JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of RFAs No. 1723, 1793, 1724, 1725, 1794, 1729, 1728, 1795, 1726, 1796, 1710, 2675, 1714, 1720, 1702, 1712, 1705, 1711, 1962, 1881, 1722, 1716, 1704, 1713, 1708, 1717, 1709, 1718 of 1990, 238, 2554 of 1991, 1715, 2249, 1706, 1721, 1719, 1703 of 1990, 1713, 328 of 1991, 551, 2055, 555 of 1990, 190 of 1991, 1106, 1108, 1931 of 1990, 1714, 1712 of 1991, 651, 557 of 1990, 1715 of 1991, 635, 550, 935, 636, 1165, 1963, 1052, 556, 547, 1930, 2215 of 1990, 1716 of 1991, 650, 312, 548, 554, 1107, 552, 1164, 558, 1057, 549, 2367, 1014, 892 of 1990, 13 of 1992, 898, 720, 899, 777, 897, 895, 1016, 778, 1013, 893, 721 of 1990, 1053 of 1991, 553, 570, 940 of 1990, 633 of 1991, 569 of 1990, 2310 of 1991, 647, 645, 648, 646, 644, 649, 305, 809, 810, 1765 of 1990, 1254, 2484, 1406, 2486, 1255, 2485 of 1994, 2272, 2273 of 1990, 816 of 1991 as all the appeals arise out of the claim of compensation made by various land-owners with regard to the acquisition of their land. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA No. 2272 of 1990. 2. A notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on November 6, 1981, with regard to the intention of the State Government to acquire 245.67 acres of land. Ultimately vide notification dated February 24, 1989 only 146.56 acres of land was acquired. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 32000/- per acre. 3. The land-owners felt dissatisfied. They claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The matter was referred. 4. The landowners claimed that the land was very fertile agriculture land and that the market value of the land in question ranges between Rs. 100/- per sq. yard to Rs. 350/- per sq. yard. The claimant maintained that the land in question was situated in front of MDU Rohtak and abutted the bye-pass. 5. The claimant/landowners as well as the State Government produced the evidence before the learned Additional District Judge. After taking into consideration the entire evidence, the learned Additional District Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard to the land-owners. 5. The claimant/landowners as well as the State Government produced the evidence before the learned Additional District Judge. After taking into consideration the entire evidence, the learned Additional District Judge awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard to the land-owners. The land-owners were further held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% of the said market value. Additionally, the land owners held entitled to the statutory benefits. 6. The claimant felt still dissatisfied and have filed the present appeals. Three appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana also, challenging the aforesaid enhancement. 7. I have heard Shri H.S. Hooda, the learned senior Advocate Shri Arun Jain, and Shri I.S. Balhara, Advocates appearing for the claimants-appellants in various appeals and Shri Ranjit Saini, Advocate, the learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 8. Shri HS Hooda has argued that the compensation as assessed by the learned Additional District Judge was totally inadequate. According to Shri Hooda, the land in dispute was situated on a prime location inasmuch as it was situated in front of MD University, Rothak. The Tilyar Tourist Complex of Haryana Tourism was also situated on its east. The Model Town, Jat College and office of the Agricultural department of the State are on its western side whereas the Housing Board Colony was situated on its Northern side. According to the learned counsel, the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 350/- per sq. yard on the date of notification. 9. On the other hand, Shri Ranjit Saini, the learned State counsel has submitted that in fact there was no evidence to show that the claim made by the land-owners with regard to the enhancement was in any manner justified. According to the learned counsel, there was an earlier award Ex. R1 in which compensation had been awarded to the landowners of village Asthalbohar for their land acquired under the notification dated November 6, 1981, at the rate of Rs. 9/- and as such compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge was already on the higher side. However, it was fairly conceded by the learned State counsel that since no appeals have been filed by the State Government in majority of the references for challenging the award of Rs. 20/- per sq. 9/- and as such compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge was already on the higher side. However, it was fairly conceded by the learned State counsel that since no appeals have been filed by the State Government in majority of the references for challenging the award of Rs. 20/- per sq. yard already awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge, therefore, the aforesaid award passed by the learned Additional District Judge was liable to be maintained and no further enhancement was possible under the circumstances. 10. The claim of the claimants is based upon the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by them. PW1 Rajinder Singh is one of the land-owners. He has stated that the acquired land was in fact a commercial land. There was big kothies constructed on one side of the acquired land. On the eastern side of the acquired land, Tilyar Tourist of Haryana Tourism was situated. On the southern side M.D. University was existing. He has further deposed that various other colonies and institutions were adjacent to the acquired land. According to him the market value of the acquired land could not be less than Rs. 400/- per sq. yard. 11. PW3 is Dharam Singh a retired Kanungo. He has prepared site plans Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B. In the aforesaid site plans, the location of the acquired land viz-a-viz the surrounding have been shown. 