JUDGMENT S.S. Nijjar, J. - This judgment will dispose of RFAs 1191 to 1996 of 1988. 2. On 24.6.1981 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published for acquisition of land in village Madhpur at public expenses for public purposes i.e. for construction southern bye-pass G.T. Road Madhopur adjoining Sirhind-Chuni Road. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated 28.11.1985 awarded compensation @ Rs 25,000/- per acre. Being not satisfied, the interested persons filed references under Section 18 of the Act which have been decided by the District Judge, Patiala, vide his judgment dated 26.4.1988. The District Judge had enhanced compensation for the acquired land to Rs. 32,000/- per acre. The claimants have also been held entitled to solatium @ 30% and interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation amount and solatium from the date of taking possession for one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum. The claimants have also been held entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 23(1)(A) of the Act and were to be paid an amount calculated @ 12% per annum on the market price of the acquired land from the date of publication of the notification till the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking possession which may be earlier. State of Punjab has filed these RFAs challenging the aforesaid judgment. 3. It is submitted by Mr. Sran that the District Judge has committed an error by enhancing the amount of compensation from Rs. 25,000/- per acre to Rs. 32,000/- per acre. According to the learned counsel, the evidence produced by the State of Punjab has not been duly appreciated. It is also submitted that the District Judge has wrongly relied on the evidence produced by the respondent. Exhibit P-3 to P-4 produced by the respondent relate to sale transactions of very small plot of land. The sale transactions, in fact, relate to land in village Brahmo Majra, the adjoining village. No evidence has been produced before the District Judge to prove that the land in the said village is of the same quality and at the same location as the land acquired. The District Judge ought to have taken into consideration Exhibits R-1 to R-7. The sale transactions, in fact, relate to land in village Brahmo Majra, the adjoining village. No evidence has been produced before the District Judge to prove that the land in the said village is of the same quality and at the same location as the land acquired. The District Judge ought to have taken into consideration Exhibits R-1 to R-7. The sale transactions produced by the State of Punjab would prove that the claimants were not entitled to anything more thatn Rs. 25,000/- per acre. The District Judge also committed an error in holding that the land owners are entitled to the benefit under Section 23(1)(A) of the Act. 4. I have considered the submission made by the learned State counsel. 5. It cannot be disputed that the acquired land is situated on the G.T. Road, from Ludhiana to Delhi. The public purpose of which the land has been acquired, is for construction of bye-pass. I am of the considered opinion that the District Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the land had a great deal of commercial potential. The District Judge while discussing the evidence led by the parties had noticed that none of the claimants have stepped into the witness box to support the claim put forward for enhancement at the rate claimed. It may be noticed here that the claimants were seeking enhancement at a much higher rate. For this purpose, they had relied on certain sale transactions which are briefly set out as under :- Exhibit No. Date of sale Sale consideration Area sold (in Marlas) Price per acre P-1 3.12.1981 Rs. 15,000/- 0-10 Rs. 2,40,000/- P-2 26.12.1979 Rs. 2,000/- 0-03 Rs. 1,06,666/- P-3 13.3.1981 Rs. 22,000/- 2-00 Rs. 88,000/- P-4 2.12.1980 Rs. 48,000/- 5-01 Rs. 48,000/- 6. The respondents also did not lead any oral evidence and produced the documents Exhibits R-1 to R-7. The District Judge had noticed that the sale instances produced by the claimants relate to the period earlier as well as subsequent to the notification under Section 4 of the Act i.e. dated 24.6.1981. Exhibit P-2 shows that 3 marlas of land has been sold at the rate of Rs. 1,06,666/- per acre while under Exhibit P-4, 5 kanals of land in the adjoining village was sold @ Rs. 48,000/- per acre. According to the learned State counsel, the figure of Rs. Exhibit P-2 shows that 3 marlas of land has been sold at the rate of Rs. 1,06,666/- per acre while under Exhibit P-4, 5 kanals of land in the adjoining village was sold @ Rs. 48,000/- per acre. According to the learned State counsel, the figure of Rs. 48,000/- is wrongly recorded in the judgment as the actual sale consideratin will come to Rs. 76,039/- per acre. The aforesaid correction has already been made in the separate order passed by the District Judge. The District Judge has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Smt. Kaushalaya Devi Bogra & others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad & another, AIR 1984 SC 892 to hold that even the sale transactions with regard to the small plots of land sold within a few months of the notification can be taken into account. The District Judge has taken care to make the reduction from the price on account of the small dimensions of the plot. Thereafter, the District Judge came to the conclusion that the compensation needs to be enhanced to Rs. 32,000/- per acre. Having considered the submissions made by the learned State counsel, I find no infirmity in the judgment rendered by the District Judge. Consequently, RFAs 1191 to 1196 of 1988 are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.