JudgmentJudgment R. L. Anand, J. 1. By this judgment I dispose of as many as 14 appeals i. e. R. F. A. No.1848 of 1994. Kashmiri Lal. etc. V/s. State of Haryana and another, R. F. A. No.1849 of 1994 gian Chand and others V/s. Haryana state and another, RFA No.1850 of 1994 Sri. Ram and others V/s. Haryana state and another, RFA No.1851 of 1994 Wary am Singh V/s. Haryana State and another, RFA No.1852 of 1994 gurdip Singh and another V/s. Haryana state and another, RFA No.1853 of 1994 Krishan Lal Bali V/s. Haryana State and another, RFA No.1854 of 1994 mrs. Swaran Bali and others V/s. Haryana State and another, RFA No.1855 of 1994 Shri Ram Gopal and others V/s. Haryana State and another, rfa No.1856 of 1994 Harnam Singh v. Haryana State and another, RFA No.1891 of 1994 Dharam Pal Gupta and others V/s. State of Haryana and another, rfa No.2021 of 1994. Davinder Singh bali V/s. The State of Haryana and another, RFA No.2022 of 1994 surinder Kumar Bali V/s. State of haryana and another, RFA No.2023 of 1994 Aruna V/s. State of Haryana and another and R. F. A. No.2390 of 1994 shri Hukam Chand Gupta etc. V/s. Haryana State and another, which have arisen from the judgment dated 3/5/1994 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Karnal who awarded compensation to the land owners of the acquired area at the rate of Rs.43.87 per square yard. He further held that landowners shall be entitled to compensation in the shape pf damages under Sec.48 of the land Acquisition Act, at the rate of 6% on the market value of the acquired land for the period 2/5/1973 to 20/4/1982. The petitioners were also held entitled to the additional amount at the rate of 12% on the market value of the land, under section 23 (1-A) of the Act from the date of publication of the notification under Sec.4 of the Act upto the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier. The land owners were further made entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value under section 23 (1-A) (2) of the Act besides interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced amount from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into Court for one year and, thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of the payment. 2. The brief facts of the case are that land measuring 82.88 acres in village Karnal Had Bast No.1, Tehsil and District, Karnal was acquired by the Haryana Government as per its notification No. LAC (F)-85/ntla/502, dated February 10, 1983 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.1894 (hereinafter referred to as the act) for public purposes namely for the development and utilisation of land as institutional and commercial area to be set up in sector 12 at Urban Estate, karnal under the Haryana Urban development Authority. Notification under section 6 of the Act was published in Haryana Government gazette dated October 8, 1985. The land Acquisition Collector rendered the award in respect of the land measuring 82.41 acres after actual measurement. He assessed the market value of the acquired land at the following rates:- (i) Chahi Land @ Rs.92.000/- per acre, (ii) Nehri Land @ Rs.92.000/- per acre, (iii) Gair Mumkin @ Rs.40.250/- per acre. In addition, he awarded solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the acquired land and additional amount of 12% under Sec.23 (1-A) of the Act. 3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of the Land acquisition. Collector, the land-owner filed reference under Sec.18 of the land Acquisition Act and they claimed the market value cf the acquired land at the rate of Rs.5.000/- per square yard on the basis of instances enumerated in para No.8 of the petition. They also pleaded that though the acquired land was being used for agricultural purposes, yet it had immense potentiality for institutional and commercial purposes. The acquired land was situated near the huda colony, By-pass and Model town. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, was very low. The land in question was situated within the municipal limits of karnal and. the general Bus Stand of the city was hardly at a distance of two furlongs from the acquired land. The acquired land was situated near the huda colony, By-pass and Model town. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, was very low. The land in question was situated within the municipal limits of karnal and. the general Bus Stand of the city was hardly at a distance of two furlongs from the acquired land. The petitioners/appellants have also pleaded that initially the land in dispute was acquired by the Haryana government in November, 1973 but the award was not announced by the land Acquisition Collector and thereafter the acquisition was quashed by the Honble High Court in the year 1982. They have claimed compensation in that respect. The petitioners-appellants have also claimed compensation in respect of tubewell building, superstructures and trees etc. 4. Notice of the claim petitions was given to the respondents and they filed the written statement and denied the averments of the petitioners-appellants and justified the award rendered by the Land Acquisition Collector. 