JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is arising out of the judgment dated 7-10-1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sri Ganganagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 26/1984 by which the reference application was accepted by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sri Ganganagar and the cost of the land which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per bigha was increased to Rs. 36,500/- per bigha and the learned Court below awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and interest, against which Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Ganganagar preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as applicable in Rajasthan at that time, was issued for acquisition of land of Ratna Ram, predecessor of the respondents. This Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 17-8-1978 which was published in the Gazette on 28-9- 1978. A Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 13-5-1980 and was published in the Gazette on 5-6-1980. The possession of 21 bighas of land, out of 25 bighas of land, was taken by the appellant on 13-5-1993 whereas rest of the four bighavas taken over by the appellant in the month of March, 1984. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 6-5-1982 and before taking possession, Rs. 49500/- were deposited by the appellant with the Land Acquisition Officer on 19-12-1982. 3. According to the claimants, the amount determined by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- was too low and 10% solatium awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was not in accordance with law. The claimants also claimed interest. The reference application was registered before the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sri Ganganagar as Civil Misc. Case No. 26/84. The claimants produced two witnesses, namely, AW 1 Ratna Ram and AW 2 Moti Ram and produced documents which were shown to be exhibited as Ex. 1 to Ex. 7. The appellant did not produced any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of the respondents. The Court below since passed the award enhancing the compensation, solatium and also awarded interested, therefore, the present appeal by the appellant. 4. 1 to Ex. 7. The appellant did not produced any evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of the respondents. The Court below since passed the award enhancing the compensation, solatium and also awarded interested, therefore, the present appeal by the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant vemently submitted that the reference Court committed serious illegality in raising the compensation for the land in dispute and the compensation determined by the reference Court, on the fact of it, is illegal as the determination was made on the basis of the sale transaction which took place two years after the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The date of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was 17-8- 1978 on which date the market value was required to be shown by the claimants before the Court of reference but they produced the sale deed which, admittedly, was executed in the year 1980. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the reasoning given by the Court below for enhancing of the cost of the land deserves to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the alleged agreement to sell relied upon by the claimants for sale of the land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per bigha is absolutely irrelevant document and cannot be considered. The learned counsel further submitted that the claimants failed to prove the market rate of Rs. 36,500/- per bigha as on the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the solatium awarded is contrary to the law because of the fact that the award was passed on 6-5-1982 and the amount was deposited by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer on 19-11-1982. According to the learned counsel for the appellant the solatium of 30% can be awarded in cases where the proceeding was pending. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Central Land Acquisition Act was made applicable in the State of Rajasthan only in the year 1987, therefore, the solatium could have been granted only in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of award. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that while awarding interest, the land which was deposited by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer, was not given credit. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that while awarding interest, the land which was deposited by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer, was not given credit. 6. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor v. Smt. L. Kamalamma (dead) by LRs AIR 1998 SC 781 and submitted that the market price even in sale transaction was not accepted by the Apex Court and was reduced by 40% taking into consideration that in case land is developed by claimant he will have to leave not only the space that was required for formation of roads or other amenities but also the time will be required for formation of lay out, the period for which the money would be locked up in the investment and the waiting period as also for the reduced price for land when lump sum payment is made. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further, relying upon the above judgment, submitted that the land is situated in the interior side and, therefore, compensation should be at a lower rate. 8. I have considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and found that the above authority does not help the appellant. In this very judgment, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that the price fixed by relying on sale transaction can be reduced by 40% but that was in the given circumstances. But here in this case, these facts are different due to the reason that land adjoining to the land sought to be acquired, the appellant itself has acquired the land in 1974 and that too measuring 100 bighas about four years before the present acquisition. Therefore, looking to the important event of acquisition of land by appellant for establishing Mandi near the disputed land itself was sufficient ground for increase of prices of nearby land. 9. Therefore, looking to the important event of acquisition of land by appellant for establishing Mandi near the disputed land itself was sufficient ground for increase of prices of nearby land. 9. In this very judgment, the Apex Court even observed : "Many a discerning customer may prefer to stay in the interior and far away from the main road and may be willing to pay reasonably higher price for that site." The Apex Court also observed : "When no sales of comparable land was available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a lay out, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed. 10. Over all effect of the judgment of the Apex Court shows that the price of the land depends upon the facts of each case. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant further, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in G. Narayan Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1996 SC 3469 , submitted that when neither the vendor nor the vendee of the sale deeds examined, such sale deed cannot be relied on while determining the compensation. While advancing argument, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case also, the sale deeds were not proved and, therefore, the award is illegal and contrary to the facts. Suffice it to say that the Land Acquisition Officer has not determined the compensation amount solely on the basis of the sale deeds which were produced by the claimants which shows that the land price was at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has also no application to the facts of the present case. 12. 60,000/- or Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has also no application to the facts of the present case. 12. While citing another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Border Security Force v. Land Acquisition Officer (1997) 1 WLC (Raj) 518, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the authentic method of determining just compensation is transaction of sale in respect of very land acquired or genuine or bona fide previous sale of neighbouring land. In the present case, it is relevant to mention that the claimants tried to place on record some evidence, oral as well as documentary, but none of the party including the appellant could produce any proof of the sale transaction on the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Not only this, none of the party could produce any documentary evidence showing the sale transaction in the year 1978, the year of notification. When none of the party was in a position to produce documentary evidence of the sale on the relevant date, then naturally, while determining the cost of the land, the Court will have to look into the various circumstances including that sale transaction immediately before or immediately after the date of Notification and when this evidence is also not available, the time factor can be extended for further period with opportunities to the parties to show that whether the land price has been affected by any reason by steep rise or fall in downward trend. 13. Here in this case, the reasoning given by the learned Civil Judge (SD) clearly shows that the learned Civil Judge tried his best to arrive at a conclusion for determination of the cost of the, land and he took into account varius factors. The Court below even prepared a map in the judgment itself to show the exact location of the land sought to be acquired and the land which is already in possession of the appellant which was acquired by the appellant itself in the year 1974. The map also shows the distance from the main road of the land sought to be acquired. The land acquired by the appellant is for establishing ai 'mandi' and the 'mandi' is the main center of, trade. The map also shows the distance from the main road of the land sought to be acquired. The land acquired by the appellant is for establishing ai 'mandi' and the 'mandi' is the main center of, trade. The land sought to be acquired is just adjoining to the land of the 'mandi' of the appellant, therefore, it can be presumed that the cost of the land must have been increased after the acquisition of the land by the appellant in the year 1974. It is also observed by the Court below that on 31-5-1974 compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 12650/- per bigha and in case the natural rise in the price of the land is taken then also the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low. The Court below further took note of the fact that the land in dispute is only 265 yards away from the main Sri Ganganagar-Suratgarh road and there is a coldstorage near the land in dispute. It was also observed that even if the land in dispute is agricultural land, the possibility cannot be ignored that the same may be used for commercial purposes in future. It was also observed that in nearby areas, there are industrial units. It was also found by the Court below/that even in the file of the Land Acquisition Officer at page 165, the schedule of sale transaction shows that the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 29,500/- per bigha on 19- 1-1980 which was for four bighas of land. Five bighas of land was sold on 18-1-1980 at the rate of Rs. 23,800/- per bigha and the average of above comes to Rs. 26650/- per bigha. The above land was three Murabbas away from the main road whereas the present land of the claimant is away only 265 yards from the main road. 14. The Court below further relied upon the evidence of witness Moti Ram who sold his 7'/4th bighas in consideration of Rs. 3,65,000/- though this sale is of 1982. The witness Moti Ram stated that the land cost