JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of 14 appeals being RFA No. 958 of 1987, RFA No. 988 of 1987, RFA No. 1119 of 1987, RFA No. 1120 of 1987, RFA No. 1121 of 1987, RFA No. 1122 of 1987, RFA No. 1123 of 1987, RFA No. 1124 of 1987, RFA No. 1125 of 1987, RFA No. 1126 of 1987, RFA No. 1127 of 1987, RFA No. 1128 of 1987, RFA No. 1129 of 1987, and RFA No. 1130 of 1987. Whereas two appeals being RFA No. 958 of 1987 and RFA No. 988 of 1987 have been filed by the claimant-land owners, the remaining 12 appeals have been filed by the State of Punjab. All the appeals are directed against the award dated November 14, 1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bathinda and as such common questions of law and facts are involved. Whereas the claimant- land owners in the two appeals are aggrieved against the rejection of the reference applications by the learned Additional District Judge, the State of Punjab has filed the appeals aggrieved against the extension of benefits under the provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, the Act), as amended. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from RFA No. 958 of 1987. 3. Vide notification dated July 29, 1981 issued under Section 4 of the Act land measuring 15 acres was intended to be acquired for the construction of Administrative Complex as well as PWD House at Talwandi Sabo. Subsequently, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on December 25, 1981. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award March 30, 1982 assessed the market value of the land. Two separate blocks were carved out. For block A, the market value assessed was Rs. 60,000/- per acre whereas for block B it was assessed at Rs. 27,500/-. 4. The claimants felt aggrieved. They claimed references for enhancement of the market value. The matter was duly referred under Section 18 of Act. 5. During the course of reference proceedings, the parties led their evidence. The claimants produced documents. Ex.A1 is the map of the acquired land; Ex.A2 and Ex.A2/1 are the copies of map of Talwandi Sabo; Exs. A3/A, A3/B, A4 and A5 are the copies of the mutations; Exs. The matter was duly referred under Section 18 of Act. 5. During the course of reference proceedings, the parties led their evidence. The claimants produced documents. Ex.A1 is the map of the acquired land; Ex.A2 and Ex.A2/1 are the copies of map of Talwandi Sabo; Exs. A3/A, A3/B, A4 and A5 are the copies of the mutations; Exs. A1/4 is the copy of the sale deed; Ex.A6 is the copy of notification; Ex.AW4/A is the map of Town Planner; Exs. AW5/A to AW5/C are the copies of allotment letters of the lands allotted by the market committee to some of the allottees in the grain market; Ex.PX is the copy of award; Exs. AW8/A to AW8/E are the photographs; Ex.AX is the pedigree table and Exs.AX/1 to AX/2 are the copies of sale deeds. The respondent State of Punjab also produced documents. Ex.R1 is the copy of Sajra Kisatwar, Exs.R2 to R13 are the copies of the mutations and Exs. RX/1 to RX/26 are the copies of the sale deeds. 6. Besides the documentary evidence, the parties also led oral evidence to support their respective claims. 7. The claimants claimed that the acquired land was situated adjoining to the grain market and there were residential houses on the said land. The acquired land was situated on pucca Talwandi-Rori road and there were godowns of Food Corporation of Indian near the acquired land. It was also maintained that Talwandi Sabo had been converted into a Sub Division by the State Government and as such was a developing city. It was also proved by the claimants that there were number of residential and commercial premises around the acquired land. 8. On the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Additional District Judge held as follows : "So from the evidence it is clear that the acquired land is of potential value as there are houses, grain market etc. near the acquired land. The Collector has also mentioned in his award that the land acquired is adjacent to the grain market and is not an agricultural land, but the land meant for commercial and residential purposes. near the acquired land. The Collector has also mentioned in his award that the land acquired is adjacent to the grain market and is not an agricultural land, but the land meant for commercial and residential purposes. So it is evident that the acquired land is of potential value and meant for commercial and residential purposes, so the compensation according to the categorization of land cannot be given and the compensation is to be given in lump-sum keeping in view of the fact that it is of potential value." Since the entire evidence led by the respondents was with regard to agricultural land only, therefore, the entire evidence led by the respondents was ruled out of consideration. Thereafter, the learned Additional District Judge also took into consideration the three sale deeds relied upon by the claimants. 9. Ex.A1/A is the sale deed dated October 7, 1981 vide which 4 kanals of land was sold for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- reflecting an average price of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. Ex.AX/1 is the sale deed dated June 12, 1981 pertaining to 1 kanal 1 marla of land for a total consideration of Rs. 30,000/- reflecting an average price of Rs. 2,28,480/- per acre. Similarly Ex.AX/2 is the sale deed dated January 27, 1981 pertaining to 10 marlas of land for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- reflecting an average price of Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre. It is also proved on the record that the aforesaid sales were in close proximity with the acquisition in question. However, the learned Additional District Judge rules out the sale instances on the ground that as far as the sale instance Ex.A1/1 is concerned the same was after the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act i.e. after July 29, 1981. The other two sale deed instances were rejected on the ground that these pertained to small pieces of land. As a net result of the entire discussion, the learned Additional District Judge declined the references and upheld the market value as assessed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector. However, the claimants were held entitled to not only the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act but also to be benefit of provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 10. However, the claimants were held entitled to not only the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act but also to be benefit of provisions of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 10. The claimants have now felt aggrieved and have approached this Court through the present appeals claiming that the order rejecting the references was erroneous in law. 11. On the other hand, the respondent State of Punjab has approached this Court feeling aggrieved against the extension of the benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 12. I have heard Shri Arun Jain, the learned counsel for the claimant-land owners and Shri P.S. Thiara, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 13. Alongwith the present appeals, the claimant-appellants have also filed Civil Misc. No. 1182-CII of 1987 under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC. The prayer has been made to lead additional evidence. By way of additional evidence a copy of the sale deed dated June 20, 1979 has been sought to be proved. It is maintained that the aforesaid sale deed pertaining to the sale of 8 marlas of land was in fact part of the acquired land and the aforesaid land measuring 8 marlas had been sold for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,500/- in the year 1979. 