5. The following issues were framed by the Reference Court for the disposal of the various land references:- 1. What was the market value of the present acquired property at the time of publication of Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act OPP.2. What was the area of the acquired land in the present cases OPP 2-A. Whether the acquired land of the petitioners was earlier notified for acquisition in may, 1973 and was denotified in April, 1982, if so, whether the petitioners are entitled to any damages on that account OPP 3. Relief. In support of their case the land owners produced documentary as well as oral evidence. Similarly, respondents produced evidence in rebuttal. 6 The learned trial Court disposed of the issues No.1 and 2 together and for the reasons given in paras Nos.7 to 15 of the award, compensation at the rate of Rs 43.87 per square yard was awarded. Under issue No.2-A. the reference Court awarded damages under Sec.48 of the Act at the rate of 6% per annum on the market value of the acquired land for the period from 2.5.1973 to 20.4.1982. Finally, the references were disposed of as I have stated above in the earlier portion of the judgment. 7. Not satisfied with the judgment of the reference Court, the present appeals have been filed, which i am disposing of with the assistance of S/shri. R. S. Mittal. Sr. Advocate, d. S. Bali. Finally, the references were disposed of as I have stated above in the earlier portion of the judgment. 7. Not satisfied with the judgment of the reference Court, the present appeals have been filed, which i am disposing of with the assistance of S/shri. R. S. Mittal. Sr. Advocate, d. S. Bali. Sr. Advocate, and Puneet bali, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Shri Surya Kant, advocate General, Haryana assisted by shri Ranjit Saini. appearing on behalf of the respondents and with their assistance, have gone through the record of the case. 8. Before I deal with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it will be approximately for me to reproduce paras No.7 to 15 of the award of the reference Court, which are read as under:- "7. Both these issues are interconnected and as such the same are being taken up together for discussion.8. It is necessary to find out the potential value of the acquired land on the date of notification under Sec.4 of the Act as it would help to assess the market value of the acquired land. For that purpose, it is to be seen whether the acquired land had residential, commercial and industrial potentiality as claimed by the petitioners or else it had agricultural potentiality only as maintained by the respondents. The potentiality of a particular place of land depends upon several factors, such as, its condition, situation, the user to which it is capable of being put, its suitability for building purpose, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial area. Existing amenities like water, electricity, drainage and the possibility of their future extension and as to whether the nearby town is developed or a prospering town with prospects of development schemes are other factors which are to be kept in mind.9. In order to prove their claim, the petitioner examined PW1 arjun Singh, Assistant Estate officer, HUDA, who gave details of plots and shop-cum- flats etc. auctioned by HUDA. On 23.2.1981 shop-cum-flat No.21 in Sector 13 measuring 5.5. x 22 metres was auctioned for rs.3,67.000/- and shop-cum-flats of the same area, were auctioned on the same day for rs.3,63,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-and Rs.1,47,000/-. A plot meant for Cinema in Sector-13 measuring 40 metres x 64 metres was auctioned on 25,1.1984 for Rs.20,06,000/-. auctioned by HUDA. On 23.2.1981 shop-cum-flat No.21 in Sector 13 measuring 5.5. x 22 metres was auctioned for rs.3,67.000/- and shop-cum-flats of the same area, were auctioned on the same day for rs.3,63,000/-, Rs.1,50,000/-and Rs.1,47,000/-. A plot meant for Cinema in Sector-13 measuring 40 metres x 64 metres was auctioned on 25,1.1984 for Rs.20,06,000/-. As per his statement, the price per metre was charged ranging between approximately Rs.1,200/- per square metre to Rs.3,000/- per square metre. He also stated that Sectors 12 and 13 Karnal are situated opposite to each other. PW4 manohar Lal, draftsman, proved on record site plan Ex. PW4/a prepared by him. PW5 Jain bhagwan, Registration Clerk of the Office of Sub Registrar, karnal, stated that the Collector karnal fixed rate for Sector 13 and 13 Extension and 14 at rs.1,000/- per square yard and rs.450/- per square yard for commercial plot and residential plots respectively in June, 1988. In the year 1990, the same were revised, to Rs.10,000/- per square yard and Rs.1,400/- per square yard respectively.10. Shri D. S. Bali, one of the petitioners appeared in the witness box as PW6 and stated that the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs.1,000/- per square yard. Primarily the land in question was agricultural land but it has got the building potentiality for commercial and residential purposes. All facilities such as water, sewerage connection, electricity, telephone have been provided in Sector 13 and 13 extension, Sectors.7, 8 and 9 are just opposite to Sector-12 Part I and the same are divided by one metalled road which was known as G. T. Road Bye-pass. PW8 darshan Kumar, Clerk, Municipal committee, Karnal, testified that sector 12 Part I, Urban Estate karnal, came in the Municipal limit in 1975. PW9 Yashpal. Assistant HUDA, Estate Officer produced on record photostat copy of the transaction containing particulars of plots auctioned by huda (EX. PW9/a ). He brought its original in the Court.11. Ld. counsel for the petitioners argued that the acquired land of the petitioners