JUDGMENT R.L. Anand, J. - By this judgment, I dispose of as many as 22 regular first appeals bearing Nos. 1419 to 1429 of 1992 (11 appeals filed by the land owners) and RFAs Nos. 1828 to 1838 of 1992 (11 appeals filed by the State). All these appeals have arisen from the judgment dated 10.2.1992 passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Ambala, who awarded compensation of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs. 3,38,800/- per acre. In addition to this, he also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and all other consequential benefits including those under Sections 23(1)(A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act) besides costs which were assessed at Rs. 500/- per proceedings. 2. The land approximately 8 acres was acquired by the Government of Haryana for the benefit of Haryana State Electricity Board for the public purpose for the construction of 66 K.V. Sub Station, Ambala City, and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.12.1988. Notification under Section 6 of the said Act was issued on 23.5.1989. The acquired land is situated in village Patti Acharjan, Tehsil and District Ambala. The Land Acquisition Collector, awarded compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The land owners not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, filed references under Section 18 of the Act. Those were referred to the Court which enhanced the compensation from Rs. 50,000/- per acre to Rs. 3,38,800/- per acre. The land owners are not still satisfied with the award of the Court. Similarly, the State was not satisfied with the same. Both of them have filed the present appeals. 3. Land owners are asking for the enhancement of compensation while the State of Haryana has made a prayer that the compensation awarded by the learned District Judge, Ambala, is highly excessive. 4. As per the claimants, the market-value of the land on the date of acquisition was Rs. 24 lacs per acre because this land was of great potential value and it could be used for the residential and commercial purposes. On the contrary, the stand of the State is that the land is purely agricultural in nature and the Land Acquisition Collector has rightly awarded the compensation. 24 lacs per acre because this land was of great potential value and it could be used for the residential and commercial purposes. On the contrary, the stand of the State is that the land is purely agricultural in nature and the Land Acquisition Collector has rightly awarded the compensation. The learned trial Court framed the following issues for the disposal of the references made by the land owners :- 1. What was the market value of the property in question at the time of acquisition ? OPP 2. To what amount the petitioners are entitled to, if any, towards enhanced compensation ? OPP 3. Relief. 5. The Courts below for the reasons given in paras 6 to 9 of the judgment dated 10.2.1992 held that the market value of the land was Rs. 3,38,800/- per acre. Resultantly, issue No. 1 was decided in favour of the land owners and against the respondent-State. Paras 6 to 9 are re-produced as under :- 6. Issue No. 1 The claimants in order to establish the market value of the land have produced the proof of sale transactions in the area. They examined Smt. Vidya Wati Vendee who appearing as PW1 stated that she had purchased about 125 square yards of land for Rs. 9680/- through sale deed dated 14.12.1981 copy of which is Exhibit A1. Kashmiri Lal another purchaser appearing as PW3 made statement that he had purchased a plot in the area at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard in the year 1984. He however did not produce original sale deed. Shiv Kumar, PW5 made statement that he had purchased plot measuring 278 square yards for Rs. 22,240/- vide sale deed dated 6.4.1985 copy of which is Exhibit PW5/1. Kulwant Rai made statement that he had purchased plot measuring 246 square yards for Rs. 19,680/- vide sale deed Exhibit PW6/1 dated 6.4.1985. Balwant Singh one of the claimants appearing as PW7 made statement that he had sold an area measuring 125 square yards for Rs. 10,000/- through sale deed dated 14.12.1984 copy of which is Exhibit PW7/A. He stated further that land in question which is situated in Patti Acharjan was canal irrigated and it adjoins Ambala-Patiala Road going via village Loh Simbli. He stated further that Railway station is about 15 acres away and agriculture farm is about one acre from the acquired land. 10,000/- through sale deed dated 14.12.1984 copy of which is Exhibit PW7/A. He stated further that land in question which is situated in Patti Acharjan was canal irrigated and it adjoins Ambala-Patiala Road going via village Loh Simbli. He stated further that Railway station is about 15 acres away and agriculture farm is about one acre from the acquired land. There is a water works supply centre, agriculture university farm