was at the rate of Rupees 50,000/- but the Court below has not awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. The Court below further relied upon the evidence of witness Moti Ram who sold his 7'/4th bighas in consideration of Rs. 3,65,000/- though this sale is of 1982. The witness Moti Ram stated that the land cost was at the rate of Rupees 50,000/- but the Court below has not awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per bigha. Other evidence was also considered and the claimant respondents submitted an agreement to sell executed in April, 1981 to show that he himself entered into an agreement to sell of the land at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per bigha and the suit was also filed by the purchaser against the claimants. The claimants further submitted that the claimants purchased half of the Murabba No. 49 on 1-6-1974 at the rate of Rs. 67,000/- per bigha. 15. The over all effect of the above evidence shows that there is a vast variation of the price ranging from Rs. 23,800/- per bigha to Rs. 60,000/- per bigha but the Court below, after considering the above evidence, neither awarded the price at the rate of Rs. 67,000/- per bigha nor awarded the lower side compensation at the rate of Rs. 23,800/- per bigha. In view of the above facts and the available evidence on record, in my opinion, the Court below has not committed any illegality in arriving at the conclusion that the land cost determined by the Land Acquisition Officer is too low and the market rate can be held to be Rs. 36,500/- per bigha at the time of issuance of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The other judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in K. Posayya v. Special Tahsildar, AIR 1995 SC 1641 , Koyappathodi M. Ayisha Umma v. State of Kerala, AIR 1991 SC 2027 , State of J. & K. v. Mohammad Mateen Wani (1999) 1 Raj LW 44 (SC) , also of no help to the appellant because these all judgments show that determination of the market value of the land is to be done according to the facts of each case and, in my opinion, no straight-jacket formula can be there for determination of the market value of the land. 16. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the sale transactions shown by the respondents are not bona fide transactions but in view of the fact that the sale transactions were not accepted as it is by the Court below but all other facts were also considered. The judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of U.P. v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1564 also does not help the appellant. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently supported the reasoning given by the Land Acquisition Officers and submitted that in fact the learned Court has committed grave error of fact in not awarding the higher compensation as the cost of the land, for which, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the market value of the land which abuts on the National highway would fetch much more price and it is clear from the location shown by the Court below in the judgment itself which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and, therefore, the market value of the land in dispute is required to be enhanced. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Union of India v. Mangat (dead) by LRs., (2000) 10 SCC 609 , Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao (1997) 6 SCC 41 , Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi v. A. Ajit Singh, (1997) 6 SCC 50 and Meharaban v. State of U.P. (1997) 6 SCC 54 , submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court while determining the market value of the land, the location of the land, situation, its potentiality etc. should also be looked into but the Court below, even when there is evidence of agreement of sale of Rs. 67,000/- per bigha which is available on record, failed in refusing better claim of the claimants and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the compensation is required to be raised. 19. should also be looked into but the Court below, even when there is evidence of agreement of sale of Rs. 67,000/- per bigha which is available on record, failed in refusing better claim of the claimants and, therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the compensation is required to be raised. 19. As discussed above, when I found that the reasoning given by the Court below, while determining the cost of the land, is just and the learned Court below has rightly not accepted the price shown by the claimants of the higher side as price shown in the sale deed was required to be reduced looking to the facts of this case and the Court below rightly reduced it, there is no reason for enhancement of the compensation amount. 20. Therefore, the appeal so far as it relates to the challenge to the finding of the cost of the land of the appellant is concerned, there is no force in the same. 21. As far as challenge of award of solatium at the rate of 30% is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. Smt. Sulochana Devi (2000) 1 WLC (Raj) 51 5 and submitted that in view of the decision of this Court, the award of solatium at the rate of 30% in the matters decided by the Land Acquisition Officer even prior to 30-4-1982 and the reference arising out of the award pending even in the year 1991, this Court held that the solatium is required to be paid in 'accordance with the provisions of section 23(2) at the rate of 30% on the market value and section 28 provides for award of interest at the rate of 15%. 22. In view of the above judgment, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the solatium awarded by the Court below is in accordance with law. The interest is also awarded by the Court below in accordance with law and there is no illegality in the award of interest by the Court below. 23. Therefore, appeal of the appellant has no force and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal dismissed. *******