had residential, commercial and industrial potentiality at the time when notification u/s 4 of the Act was issued. It is evident from the above referred statement of PW that the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs.1,000/- per square yard on the date of its acquisition. It is evident from the above referred statement of PW that the market value of the acquired land was more than Rs.1,000/- per square yard on the date of its acquisition. He urged that the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per square yard for their acquired land. He further contended that there is nothing cogent on record produced by the respondents to rebut the evidence of the petitioners in respect of the market value , of the land in question.12. On the other hand, Ld. Govt. Pleader invited my attention towards copy of judgment dated 18.8.1989 (Ex. R1) entitled Sat Pal chopra etc. V/s. Hanyana State etc. passed by Shri R. C. Kathuria, the then Ld. additional District judge, Karnal. It is clear from the bare perusal of the copy of judgment Ex. R. l and copy of impugned award that the lands of s. P. Chopra etc. and that of the petitioners in the present cases was acquired vide notification under Sec.4 of the Act dated 10.2.1983 and the total land so acquired was 82.41 acres which included the land of the present petitioners as well as S. P. Chopra etc. The Land Acquisition Collector gave the same award in respect of the above said land 82.41 acres. Thus, his judgment Ex. R.1 is relevant for the purpose of the present cases also. In this respect, reliance can be placed upon authority State of Orissa V/s. Sukri Mirdha, AIR 1984 Orissa 83, in which in para No.11 of the judgment at page 86, it has been observed that.-"the lands being comparable, the situation also being the same and all the lands having been acquired under the self same notification for the same public purpose it seems to us proper that the same rate of compensation should be awarded to the claimants herein as was awarded in the judgments Exs.1 and 2".13. The controversy in the present case is squarely covered with the ratio of the above referred authority in Sukri Mirdhas case. The land in question was also acquired under the self-same notification for the same public purpose and the same award No.6 was given in respect of the total land including the lands of the petitioners and S. P. Chopra etc. Thus, in view of the authority in sukri Mirdhas case (supra), the contention of Ld. The land in question was also acquired under the self-same notification for the same public purpose and the same award No.6 was given in respect of the total land including the lands of the petitioners and S. P. Chopra etc. Thus, in view of the authority in sukri Mirdhas case (supra), the contention of Ld. counsel for the petitioners, that the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per square yard, does not inspire confidence and the petitioners are entitled to compensation at the same rate as awarded in S. P. Chopra etc. , case (Ex. R.1 ).14. The contention of Ld. Govt. Pleader on behalf of the respondents is that the acquired land had agricultural potentiality. The land Acquisition Collector has correctly rendered the award and the petitioners are not entitled to any enhancement of compensation.15. All such contentions have already been dealt with by Shri R. C. Kathuria, the then Ld. Additional District Judge, Karnal, while deciding S. P. Chopras etc. case vide copy of judgment Ex. R. I, in which land covered under the impugned award was involved. The present references are also arising out of the same award. Vide judgment Ex. R. I, it was held that the acquired land had residential and commercial potentiality and the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs.43.87 per square yard on the date of its acquisition. Ld. counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners are entitled to compensation of their acquired land at the same rate without any categorisation. In this respect, they referred rulings of our honble High Court in case joginder Singh V/s. State of haryana, 1987 All India Land acquisition and Compensation cases 1 and State of Punjab V/s. Samadh Ram and others, 1987 l. A. C. C.9. Thus, considering both these authorities and copy of judgment Ex. R. I, I assess the market value of the acquired land of the petitioners at the time of its acquisition at the rate of Rs.43.87 paise per square yard. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel the parties did not dispute about the area of the acquired land mentioned in the petitions. In view of these circumstances, both these issues are decided accordingly". I may also mention here that before me the parties addressed arguments only on Issue No, and 1 shall confine my discussion on this issue. During the course of arguments, ld. counsel the parties did not dispute about the area of the acquired land mentioned in the petitions. In view of these circumstances, both these issues are decided accordingly". I may also mention here that before me the parties addressed arguments only on Issue No, and 1 shall confine my discussion on this issue. 9 Here I also consider my duty that the land of Shri S. P. Chopra and others was acquired by the Government under this very notification. The award of the Land Acquisition Collector was challenged before Reference court (Court of Shri R. C. Kathuria, additional District Judge, Karnal)which disposed of the reference vide a judgment dated 18.9.1989 and through this award the reference Court awarded compensation of the acquired land at the rate of Rs 43.87. 