and District Agriculture Officers Office besides a piggery farm near the land in question. New Grain Market is only about 2 furlongs; S.A. Jain College is about 4 furlongs and there are many shellers, poultry farms etc. on the western side whereas abadi of Ambala City is towards east of the acquired land. He also tendered copy Exhibit PW7/A of the High Court judgment in Regular First Appeal No. 818 of 1986 and copies of Nehri Girdawries Exhibit PW7/C to Exhibit PW7/G; Akshajra Exhibit PW7/E, jamabandi Exhibit PW/J and copy of the order of District Judge, Ambala, dated 26.11.1991 Exhibit PW7/K. Learned counsel for the claimants also tendered certified copies mark A/1 to A5 of the sale deeds but the same did not admit in evidence for want of proof. It is worthwhile to mention that all these relate to transactions after acquisition. The learned counsel for the claimants also tendered certified copy of the judgment of Honble High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 9 of 1981 Exhibit PY. Claimants also examined one Roshan Lal who appearing as PW2 made statement that he had entered into agreement with Gurbux Singh for purchase of land at the rate of Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. He tendered document Exhibit A/2 about completion of the land transaction and stated that he had misplaced the original agreement to sell. During his cross examination, he admitted that fifty to sixty sale deeds in pursuance of the said agreement had been executed and he had not brought any of those registered sale deeds. He also admitted that he is only purchaser of sale of plots which belong to Gurbux Singh and that the said land is about one and half km. from the land acquired in the present case. Davinder Singh draftsman appearing as PW4 made statement that he had prepared site plan Exhibit PW4/1 which bears his signatures wherein he had shown the acquired land at point x in red colour. from the land acquired in the present case. Davinder Singh draftsman appearing as PW4 made statement that he had prepared site plan Exhibit PW4/1 which bears his signatures wherein he had shown the acquired land at point x in red colour. He stated further that Ambala City Court Compound is about half km. from the acquired land and so is Ambala City Railway Station. 7. State of Haryana in rebuttal examined Sham Lal Patwari Land Acquisition Office, Haryana State Electricity Board, Ambala City, who appearing as RW1 made statement that he had prepared Akshajra Exhibit R1 where he had shown the acquired land in green colour at point A. He stated further that acquired land which was agricultural at the time of acquisition is situated three four acres away from the Ambala City abadi. Learned Government Pleader tendered copy Exhibit R/2 of the sale deed through which land measuring 16 Kanals in Patti Acharjan Tehsil and District Ambala, had been sold for Rs. 48,000/- on 16.1.1987. 8. A conjoint study of site plan Exhibit PW4/1 and copy Exhibit R1 of the Akshajra shows that acquired land is situated on a tri-junction from where roads towards three different directions in the outskirts of Ambala City and is only three-four acres away from the City abadi. It is also close to the Agriculture University Farm, District Court Compounds, Ambala. The instances led by the claimants show that land in the same patti i.e. Patti Acharjan was sold in the year 1984-85 at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard as is evident from certified copies Exhibit PW5/1, Exhibit PW6/1 and Exhibit PW7/1. However, those were very small plots measuring only about 120 to 200 square yards. The claimants have unsuccessfully tried to establish market value of the land at Rs. 4,00,000/- per acre. Original agreement to sell has not been produced and document Exhibit A/2 on plain paper with revenue adhesive stamps dated 30.1.1988 had been produced showing payment of Rs. 30,000/- through Bank Payment Order. It is very easy to fabricate such a document and make it pre- dated. It seems that claimants have forged this document so as to lend proof to their exaggerated claim seeking compensation at the rate of Rs. 24 lacs per acre when they have been awarded compensation at low rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre which comes to about Rs. 10.50 per square yard. It seems that claimants have forged this document so as to lend proof to their exaggerated claim seeking compensation at the rate of Rs. 24 lacs per acre when they have been awarded compensation at low rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre which comes to about Rs. 10.50 per square yard. However, there is convincing evidence that the land in the same Patti had been sold in the year 1984-85 at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard which comes to Rs. 3,87,200/- per acre. At the same time, there is evidence that agricultural land measuring 16 kanals had been sold in the same Patti