Singh SDC as RW1 and RW-2 and also produced copy of the sale deeds R.1 to R.4. Copy of the mutation Exs. R.5, R.6, R.8 and R.9 and other documents were also placed on record. 9. The parties addressed arguments and the learned Reference Court thought it proper that the market value of the land, as assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector, was adequate and therefore, no enhancement was given by the Reference Court. 10. Not satisfied with the decision of the reference Court under Section 18 of the Act, the present four appeals have been filed. 11. I have heard Shri Ajay Tewari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri Sultan Singh, AAG, Haryana on behalf of respondent No. 1 and Shri D.S. Bali, Sr. Advocate, on behalf of respondents No. 2 to 6 and with their assistance have gone through the record of this case. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the Court of learned District Judge committed an illegality in rejecting the references and by upholding the award of the Land Acquisition Collector. He submitted that there was enough of documentary evidence to show that the value of the land was much more than Rs. 45,000/- per acre as determined by the Courts below. In support of his contention, the counsel for the appellant referred to the copies of the sale deed Ex. P.1, P.2, P.3, P.13 and P.16. He submitted that though the subject matter of these instances is of smaller area but these documents cannot be ignored altogether. In support of their contention the counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment of this Court reported as 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 447, State of Haryana v. Tej Ram. P.1, P.2, P.3, P.13 and P.16. He submitted that though the subject matter of these instances is of smaller area but these documents cannot be ignored altogether. In support of their contention the counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment of this Court reported as 2000(1) RCR(Civil) 447, State of Haryana v. Tej Ram. The counsel drew my attention to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported as 1988(2) RCR(Civil) 136 where it was laid down as follows :- "Small piece of land can be taken into consideration if no other sale instance of larger plot of land was available and such instance was otherwise comparable instance. It is settled principle of law that transaction of sale and purchase of huge land is not easily available. In the normal course of business, sale instances relate to comparatively small pieces of land than the huge chunk of land, which are normally acquired by the Government for carrying out different projects for public purposes. Application of principle of deduction could be higher when the plots are small but ignoring them per se on the ground that sale instances being of small plots would be unfair." 13. I have considered these submissions and I am of the opinion that the instances contained in annexures P-1 and P-2, P-15, P-16 should be ignored altogether because these instances are of August 1982 and 15.9.1982. Area sold in each instance is of 5 marlas only. We do not know what is the location of these plots vis-a-vis the land which was acquired by the Government for the construction of the Bus Stand, Uklana. In the absence of this evidence, these four instances cannot be made as the guidelines. With regard to the instances P.3 and P.13, both are dated 7.1.1982 of 10 marlas each. In fact, the area of 20 marlas belong to Shri Sukhchain who is one of the claimants. He appeared as PW-6. He stated that he sold one Kanal of land out of the acquired land in favour of Indrawanti Narinder and Raj Kumar vide two registered sale deeds the photo copies of which are Exs. P.3 and P.13. It has further come in evidence that in front of the land acquired, there is a water works. Nearby, there lies a factory of Brij Land Prem Chand. P.3 and P.13. It has further come in evidence that in front of the land acquired, there is a water works. Nearby, there lies a factory of Brij Land Prem Chand. Water Works and Factory are in existence for the last more than 8 to 10 years. The market fee office is also situated near the acquired land. The Arya Girls College, Ice Factory, Cinema Hall are also near the acquired land which is inside the Municipal limits. This witness further stated that buildings are situated near the acquired land and these buildings have been subjected to house tax since 1980. There is consistent oral evidence that the land acquired is within the municipal limits and this land is adjoining the main road i.e. the reason it was acquired for the construction of the bus stand. Thus, the potential value of the land is very good. 20 marlas of land was sold on 1.7.1982. Sukhchain PW6 sold the land in favour of Indrawanti at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per kanal. In one acre there are 8 kanals meaning thereby the market value according to Shri Sukhchain Singh of the acquired area should be Rs. 1,60,000/- whereas the Court below awarded only Rs. 45,000/-. It has further been stated by this witness that the same land was sold at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per kanal to Surje Ram and then further 10 marlas of land was sold for Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, this Court can safely ignore the four transactions of five marlas each but a reasonable cut has to be imposed with regard to the transactions of P.3 and P.13 each dated 7.1.1982. I cannot forget that the vendor of these transactions was none else but one of the claimants. In such like matter information invariably leaks to the benefit of the land owners that Government intends to acquire the area for public purposes. 14. I have gone through the reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge who concurred with the findings of the Land Acquisition Collector and in my opinion those reasons are little bit faulty even if all odds are taken against the land owners that it was to their knowledge even 2/3 years prior to the date of the acquisition that there were rumours about the proposed construction of the Bus Stand Uklana on the acquired land, still I am of the opinion that Rs. 55,000/- per acre should be the market value of the land on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Some weightage has to be given to the transactions P.3 and P.13. The findings of the Reference Court on issue No. 1 are hereby modified and it is declared that the market value of the suit land at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Act was Rs. 55,000/- per acre. 15. In view of the finding under issue No. 1, it is hereby declared that the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation in respect of the acquired land as observed above. 16. The learned counsel Shri Ajay Tewari had one more point to say which I deal with presently. He submitted that the land of his client measuring 4 kanals was acquired and not 6 Kanals and 4 Marlas. This argument of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The Jamabandi for the year 1981-82 of this Khasra Number shows that the total area of the land is 24 Kanals and 18 Marlas. Shri Indar Singh had 1/4th share which comes to 6 Kanals and four and half marlas and his entire area was acquired. When a reference is made to the Reference Court by the Collector, he is supposed to attach a statement under Section 19 of the Act in which Collector is supposed to give information in writing regarding the situation and the extent of the land, with particulars of any trees, buildings or standing crops thereon; names of the persons whom he has reason to think interested in such land and the amount awarded for damages or amount of compensation etc. In the statement the Collector has stated that area measuring 6 Kanals 4 Marlas of Shri Indar Singh was acquired. Had the area of 4 Kanals of Shri Indar Singh was acquired he would have raised a hue and cry before the Collector or he would have produced the family settlement in his statement on the basis of which he wants to make me believe that only 4 Kanals of land was acquired. When the Government issues the Notification under Section 4, it takes the measurement at the spot. It prepares the field plans. Had there been any discrepancy with regard to the area acquired Shri Indar Singh could bring that evidence before the Court. When the Government issues the Notification under Section 4, it takes the measurement at the spot. It prepares the field plans. Had there been any discrepancy with regard to the area acquired Shri Indar Singh could bring that evidence before the Court. Shri Indar Singh has been shown in possession of 1/4th the share of 24 Kanals and 18 Marlas of land and the entire area belonging to him was acquired as is evident from the Annexure of the Land Acquisition Collector, which is part and parcel of the award. 17. In this view of the matter, I am not in a position to agree with Shri Tewari that the land measuring 4 Kanals of Shri Indar Singh was acquired or that he had a subsisting interest in 2 Kanals and 4 Marlas. Thus, I reject this submission of Shri Tewari. 18. The new result is that all these four appeals are partly allowed. The market value of the land is declared at Rs. 55,000/- per acre. The appellants shall be entitled to the compensation at this rate. They will also be entitled to the other statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) and Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the same parameters which have been observed and quoted by the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar in the judgment dated 3.6.1986 and I have already reproduced those observations in the earlier portion of the judgment. There shall be no order as to costs in these four appeals. Appeals partly allowed.