10. While disposing of the references, reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Shri Kathuria dated 18.9.1989 and keeping in view of the parity of all the references, the court of Shri P. C. Goyal, Additional district Judge, Karnal through the impugned award also awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.43.87. 11. Shri S. P. Chopra and other land owners were not satisfied with the award dated 18.9.1989 passed by Shri r. C. Kathuria and they filed RFA No.3018 of 1989. Since that was a single appeal, it has been disposed of vide judgment dated 18.5.2001 vide which the High Court had awarded the compensation at the rate of rs.46/- per square yard besides other benefits under the Act. 12. Though the task of this court is quite easy in view of the pronouncement of the judgment dated 18.5.2001 passed in RFA No.3018 of 1989, still I would like to discuss the evidence of this file in the light of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties in order to find out whether there is any further scope of enhancement of compensation than the one which had already been awarded while disposing of RFA No.3018 of 1989. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no scope of enhancement. The present appellants should also get compensation at the rate of Rs 46/- per square yard besides other benefits regarding which i have already made a mention in the earlier portion of this judgment. 14. 13. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no scope of enhancement. The present appellants should also get compensation at the rate of Rs 46/- per square yard besides other benefits regarding which i have already made a mention in the earlier portion of this judgment. 14. The joint submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the situation of the present land is better than the land of Shri S. P. Chopra, which was at a distance of about half furlong only. The counsel submitted that this land was sold by different auction/sales by carving out the plots, at a very higher price and those instances of sale, which were missing in the earlier appeal are very much available on the record of this case and those instances should be made the basis to work out the compensation. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that earlier this land was acquired by the Government in the year 1973. It was de-notified on account of the quashment of the notification by the High Court. Thereafter, again the acquisition took place on the month of February 1983. There was no sale transaction between 1973 to 1983 on account of the pending litigation before the High court, and in these circumstances, the instances subsequent to 1983 should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the instances of sale with respect to small area should be taken into consideration in order to determine the compensation. At the most, the High court can impose a reasonable cut upon the consideration of sales of these small plots and by doing so the market price of the land in question can be well adjudicated. It was vehemently pleaded by the counsel for the appellants that this land was developed for commercial and institutional buildings. It is the prime land situated within the Municipal limits and, therefore, the transactions which have been relied upon by the Court of Shri r. C. Kathuria and which has been followed by the lower Court should not be taken into consideration. At the most the decision of the Court of shri R. C. Kathuria. is a judgment in personam. It is the prime land situated within the Municipal limits and, therefore, the transactions which have been relied upon by the Court of Shri r. C. Kathuria and which has been followed by the lower Court should not be taken into consideration. At the most the decision of the Court of shri R. C. Kathuria. is a judgment in personam. The reliance placed by Shri kathuria is upon the notification and award of the land which is situated outside the municipal limits though opposite to this land but the location of the present land is much better than the land which was acquired in the year 1982 in order to carve out Sectors 6, 7, 8 in Karnal, It was also argued on behalf of the appellants that after this notification the land for Sector 16 was acquired and that land was a low lying area and still a higher compensation was awarded by the Court. The land in question has a better potential value and in these circumstances, the decision of the reference Court requires interference. 15. Some case law was also cited on behalf of the appellants in support of their contention, which I will deal with in the subseauent portion of the judgment. 16. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the instances relied upon by the learned reference Court are very apt to determine the market value of the land. The appellants have also taken the benefit of the de-notification from 1973 to 1982. These appeals do not have any merit and deserve to be dismissed and there is no scope for enhancement. It was also argued by shri Surya Kant, learned A. G. that the decision of this High Court in RFA No.3018 of 1989 has not attained the finality and it is always possible that the State may file an appeal against that judgment. 