for Rs. 48,000/- on 16.1.1987 at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. The evidence led by the claimants shows market value of small pieces of land at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard and evidence led by the State of Haryana shows sales of agricultural land in the same patti at the rate less than Rs. 10-00 per square yard. The compensation has been awarded at Rs. 10- 50 per square yard. The claimants have placed on the file copy Exhibit PW7/K of the decision of this very Court given in LAC Case No. 83/4 of 3.8.1987 decided on 26.11.1991 wherein this Court has awarded compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard in respect of land acquired in Patti Mehar, on 19.4.1983 for the development and utilisation of the road in Urban Estate, Ambala. The claimants have also tendered copy Exhibit PW7/B of decision given by the High Court in RFA 818 of 1986 in respect of land acquired on 6.7.1981 near Delhi Border Gurgaon, wherein benefit of Rs. 5/- per square yard had been given for a period of seven years about the sale transactions produced in evidence in their case. Lastly, claimants have relied upon judgment certified copy of which is Exhibit PY given by our own High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 985 of 1981 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 100/- per square yard for the land acquired in Patti Mehar for construction of over bridge within the Municipal Limits of Ambala City. 9. The discussions above show that land in Patti Mehar has been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 70/- to Rs. 100/- per square yard for the land acquired in Patti Mehar for construction of over bridge within the Municipal Limits of Ambala City. 9. The discussions above show that land in Patti Mehar has been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- to Rs. 100/- per square yard for the land acquired in the year 1978 and for another piece of land acquired in the year 1983, this Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 100/- per square yard. The land acquired in Patti Mehar is in the Municipal limits in the midst of the colonies and Urban areas developed within the city of Ambala. The land in question is out of the abadi area and there is no evidence if it falls within the municipal limits. Even otherwise, the yardstick of compensation adopted for Patti Mehar cannot be applied in respect of the land in question. Learned counsel for the claimants has argued that market value means the value at which the seller is willing to sell the land and in the present case sellers have been selling the land at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard about 4 years earlier to the present acquisition. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on case Chet Ram Vashisht and others v. Union of India, 1991(1) Land Laws Reporter 41 wherein Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has taken the view that the expression market value means the value which a willing seller may expect from a willing purchaser in open market. In the present case, agricultural land had been sold about 2 years earlier to the present acquisition at the rate of about Rs. 10/- per square yard. However, four years earlier to the acquisition small plots had been sold at the rate of Rs. 80/- per square yard. Those small plots were naturally sold for raising houses on the sites abutting on the road. The State of Haryana has relied upon sale transaction of agricultural land measuring 2 acres at the rate of Rs. 24,000/- per acre. There are 3 instances of sale deeds relied upon by the claimants showing sale of small plots of 120 square yards to 200 square yards at the rate of Rs. 80/- per acre (Sq. yard ?). The market value of the land in question for small plots is accepted at Rs. 24,000/- per acre. There are 3 instances of sale deeds relied upon by the claimants showing sale of small plots of 120 square yards to 200 square yards at the rate of Rs. 80/- per acre (Sq. yard ?). The market value of the land in question for small plots is accepted at Rs. 80/- per square yard in the year 1984-85 and applying 1/3rd cut out on account of plots of meagre sizes the market value of the land in the year 1984-85 comes to Rs. 53/- and after giving benefit of Rs. 5/- per year as envisaged in decision in RFA 818 of 1986 titled Gulzari and others v. State of Haryana or after giving benefit of increase of 12% increase for 3 years as envisaged in case Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab and another, 1990(1) PLR 672, it comes to Rs. 72/- per square yard. The market value of the acquired land is, therefore, accepted at Rs. 70/- per square yard. In other words, as the land was acquired in acres, it is accepted at Rs. 3,38,800/- per acre. This issue is, therefore, decided with the finding that market value of the acquired land at the time of acquisition was Rs. 3,38,800/- per acre." 6. Issue No. 2 was also decided in favour of the land owners and under the relief clause, the Court awarded the benefits of Sections 23(1)(A), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, I have gone through the record of the case. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for a considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ambala, cannot be sustained and it requires modification. The parties have addressed their arguments on issues Nos. 1 and 2 only and shall confine my discussion on these issues. Mr. Sidhu, the learned counsel for the appellant further made some submission that his clients should be given the benefit on account of the severence of land but I do not find any issue framed by the trial Court in this regard. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit on account of any severence of land. 9. Even otherwise, I am of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit on account of any severence of land. 9. I had already stated above that the land was taken for the public purpose, namely, for construction of 66 K.V. Sub Station, Ambala City. It was funded partly by the Government and partly by the Haryana State Electricity Board. For our purposes, we have to see the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and this notification was issued on 6.12.1988. The land owners had claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 24,00,000/- per acre. The State has stated that the award of the Collector should be maintained. First of all, I would like to fix the price of the land and its potential value. There are 2 site plans on the record. One is prepared by the land owners and the other is prepared by the State of Haryana. So far as the factual position is concerned, there is not much dispute because both the site plans are relating to Akshajra. The acquired area fails in Khasra Nos. 3/1, 3/2, 4/1, 42, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13/12, 14, 15, 16/1 and 17. Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17 abuts on Patiala-Ambala City road. The rest of the Khasra numbers do not abut this road. At a distance of 2 killas beyond the pucca road and towards the southern side, the abadi of Patti starts. Even towards the northern side of the abadi and on both sides of the road, some residential houses have been constructed. Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17 are near to crossing which is formulated in front of the Khasra No. 78. One more pucca road falls in this chauraha and similarly, one pucca road falls from the southern side to the northern side. Thus, the value of Khasra No. 18 which adjoins Khasra No. 17 and Khasra No. 13/2 is more as compared to Khasra No. 16/1 and 17. It will not be wrong on my part if I say that Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17 can be used for residential purposes and commercial purposes. The rest of the area is purely agricultural. Thus, the value of Khasra No. 18 which adjoins Khasra No. 17 and Khasra No. 13/2 is more as compared to Khasra No. 16/1 and 17. It will not be wrong on my part if I say that Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17 can be used for residential purposes and commercial purposes. The rest of the area is purely agricultural. With the expansion of the population and with the development of the States, prices of some land are bound to rise and prices of some lands remain static because these lands do not develop even with the development of the State. I had stated above that the claimants were claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 24 lacs per acre. Whether they are entitled to it or not, is a point to be seen. Before I touch the oral evidence, let me first examine the documentary evidence which has been led by the parties. From the side of the land owners, the first transaction relied upon is Exhibit PW5/1. It pertains to the sale of a small area measuring 241 square yards. It was sold for a consideration of Rs. 22,240/-. It forms part of Khasra No. 18 of which I had already given the description. The sale deed is dated 6.4.1985. The transaction price of one yard comes to Rs. 125/-. This transaction, I cannot accept for several reasons. Firstly, it is a small piece of land. It appears that it was purchased for the purpose of commercial activity as Khasra No. 18 is near a chauraha. Moreover, these khasra numbers abut on the main road itself. The document which is relied upon is Exhibit PW7/A. This transaction is dated 14.12.1984. A small piece of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- @ Rs. 80/- per square yard approximately. This transaction too cannot become the basis for the reasons for which I have ignored transaction Exhibit PW5/1. The third document and the instance is Exhibit PW6/1 vide which land measuring 246 square yards was sold for a sum of Rs. 19,680/- on 6.4.1985 @ approximately Rs. 85/- or so. This transaction is again from Khasra No. 18. This document I am going to take notice of, for the reasons given by me above. Next comes the document mark "A1". This document is dated 2.11.1989 after the notification. Otherwise, this is not proved. 