12. PW2 is Kanwal Krishan an Assistant of the office of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak. He has deposed that in sector No. 1 and 14 of Rohtak, the highest bid in the case of one kanal plot was Rs. 825/- per sq. metre and lowest was Rs. 755/- per sq. metre. The auction of the aforesaid land was conducted on February 28, 1989. 13. Besides this the claimants produced certain sale deed namely, Exs. PA, PB, PC, PD and PF. Against this evidence produced by the claimants, the respondents have merely remained satisfied by tendering a copy of the award Ex. R1 which shows that the acquired land in the aforesaid award was assessed at the market value of Rs. 9/- per sq. yard. 14. The learned Additional District Judge chose not to rely upon the award Ex. R1. It was observed that in fact the sale instances on which the said judgment Ex. R1 which shows that the acquired land in the aforesaid award was assessed at the market value of Rs. 9/- per sq. yard. 14. The learned Additional District Judge chose not to rely upon the award Ex. R1. It was observed that in fact the sale instances on which the said judgment Ex. R1 has been rendered has not been produced on the record of the present case by the respondent-State of Haryana. It was further held that none of the present claimants were parties to the aforesaid proceedings and as such the said judgment could not be held to be a judgment in rem. On the other hand it was held that since the claimants had led evidence in the shape of sale instances to show the Market value of the land in the proximity of the notification dated November 6, 1981, therefore, the market value of the acquired land of the claimants-landowners was liable to be fixed keeping in view the said sale instances. 15. Ex. PA is the sale deed dated March 23, 1981 where 250 sq. yards of land was sols for Rs. 7500/- i.e. Rs. 30/- per sq. yard. Ex. PB is the sale deed dated April 6, 1981 with regard to 326 sq. yards land for sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 42.80 per sq. yard. Ex. PC is the sale deed dated April 6, 1981 with regard to 326 sq. yard land sold for Rs. 14,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 42.80 per sq. yard. Ex. PD shows that land measuring 669 sq. yards was sold on April 8, 1981 for a consideration of Rs. 36,789/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 54.97 per sq. yard. Similarly Ex. PE is the sale deed dated February 6, 1981 with regard to 199.7 sq. yards for a sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- indicating the price at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq yard. Lastly Ex. PF is the sale deed dated February 10, 1981 wherein an area of 300 sq. yards was sold for Rs. 12,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard. 16. As far as the judgment Ex. R1 is concerned, no material has been brought on the record by the respondents to show the location of the acquired land which was the subject matter of the aforesaid proceedings. yards was sold for Rs. 12,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 40/- per sq. yard. 16. As far as the judgment Ex. R1 is concerned, no material has been brought on the record by the respondents to show the location of the acquired land which was the subject matter of the aforesaid proceedings. It has not been shown as to whether the aforesaid acquired land was situated on the main road or not. Nothing has been shown with regard to the surroundings of the aforesaid land. In this view of the matter, the award Ex. R1 cannot be taken to be reflecting any yard stick for assessing the market value of the acquired land in the present case. 17. It is no doubt apparent that all the sale instances, relied upon by the claimant-landlords pertained to only small pieces of land. However, the fact cannot be lost sight of that the acquired land itself was situated at a place which was adjoining the boundaries of the city of Rohtak. It was surrounded by the Housing Board Colony, M.D. University, Tilyar Tourist Complex and the other big residential houses. In this view of the matter it could not be expected that there would be sale transactions or sale instances with regard to any big chunk of land. Once the land surrounding the land was already put to commercial as well as residential uses, then it was natural that the area surrounding the acquired land was being sold in small plots only. However, even then the aforesaid sale of small plots could not be taken to be reflecting the true and just market value of the acquired land. 18. The Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1984 SC 892 has held that in case of acquisition of large tracts, the transactions in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guidelines, therefore, for determining the market value of large tract on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, a deduction should be made. It was held as follows : "When large tracts are acquired, the transactions in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guidelines. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property. It was held as follows : "When large tracts are acquired, the transactions in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guidelines. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property. For determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property a deduction should be given." This court had also occasion to deal with a similar question relating to the determination of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the evidence of the sale transactions pertaining to the small pieces of land in Anand Sarup v. State of Punjab and another, 1988 PLJ 366 and it was held as follows : "....No doubt, the above sale transactions being of small pieces of land, comparatively higher consideration would have been paid for the same. However, it is by now well settled that where no evidence of sale of larger pieces of land or of area comparable with the area of land acquired is available the sale transactions of smaller pieces of land can be taken into consideration and a reasonable cut is to be imposed on the consideration represented by them so as to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. It has also been held that reasonable cut in the circumstances which is to be imposed is 1/3rd of the consideration represented by such sale transactions. Thus, when 1/3rd cut is imposed on the average sale price of Rs. 1,62,402/- per acre, it would be found that the market value of the acquired land works out to Rs. 1,08,268/-." In a recent judgment, the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of India, 2003(3) PLR 262 as held as follows : "7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary reductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices." 19. For example where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary reductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices." 19. Thus keeping in view the authoritative pronouncements by the Apex Court and the law laid down by this Court, I have no hesitation in relying upon the sale instances Ex. PA to Ex. PF produced by the claimants-landowners. Although the aforesaid sale instances pertained to small plots of land but keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court, the market value of the acquired land can be assessed by applying a proper reduction. 20. This brings me to the question as to what would be the market value of the acquired land from the aforesaid sale instances. It has already been noticed by me above that the sale instances Ex. PA to Ex. PF give different rates valuing from Rs. 30/- to Rs. 59.97 per sq. yard. All the sale instances pertain to the period between February, 1981 to April, 1981. The notification in question was issued under Section 4 of the Act on November 6, 1981. The average sale price from all the aforesaid sale deeds comes to Rs. 43/- per sq. yard approximately. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ravinder Narains case (supra), I find that 1/3rd cut needs to be applied to the aforesaid average price for determining the market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, after applying the aforesaid cut, the price comes out to Rs. 29/- per sq. yard approximately. (say Rs. 30/- per sq. yard). Thus I consider that the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard would be just and proper compensation. 21. From the perusal of the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, I find that a further cut of 1/3rd has been applied by him for assessing the market value of the acquired land. The further cut of 1/3rd has been applied by observing that the land was to be used by HUDA and for that purpose 1/3rd of the acquired land would be left for the roads/parks etc. In my considered view, this approach of the Additional District Judge was wholly erroneous. The further cut of 1/3rd has been applied by observing that the land was to be used by HUDA and for that purpose 1/3rd of the acquired land would be left for the roads/parks etc. In my considered view, this approach of the Additional District Judge was wholly erroneous. The landowners were least concerned about the user to which the land was to be put by the acquiring authority. The assessment of the market value was to be done on the basis of what a willing purchaser was ready to pay to a willing seller for the acquired land. Any subsequent user by the acquiring authority, as to whether the land was to be kept for a green open space, park or any other purpose, was wholly irrelevant for determining the price. Thus I find that second 1/3rd cut applied by the learned Additional district Judge was wholly unwarranted and cannot be legally sustained. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that Rs. 30/- per sq. yard would be a proper and just compensation being the market price of the acquired land on the date of the notification under Section 4. 23. Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the claimants, are partly allowed and the award of the learned Additional District Judge is modified to the extent that the landowners would be entitled to the compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard. In addition to the aforesaid compensation, the landowners shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits as per law. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the three appeals filed by the State of Haryana, being RFA No. 2384 of 1994, RFA No. 2485 of 1994 and RFA No. 2486 of 1994 are dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. Appeals partly allowed.