17. After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the appellants are entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs.46/-per square yard, which rate 1 have granted to the other land owners whose land had been acquired through this very notification dated 10.2.1983 and it is not possible on my part to hold that the appellants are entitled to higher owners in R. F. A. No.3018 of 1989. 18. 18. Honble Supreme Court in-Special Deputy Collector and another etc. V/s. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others, held as under:- "what is the fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depending on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arms length with throw away price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The judge should sit in the arm chair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the Court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available market conditions. " 19. It is the common case of the parties that a huge chunk of land measuring 82.88 acres was acquired vide notification dated 10.2.1983 in order to carve out Sector 12, which could be utilised for the purpose of installing institutions and for commercial area. It is also not disputed at the bar that at the time of the acquisition whether in 1973 or in the year 1982, this land was being utilised for agricultural purposes. 20. Sectors 7, 8 and 9 are the sectors which are opposite to Sector 12. The land for the development of these sectors was acquired by the state Government on 5.7.1983. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and they filed reference under section 18 of the Act before the reference Court which awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.41/-per square yard. The land for the development of these sectors was acquired by the state Government on 5.7.1983. The land owners were not satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector and they filed reference under section 18 of the Act before the reference Court which awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.41/-per square yard. As the land located in Sector 12 is opposite to Sector 8 and is intervened by a road only and further adjacent to sectors 7 and 9 from both the corners of Sector 12 and thus is comparable to the acquired land, I have already stated that, notification in respect of Sectors 7 and 8 was issued on 5.7.1982 whereas the present notification is dated 10.2.1983. The total time elapsed between the two notifications is only 7 months and 5 days. If an increase is given at the rate of 12% per annum it times to Rs.43.87 which has been awarded by the trial Court. No two lands can be similar. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the present land is slightly better than the land of Sectors 7, 8 and 9 there is some scope of enhancement. 21. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to award the compensation at the rate of Rs.46/- per square yard to the present land owners/ appellants also. Thus, the finding of the trial Court on issue No.1 is hereby modified to that extent. 22. Now, let us examine the evidence of this file in the light of the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. As I stated above that much thrust was laid down by the learned counsel for the appellants upon the statement of AW 1 and shri Arjun Singh who deposed that area measuring 5.5. X 22 metres was auctioned for a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- for shop-cum-flats. He also gave the sale consideration for the other plots which were earmarked for shop-cum-flats. This sale consideration or instance relied upon by the counsel for the appellants cannot be made the basis. Fully developed plots cannot be equated with a huge chunk of agricultural land. We all know that after the acquisition of the land, roads are carved out, belts are made and operational charges are taken into account and thereafter the plots are put to auction. Fully developed plots cannot be equated with a huge chunk of agricultural land. We all know that after the acquisition of the land, roads are carved out, belts are made and operational charges are taken into account and thereafter the plots are put to auction. A small piece of land always has a huge attraction as compared to a big chunk of land running into acres. The counsel fof the appellants then referred to an award ex. PW9/b dated 6.5.1993 and submitted that the land subject matter of this award was acquired on 22.2.1984 yet this instance can be made basis for the purpose of awarding compensation of the present land. According to this award dated 6.5.1993, the reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.76/-per square yard i. e. Rs.3,67,840/- per acre. Out of that land Sector 16 in karnal was carved out. The counsel wanted to say that as per Collector even who classified the land, the land measuring 25.16 acres was low lying up to the depth of 2 to 5 feet. The present notification is dated 10.2.1983. There is a difference of only one year. Since the location of Section 16 is inferior to the location of Sector 12, therefore, if all the allowance is given to the State still as per the force of this record the compensation should not be less than Rs- 76/- per square yard. 23. I am not in a position to subscribe to the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants. Sector-16 location, in my opinion, is better than Sector 12. It is the heart of Karnal city near old town itself as per site plan which has been shown to me during the