19,680/- on 6.4.1985 @ approximately Rs. 85/- or so. This transaction is again from Khasra No. 18. This document I am going to take notice of, for the reasons given by me above. Next comes the document mark "A1". This document is dated 2.11.1989 after the notification. Otherwise, this is not proved. Therefore, through this document, the land measuring 8 kanals forming part of Khasra No. 12 has to cover the present notification of 1988. Mark "A2" is the transaction again, which is dated 22.9.1989 after the notification. Similarly, there is document mark A dated 14.8.1991. Mark A5 is the document dated 14.8.1989. All these documents have to be ignored for the short reason that these transactions appear to be collusive in order to claim enhanced compensation. Moreover, these have not been proved according to law. Next comes document Exhibit A2. It is an agreement of sale dated 30.1.1988 vide which the land measuring 6 kanals was agreed to be sold for a sum of Rs. 4 lacs. This document cannot be relied upon by me. Firstly, it is not of a sale transaction. Secondly, it was executed on 19.1.1990. We do not know whether this document ever matured or not. Next comes the copy of the judgment Exhibit PW7/B. The judgment dated 24.11.1988 passed by the Honble High Court in RFA 818 of 1986 titled as Guljari v. State of Haryana vide which the High Court awarded compensation @ Rs. 50-52/- of the land which was acquired in the year 1981. This transaction is again not relevant for any purpose as the land was situated in village Dandora which was acquired for industrial purposes of Gurgaon. There is no similarity of the acquired land with that of the present acquired area. It is mentioned in the judgment itself that the acquired land of that notification was issued near the border of Delhi which has no nexus from any angle with the acquired area. Now, I am left to discuss the decision dated 26.11.1991 of the learned District Judge, Ambala, Exhibit PW/A vide which the compensation was awarded @ Rs. 100/- per square yard of the land which was acquired on 19.4.1983 within the land which falls in village Patti Mehar and the location of this land is on the southern side of the abadi chauraha. 100/- per square yard of the land which was acquired on 19.4.1983 within the land which falls in village Patti Mehar and the location of this land is on the southern side of the abadi chauraha. It was also mentioned here that Patti Mehar is at a very considerable distance from the acquired area. The purpose of acquisition of Patti Mehar was for the development and utilisation of Urban Estate, Ambala. This judgment of District Judge, Ambala, is again of no help to me in order to determine the market value of the land of Patti Mehar and especially of the acquired area. Lastly, I am left with the document Exhibit P5 which is judgment dated 18.5.1982 of the High Court passed in RFA 985 of 1981 Sardar Singh v. State of Haryana. Through this judgment, it was trying to be convinced that the High Court assessed the market value of the land @ Rs. 100/- per square yard and the land again falls in Patti Mehar which was situated within the municipal limits of Ambala City and the area was acquired for the purpose of construction of road and over bridge of the railway lines passing through the Ambala City line. This document again to me is of no use. Now, I will revert to the transaction which was being adjudicated and relied upon by the State of Haryana and that document is Exhibit R2, through which land measuring 2 acres was sold for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- on 16.1.1987 @ Rs. 24,000/- per acre. The document was presented for registration on 16.1.1987. The land falls within the revenue limits of Patti Acharjan. The acquired land also falls in this very Patti. So we can say that the transaction is of that very village. The sale deed is only one year and eleven months earlier to the notification. Now let us see what the potential value of the transaction Exhibit R2. It is at a distance of about 20 Killas from the acquired area towards west. It is purely agricultural land having no pucca road. Most of the acquired land is also agricultural in nature bearing Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17. Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17 could be used for residential, agricultural and commercial purposes and for activities like creation of industries. It is purely agricultural land having no pucca road. Most of the acquired land is also agricultural in nature bearing Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17. Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17 could be used for residential, agricultural and commercial purposes and for activities like creation of industries. This Court can even take a judicial notice that with the ever growing tendency of the market value of the lands with the passage of time, the market value of the land covered by the transaction Exhibit R2 can be said to be Rs. 30,000/- per acre. This transaction Exhibit R2 has only one potential i.e. agriculture. It is at a distance from the main road as well as from the abadi of Patti Acharjan. In these circumstances, I am inclined to give the benefit 3 times of the acquired area. Khasra No. 16/1 and 17 stand on better footing because these are touching the pucca road leading from Patiala to Ambala. Therefore, I assess the market value of Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17 at Rs. 1 lac per acre while I assess the market value of Khasra Nos. 3/1, 3/2, 4/1, 4/2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13/2, 14 and 15 at Rs. 90,000/- per acre. I am not in a position to subscribe to the view of the learned District Judge, Ambala, when he awarded a sum of Rs. 3,38,800/- per acre. He has merely relied upon transaction of Patti Mehar which has no similarity with the potential value of the acquired land in village Patti Acharjan from any angle or vision. We are not aware of the location of the land situated in Patti Mehar itself. It has been widely spread but small transactions forming part of Khasra No. 18 cannot be made the basis for assessing the market value of the acquired area, when convincing instance of sale of Patti is made available to us. The transaction Exhibit R2 has been reflected in blue colour. In Exhibit R1, the acquired land has been reflected in green colour and abadi of the village has been reflected in yellow colour. Now I discuss the oral evidence of the land owners for our purposes. We are concerned with the statements of PW4 Davinder Singh and that of PW7 Balwant Singh. Davinder Singh is a draftsman who has proved the site plan marked "X". Now I discuss the oral evidence of the land owners for our purposes. We are concerned with the statements of PW4 Davinder Singh and that of PW7 Balwant Singh. Davinder Singh is a draftsman who has proved the site plan marked "X". This witness has admitted that the acquired land is an agricultural land. He further stated that even now this land is situated around the acquired land and is being used for agricultural purposes. In the acquired land, somebody has raised boundary wall. He has further admitted that portion of only 2 acres is touching the road. PW7 Balwant Singh admits that the land in question is situated at Patti Acharjan and that the land which is acquired by the land owners in Patti Acharjan is at a far away distance from the acquired area. Further, it has been admitted that Exhibit PW7/B i.e. the Court judgment pertains to Pattil Mehar. 10. Before I part with this judgment, I also discuss the point as to whether the land owners are entitled to any benefit on account of the severence of land. They are not entitled to it. Firstly, there is no issue in this regard framed by the trial Court. Secondly, it is not proved in what manner, the land owners are affected. On the contrary the learned State counsel has submitted that the path has already been provided by the Government and the Board in order to have the excess of the remaining agricultural land of the land owners and the remaining area has not been affected at all in the produce or otherwise. Hence, I am not inclined to give any benefit to the land owners on account of the severence of land. 11. I modify the findings of the trial Court on issues Nos. 1 and 2 and hold the market value of the land measuring Khasra Nos. 16/1 and 17 at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per acre while the market value of the other acquired land would be at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre. These issues are decided accordingly. As regards Issue No. 3 the appeals of the State are hereby partly allowed. Compensation awarded by the District Judge, stands reduced to one which I had assessed under issues Nos. 1 and 2. 90,000/- per acre. These issues are decided accordingly. As regards Issue No. 3 the appeals of the State are hereby partly allowed. Compensation awarded by the District Judge, stands reduced to one which I had assessed under issues Nos. 1 and 2. The appeals filed by the land owners are hereby dismissed as I have allowed the appeals partly of the State. Of course, the land owners shall be entitled to the benefits of Sections 23(1)(A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. They shall also be entitled to the benefit of solatium on the amount assessed by the Court in the manner indicated above. 12. The net result is that all the 11 appeals of the land owners are dismissed and 11 appeals of the State are partly allowed as indicated above., No order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.