14. Shri P.S. Thiara, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has no objection to the aforesaid application of the appellants being allowed. Accordingly, the aforesaid sale deed is taken on record and is exhibited as EX.CX. 15. I have also considered the matter of assessment of the market value of the acquired land on the date of notification i.e. July 29, 1981. 16. The claimants have led evidence in the shape of four sale instances i.e. Ex.A1/A AX/1, AX/2 and CX. As noticed earlier, Ex.A1/A is the sale instance pertaining to 4 kanals of land and the land was sold on October 7, 1981 for a total consideration of Rs. 40,000/-. It reflects the average price at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. However, the remaining two sale instances i.e. Ex.AX/1 and Ex.AX/2 pertain to the sale of 1 kanal and 10 marlas of land, respectively. The said lands were sold on June 12, 1981 and on January 27, 1981, respectively. 40,000/-. It reflects the average price at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. However, the remaining two sale instances i.e. Ex.AX/1 and Ex.AX/2 pertain to the sale of 1 kanal and 10 marlas of land, respectively. The said lands were sold on June 12, 1981 and on January 27, 1981, respectively. The average price reflected by the aforesaid land is Rs. 2,28,480/- and Rs. 2,40,000/- per acre, respectively. Similarly, the sale instance relied upon by the appellants, namely, Ex.CX is dated June 20, 1979 vide which the portion of the acquired land measuring 8 marlas was sold for Rs. 4,500/- reflecting the average price of Rs. 90,000/- per acre. 17. Shri Arun Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the evidence on record shows that the city of Talwandi Sabo was a developing city and acquired land was situated not only adjoining to the grain market but also within the municipal limits. It has further been argued that adjoining the acquired land there were Godowns of Food Corporation of India and number of residential as well as commercial buildings. On that basis, Shri Jain has maintained that the award of the learned Land Acquisition Collector, upheld by the learned Reference Court, was absolutely contrary to the record and erroneous and the assessment made by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was much on the lower side. Shri Jain has further argued that there was absolutely no basis for dividing the acquired land in two blocks, namely, block A and block B. According to Shri Jain, the acquired land was situated on three roads and, therefore, entire land was liable to be assessed at a uniform rate. 18. On the other hand, Shri P.S. Thiara, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has maintained that the Land Acquisition Collector while making the assessment of acquired land had considered all these factors and the assessment made by the learned Land Acquisition Collector was a fair assessment. 19. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. In my considered opinion, the assessment of the market value of the acquired land by the Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated March 30, 1982 could not be said to be reflecting the proper market value of the acquired land. 19. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. 20. In my considered opinion, the assessment of the market value of the acquired land by the Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated March 30, 1982 could not be said to be reflecting the proper market value of the acquired land. A finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Reference Court which itself shows that the acquired land had potential value and was meant for commercial and residential purposes and it is also apparent from the record that the said land could not be termed to be an agricultural land and as such the assessment on that basis could not be sustained. 21. All the sale instances Ex.A1/A, AX/1, AX/2 and CX clearly show that the acquired land had a potential value for being used for commercial and residential purposes and, therefore, taking all the sale instances together into consideration, in my opinion, Rs. 1 lac would be the adequate price of the acquired land on the date of notification. Further from the evidence on the record. I find that there was absolutely no justification to divide the acquired land into two blocks i.e. block A and block B. The acquired land was situated within municipal limits. The acquired land was adjacent three roads on three sides. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the entire acquired land was liable to be assessed at a uniform rate. Accordingly, I find that the claimant-appellants would be entitled to the market value of Rs. 1 lac per acre for the entire acquired land. Additionally, the claimant-land owners would also be entitled to all the statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act. 22. However, it is made clear that the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act shall not be available to anyone of the claimant-land owners inasmuch as the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is dated March 30, 1982 which is prior to the cut off date i.e. April 30, 1982. 22. However, it is made clear that the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act shall not be available to anyone of the claimant-land owners inasmuch as the award of the Land Acquisition Collector is dated March 30, 1982 which is prior to the cut off date i.e. April 30, 1982. As held by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and others, (1994)5 SCC 593 the benefit of Section 23(1-A) of the Act could only be made available to such acquisitions where the award of the Land Acquisition Collector had been pronounced prior to the cut off date i.e. April 30, 1982. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the State appeals with regard to the extension of benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act are allowed. It is declared that the claimant-land owners shall not be entitled to the aforesaid benefit. Consequently, with regard to the market value of the acquired land, it is declared that the claimant-appellants shall be entitled to Rs. 1 lac per acre as the market value of the entire acquired land. The claimant-appellants shall also be entitled to the remaining statutory benefits as per amended provision of law. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.