course of submissions. The present notification is of 1983. One year has elapsed. Since a large chunk of land was acquired in Karnal by the authorities for the purpose of development, the public was well aware that the land subject matter of the award dated 6.5.1993 would fetch higher value. When a reliable transaction is available to us and very close to the relevant date, why it should not be followed. There is a different of only 7 months and 5 days of the present notification and the notification dated 5.7.1982. issued for the acquisition of the land out of which Sectors 7, 8 and 9 were carved out. When a reliable transaction is available to us and very close to the relevant date, why it should not be followed. There is a different of only 7 months and 5 days of the present notification and the notification dated 5.7.1982. issued for the acquisition of the land out of which Sectors 7, 8 and 9 were carved out. Admittedly, Sector 8 is opposite to this Sector. Only the road passes intervene. Even if some concession is given to the land owners of the present case that their land is within the municipal limits, still it cannot fetch the desired price. Rather in my opinion the potential value of the land of sectors 7,8 and 9 is the same as that of Sector 12. 24. Thus, I repel the submission of the counsel for the appellants when they submitted that their land should be assessed on the basis of the instances of small transaction or that their land should be assessed on the basis of the award subject matter of sector 16. 25. Counsel for the appellants relied upon L. Y. Lagoo V/s. The Special land Acquisition Officer, Pane and another and it was submitted that though the large area of the land has been acquired in the heart of the city having potentiality for both commercial as well as residential purposes yet the market value of the land may be determined on the basis of bona fide sale transactions notwithstanding that transactions relate to smaller area and the area acquired is large one. 26. I do not dispute with the proposition of the law that the transaction of the smaller area has to be ignored always, but if cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence is available in order to assess the market value of the acquired area, that instance must be and should be relied upon. In the absence of any evidence, 1 would have switched over to some other evidence but once I am getting a very good instance in order to determine the compensation, that should be followed. Counsel for the appellants relied upon Surjit Kaur V/s. State of Punjab and another and submitted that the decisions of the reference Court are the decision hi personam and only bind the parties. Such a decision cannot be termed as a judgment in rem and it can be considered to be. Counsel for the appellants relied upon Surjit Kaur V/s. State of Punjab and another and submitted that the decisions of the reference Court are the decision hi personam and only bind the parties. Such a decision cannot be termed as a judgment in rem and it can be considered to be. a piece of evidence and so evaluated on facts of a particular case. 27. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law. The awards given by the competent Courts of jurisdiction are the judgments in personam but those are relevant transactions and they are admissible. Rather the case law is that these are the best instances on which the Court should rely invariably because when an award is given by the Reference Court, it always invariably takes into consideration relevant piece of evidence. 28. Reliance was also placed on sudhir Kumar V/s. State of Punjab, State of U. P. and others V/s. Raj Narain Singh and another and Baldev Krishan Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector. The judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts in hand. The principle of law enunciated in these judgments is only to the extent that small transac-tions can be relied upon by imposing a reasonable cut but in the present case there is enough evidence for me to come to the conclusion that the landowners should get the same amount of compensation as awarded to the land owners of Sector 8 and its adjoining Sectors. 29. Resultantly, all the aforesaid appeals "are partly allowed and i award compensation at the rate of rs.46/- per square yard to the appellants. The appellants shall also be entitled to compensation in the shape of damages under Sec.48 of the Act at the rate of 6% per annum on the market value of the acquired land for the period 2/5/1973 to 20/4/1982. They shall also get additional amount at the rate of 12% on the market value of the land under section 23 (A-A) of the Act from the date of notification under Sec.4 of the act upto the date of the award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. They shall also get additional amount at the rate of 12% on the market value of the land under section 23 (A-A) of the Act from the date of notification under Sec.4 of the act upto the date of the award of the collector or the date of taking possession of the land whichever is earlier. They shall also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value under Sec.23 (1-A) (2)of the Act besides interest at the rate of 9% on the enhanced amount from the date on which the Collector took possession of the land to the date of payment of such excess into court for one year and thereafter the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed.