JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - This judgment shall dispose of Regular First Appeals Nos. 976, 977, 1135 to 1141, 1143, 1144, 1737, 1083, 1134, 1961 and 2281 of 1989 and 1867 and 1868 of 1991 and 1409 of 1992 since all the aforesaid appeals have arisen out of a common award rendered by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala. By the aforesaid award, the learned Additional District Judge while disposing of reference applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "ACT") had enhanced the compensation to the land owners as originally granted to them by the Land Acquisition Collector. The claimants in the present appeals have prayed for further enhancement of the compensation. 2. The State Government of Punjab issued a notification under section 4 of the Act on December 19/20, 1983 whereby 37 acres 1 kanal 10 marlas of land was acquired for setting up a New Mandi Township at Dhilwan Miani Bakerpur. Whereas land measuring 36 acres 6 kanals 1 marlas is situated within the hadbast of the village Dhilwan, 4 kanals 9 marlas of the aforesaid acquired land falls within the hadbast of village Miani Bakarpur. The aforesaid notification was published in the Official Gazette on December 30, 1983. Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was also published on July 19, 1984. 3. The Collector Land Acquisition, Colonization Department, Punjab received the claims of the effected persons and gave an award dated September 23, 1986. Under the aforesaid award, the land was categorised into two classes. A 12 karams vide belt was carved out along the road on both sides and was awarded a compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per acre. The remaining land was valued at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre. The Collector additionally awarded compensation with regard to the bore of the tubewells and the standing trees. The statutory benefits, namely, solatium and interest as admissible were also awarded. 4. The land-owners felt dissatisfied with the aforesaid award of the Collector. They claimed references under Section 18 of the Act. In fact 26 separate land references were preferred. All the aforesaid land references were referred for adjudication to the learned District Judge (in the present cases the learned Additional District Judge) and were clubbed together. 5. Before the reference court, both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their claims. In fact 26 separate land references were preferred. All the aforesaid land references were referred for adjudication to the learned District Judge (in the present cases the learned Additional District Judge) and were clubbed together. 5. Before the reference court, both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their claims. The learned Additional District Judge vide award dated January 28, 1989 modified the award of the Collector. The learned Additional District Judge while awarding the compensation, classified the acquired land into three categories. The first category of land was carved upto 5 karams width on both sides of the link road and was awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 825/- per marla. For a subsequent 7 karams wide strip, behind the first carved out belt on both sides of the road, the awarded compensation was Rs. 500/- per marla. However, for the remaining land behind the total 12 karams wide strip, no enhancement in the compensation as awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was given. Some increase in the grant of the compensation with regard to the boring of the tubewells and another connected structure was also awarded. The land owners who were left with some land after acquisition were awarded an additional compensation of 5 percent over and above the compensation allowed to them by way of price of their acquired land. 6. The land owners being still dissatisfied and claiming that they have not been adequately compensated for the acquisition of their land, have preferred the present appeals for further enhancement. 7. At the out set, it may be noticed that although the claimants-appellants have stated in the grounds of appeals that they are entitled to be compensated at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per marla for the acquisition of their land and Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of severance charges, but have confined their claim in the present appeal to the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre and have paid court-fee accordingly. 8. I have heard Shri M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Hemant Sarin, Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri A.S. Virk, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing with Shri Sandeep Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 9. 8. I have heard Shri M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Hemant Sarin, Advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri A.S. Virk, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab appearing with Shri Sandeep Jain, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents and with their assistance have also gone through the record of the case. 9. The first submission raised by Shri M.L. Sarin, the learned senior counsel for the appellants is that the Collector as well as the reference court had fallen into an error in classifying the acquired land into belts. According to the learned senior counsel, since the acquired land was a compact block of 37 acres 1 kanal and 10 marlas of land, therefore, there was neither any proprietary nor any necessity in adopting the belting system. According to Shri Sarin, for assessing the market rate for such a compact block, a unilateral standard should have been adopted as per the evidence on the record and, therefore, according to the learned senior counsel there was an error in assessing the market rate of the acquired land. 10. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Virk, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has supported the method of belting system adopted by the Collector as well as the learned Additional District Judge. According to Shri Virk, the method of belting was a settled rule of law while assessing the compensation awardable for the acquired land and, therefore, there was no error in the method so adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector, as well as by the learned Additional District Judge. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on this question, I am of the view that no fault can be found with the system of belting adopted by the Land Acquisition Collector and also by the learned Additional District Judge while assessing compensation for the acquired land. It has been held by the Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj Kumar and another v. State of Punjab and another, 1995(3) Supreme Court Cases 121 as follows : ".....It is settled law that the belting is one of the principles on the basis of which market value would be determined. It being the principle, the belting has been rightly determined by the High Court, the Civil Court as well as the Land Acquisition Officer. It being the principle, the belting has been rightly determined by the High Court, the Civil Court as well as the Land Acquisition Officer. We find no illegality in determining the belting at 22 karams and thus no further interference is required in the matter. The purpose of acquisition i.e. to establish market and on its account the lands are possessing potential value, is irrelevant by operation of Section 24 of the Act..." 12. It has further been observed in the case of Municipal Committee, Bhatinda and others v. Balwant Singh and others, 1995(5) Supreme Court Cases 433 by the Honble Supreme Court that in an appropriate case where evidence on record was available, the court would be justified in fixing the belting and to determine the market value of the land on that basis. 13. Again in the case of G. Ramesan v. State of Kerala and another, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2159, it has been observed by the Apex Court that when the land was abutting road and the other strip was in the low lying area, then two categories of land acquired were required to be classified since it was proper and prudent to assume that no willing buyer in an open market would prepare to purchase the land abutting the road and the land beneath the road being a low lying area, at the same rate. 14. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncements by the Apex Court and also in view of the evidence on record, which I shall subsequently refer to in the later part of the judgment, I do not find that any error of law has been committed by the Land Acquisition Collector or by the learned Additional District Judge while adopting the belting system in assessing the market rate of the acquired land. 15. Jagan Nath AW1 is one of the land-owners whose land had been acquired. While appearing as a witness he has stated that there is a road which connects village Dhilwan with G.T. Road and the land is situated on both sides of the road. It has further been stated by the aforesaid witness that he has constructed shops in the disputed land belonging to him, and his brothers and various other land owners had also similarly constructed shops on both sides of the road. It has further been stated by the aforesaid witness that he has constructed shops in the disputed land belonging to him, and his brothers and various other land owners had also similarly constructed shops on both sides of the road. In cross-examination the said witness admitted that the old G.T. Road stood abandoned after the construction of a new road and the distance of the acquired land from the new G.T. Road was one furlong. 16. AW2 Boota Singh is another land owner. He was admitted in his cross- examination that the distance of his land from Dhilwan link road is 7 killas. It has further been admitted by the aforesaid witness that some land out of the acquired land near the railway line is at lower level but he added that his own land was not low lying. A significant statement has been made by AW3 Jagjit Singh, another land owner whose land was acquired. The aforesaid witness has candidly admitted that the land which was located on the road side was very costly, although he went on to state that the land on the road was not available even at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per marla. 17. The site plan Ex. A1 prepared by AW4 Sukhwinder Singh, Halqa Patwari, has also been produced on the record on behalf of the claimant-land owners. The aforesaid site plan has been prepared on the basis of Aksh Shajra. A perusal of the aforesaid site plan would also show that the acquired land is situated on both sides of the link road and besides the land which is immediately adjacent to the road, the acquired land is up to a considerable depth from the road. 18. In view of the aforesaid evidence led by the land owners themselves, it is apparent that the entire acquired land could not be classified as one category and could not have been assessed at a unilateral/uniform rate of compensation. In these circumstances, it was natural to classify and carve out separate belts for the land abutting the road and the land lying deep down away from the road. Thus, in my considered opinion, the method of categorisation and evaluation of the land in two distinct belts was totally justified. 19. In these circumstances, it was natural to classify and carve out separate belts for the land abutting the road and the land lying deep down away from the road. Thus, in my considered opinion, the method of categorisation and evaluation of the land in two distinct belts was totally justified. 19. The next question, at this stage, may arise as to whether the learned Additional District Judge was justified in carving out three belts when originally the Land Acquisition Collector had himself carved out merely two belts for the entire acquired land. The learned Collector while pronouncing the award dated September 23, 1986 had carved out two belts on the basis of the recommendations of the District Collector. A 12 karams wide belt had been carved out by the Collector on both sides of the road to assess the market rate for the acquired land whereas the remaining land away from the aforesaid carved belt was assessed separately. While further carving out an additional belt, the learned Additional District Judge has not given any reasoning nor has referred to any evidence which may justify the further sub division of the 12 karams vide belt originally classified by the Land Acquisition Collector. The evidence led by the parties has also been so noticed by me. Nothing has been shown to me nor has been noticed by the learned Additional District Judge as well, that there were two separate categories of land available even within the 12 karams wide belt carved out by the Land Acquisition Collector. In my view, the classification/belting of 12 karams wide strip abutting on both sides of the road and the remaining land beyond the aforesaid width of 12 karams was a reasonable classification, based upon the circumstances existing at the spot and there was no justification for the learned Additional District Judge to have further resorted to additional belting between the land immediately abutting the road to a width of 5 karams and another width of 7 karams behind the strip of 5 karams. In my view, the entire 12 karams strip abutting both sides of the road would be classified as one belt and is liable to be assessed at a unilateral rate. The remaining acquired land beyond the aforesaid 12 karams width would be taken to be a separate belt and is liable to be assessed at a separate rate. 20. In my view, the entire 12 karams strip abutting both sides of the road would be classified as one belt and is liable to be assessed at a unilateral rate. The remaining acquired land beyond the aforesaid 12 karams width would be taken to be a separate belt and is liable to be assessed at a separate rate. 20. This brings me to the main controversy involved in the present case, namely, the market value of the acquired land. 21. Before delving into the facts of the case and evidence on the record and dilating it any further, it might be advantageous to notice the general principles underlying the determination of the market value for the acquired land for the purpose of section 23 of the Act. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 that the market value of a piece of property for purposes of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and indeed the best, evidences of market value. 22. The aforesaid principle was again laid down and approved by the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (deceased by L.Rs.) and others v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1989 Supreme Court 2051. 23. This brings me to the matter of factual assessment and determination of the market rate of the acquired land. 24. Shri M.L. Sarin, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the evidence on the record was sufficient to show that the acquired land was a very valuable land and possessed the potential for being developed for industrial or business activities. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Virk, the learned Additional Advocate General, has taken me through the evidence on the record to point out that the various land owners who appeared in support of their claims have admitted that the acquired land was quite away from the abadi of the village and there was neither any industry nor any other building nearby. It has also been pointed out that the evidence on the record showed that although some of the land owners had constructed some shops on both sides of the road and some of which were also fetching rent from Rs. 100 to Rs. 150 per month. Besides the aforesaid construction no other place of any industrial or commercial importance was situated near the acquired land. Shri Virk has also pointed out from the statement of the owners, the fact that the new G.T. Road passes through the village Miani Bakarpur and the same was at quite a distance from the old G.T. Road. On the strength of the aforesaid evidence Shri Virk has maintained that the finding recorded by the learned Additional District Judge to the effect that the acquired area did not have much potential value for any residential colony or business activity was a correct finding of fact based upon the evidence on record. 25. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In my view, the evidence on the record does not support that there were any buildings or industries or other residential colonies or localities near the acquired land. Although it has come into evidence in the statements of the various land owners that they had constructed some shops adjacent to the roads of the acquired land but nothing further has been shown that there was any other development which could be taken into consideration, for holding that the acquired land had any potential for being developed into a commercial or industrial sites. Thus, the fair market value of the acquired land can only be assessed on the basis of the various documents produced by the respective parties on the record of the case in the shape of sale deeds or an agreement to sell. 26. The claimants have led into evidence the sale instances Ex. A14, Ex. A15, Ex. A16, Ex. A17, Ex. A18, Ex. A19, Ex. A20, Ex. A25, Ex. A32 and Ex. A35 to prove the prevailing rates on or about the date of acquisition. The sale instances at Ex. A15, Ex. A16 and Ex. A19 can be ruled out of evidence being pertaining to the years 1986-87 i.e. much after the date of the acquisition. The other sale instances, namely Ex. A20, Ex. A25 and Ex. A25, Ex. A32 and Ex. A35 to prove the prevailing rates on or about the date of acquisition. The sale instances at Ex. A15, Ex. A16 and Ex. A19 can be ruled out of evidence being pertaining to the years 1986-87 i.e. much after the date of the acquisition. The other sale instances, namely Ex. A20, Ex. A25 and Ex. A32 pertained to very small pieces of land and, therefore, cannot afford any guidance to determine the market value of the acquired land. The learned Additional District Judge has relied upon the sale instances Ex. A14, Ex. A18, Ex. A20 and Ex. A35 and taking the average of the aforesaid sale instances, has determined the market value of 5 karams width strip of the acquired land at Rs. 825/- per marla on both sides of the road. 27. Shri M.L. Sarin, learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Additional District Judge has in fact committed an error of law in ruling out of consideration the agreement Ex. A6. According to Shri Sarin the aforesaid agreement is dated September 6, 1980 and stands duly proved on the record. As per the aforesaid agreement land measuring 11 kanals and 2 marlas (which ultimately came to be acquired) was agreed to be sold by the land owners Harpartap Rai Puri etc. to Kulwinder Singh Dhillon at the rate of Rs. 25,600 per kanal. The earnest money of Rs. 15,000/- was paid by the purchaser Kulwinder Singh Dhillon through Bank Draft dated September 6, 1980 favouring Harpartap Rai Puri. According to the learned counsel the said agreement was duly proved by the statement of Harpartap Rai Puri, AW5 and the statements of the attesting witnesses Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia and Gian Singh, who have both appeared as AW9 and AW10, respectively. According to the learned counsel the payment of the earnest money through the bank draft has been proved by AW8 Sham Lal who is a bank clerk and the sale of the stamps papers for the aforesaid agreement has been proved by AW7 Kulwant Singh, Stamp Vendor. In these circumstances, the learned counsel maintains that there is no justification to ignore and rule out of consideration the aforesaid document and the learned Additional District Judge should have taken the same into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land. In these circumstances, the learned counsel maintains that there is no justification to ignore and rule out of consideration the aforesaid document and the learned Additional District Judge should have taken the same into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land. According to the learned counsel the said piece of evidence was in fact the best piece of evidence available to the claimant-owners, inasmuch as the said land forming part of the agreement to sell, itself subsequently came to be acquired and, therefore, there is no better evidence to determine the market value of the acquired land than the offer made by a purchaser who had entered into the aforesaid agreement to sell. 28. On the other hand, Shri A.S. Virk, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab argued that the aforesaid agreement was a mere agreement to sell and did not create any right in the parties since the said agreement did not culminate into a sale deed at any stage and therefore, no value could be attached to such an agreement. 29. It is no doubt true that while assessing the market value of a piece of property which had been acquired, the court has to find out the price at which the property may change hands from a willing seller to a willing purchaser and also the price fetched for similar land with similar advantages and potentialities but the said assessment cannot be confined only to a complete transaction of sale but all such transactions which are bona fide transactions providing the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land can be utilised with advantage for assessing the market value. 30. The notification in question acquiring the land is dated December 30, 1983. The agreement Ex. A6 was entered into between Harpartap Rai Puri etc. and Kulwinder Singh on September 6, 1980 i.e. more than three years prior to the acquisition in question. The said agreement has been duly proved by the land owners Harpartap Rai Puri himself while stepping into the witness box as AW5. AW7 Kulwant Singh, Stamp Vendor, is the person who had sold the requisite stamp papers for the execution of the agreement to sell in question. AW8 Sham Lal has stated with regard to the preparation of the bank draft in favour of Harpartap Rai Puri for Rs. 15,000/-. AW7 Kulwant Singh, Stamp Vendor, is the person who had sold the requisite stamp papers for the execution of the agreement to sell in question. AW8 Sham Lal has stated with regard to the preparation of the bank draft in favour of Harpartap Rai Puri for Rs. 15,000/-. The two attesting witnesses Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia and Gian Singh have appeared as AW9 and AW10, respectively. Nothing has been shown from the cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses that the said agreement for sale was, in any manner, fictitious or was in any manner not intended to be a genuine agreement for the execution of a sale deed. It has also been stated by AW5 Harpartap Rai Puri that the said agreement was subsequently cancelled vide endorsement Ex. A6/1 as the government had issued notice for acquiring the land and after the notification the money given to him was returned. On the back of the first page of the said agreement Ex. A6, there are two endorsements, Ex. A6/3 and Ex. A6/4. Vide the first endorsement the date for execution of the sale deed was extended on April 2, 1982 till July 1, 1983. Subsequently, on June 20, 1983, the parties to the agreement again extended the time for execution of the sale deed till December 28, 1983. However, in the meantime the land came to be acquired and, therefore, the agreement was cancelled on February 20, 1984 vide Ex. A6/1 executed at the back of the agreement and the money was returned back to the purchaser. Nothing has been pointed out by Shri Virk to show that the said transaction of the agreement to sell was in any manner doubtful, shaky, sham or fictitious. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation in taking into consideration the aforesaid agreement Ex. A6 for determining the market value of the acquired land. 31. It may be noticed here that almost in similar circumstances the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority, State of West Bengal v. Dominion Land & Industries Ltd. Kalidas Chakraborty, 1995(4) Supreme Court Cases 231 had relied upon the price fixed under the transaction of an agreement to sell entered between the tenants when the said land ultimately came to be acquired. 32. 32. It is not in dispute that the land measuring 11 kanals 2 marlas comprising in Khasra No. 162/2 situated in village Dhilwan was ultimately acquired through the notification in question and as such forms a part of the acquired land. The said land belonging to the land-owners Harpartap Rai Puri, Amrit Kaur and Promila Kumari was agreed to be sold to one Kulwinder Singh Dhillon at the rate of Rs. 25,600/- per kanal i.e. at the rate of Rs. 2,0,4800/- per acre. This land abuts the main road leading to village Dhilwan and, therefore, falls into 12 karams belt as was originally carved out by the Land Acquisition Collector and approved by me in the earlier portion of the judgment. Although the land comprised in the said agreement Ex. A-6 itself has been acquired under the acquisition in question but at the same time the fact cannot be lost sight of that the said transaction was merely for land measuring 11 kanals and 2 marlas of land i.e. almost one & half acres whereas the total acquired land is more than 37 acres. In this view of the matter while assessing the market rate of the land forming the 12 karams belt along the road a reasonable cut needs to be imposed. In my considered opinion, by imposing a cut for Rs. 30,000/- on the market rate of Rs. 2,04,800/- reflected by Ex. A-6, I feel that Rs. 1,75,000/- shall be the fair market rate for the 12 karams wide strip of the acquired land abutting both sides of the road. Accordingly, I fix Rs. 1,75,000/- per acre as the market rate for the land comprised in the belt of 12 karams wide strip on both sides of the road going to village Dhilwan. 33. With regard to the market rate of the remaining land, the Land Acquisition Collector had while fixing the Rs. 50,000/- as the market rate of 12 karams wide strip along both sides of the road had fixed the market rate at Rs. 35,000/- for the remaining land. The Learned Addl. District Judge while carving out one additional belt had fixed the rate of Rs. 825/- per marla for the first 5 karams belt, Rs. 500/- for the next 7 karams belt but had declined to increase the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre for the remaining land. In my view, the learned Addl. The Learned Addl. District Judge while carving out one additional belt had fixed the rate of Rs. 825/- per marla for the first 5 karams belt, Rs. 500/- for the next 7 karams belt but had declined to increase the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per acre for the remaining land. In my view, the learned Addl. District Judge has again committed an error in not increasing proportionately the market rate of the remaining land as well. It is apparent from the award dated September 23, 1986 passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector himself that while awarding Rs. 50,000/- per acre for the land upto the depth of 12 karams belt, he had awarded 2/3rd price thereof, i.e. Rs. 3,25,000/- per acre for the remaining land behind the 12 karams belt. Thus, when the learned Addl. District Judge had himself thought it proper to increase the amount of compensation for the first two belted areas then a proportionate increase for the remaining land behind the first two belts was also required to be made. Accordingly, since I have determined Rs. 1,75,000/- as a market rate for the land 12 karams wide lying adjoining on both sides of the road, therefore, for the remaining land, the market rate needs to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre (which of course is considerably lower than 2/3rd granted by the Land Acquisition Collector originally). However, since there are no sale instances for determining the market rate for the remaining land therefore, the method of assessing the market rate of the first belt adjoining the road and putting a reasonable cut on the same for determining the market value for the remaining portion, has been adopted. 34. In these circumstances, the present appeals are partly allowed and it is ordered that the land owners shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- (rupees one lac seventy five thousands only) per acre for the acquired land lying adjacent to both sides of the Dhilwan Road upto the depth of 12 karams strip. The remaining land behind the aforesaid 12 karams wide strip on both sides of the road shall be assessed and paid the compensation at the rate of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) per acre. The remaining land behind the aforesaid 12 karams wide strip on both sides of the road shall be assessed and paid the compensation at the rate of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one lac only) per acre. Besides, the above enhancement qua the market rate, granted by me, the other reliefs granted by the learned Additional District Judge, shall remain unaltered and intact. The appellants shall also be entitled to proportionate statutory benefits such as solatium and interest as admissible to them in accordance with law. The appellant shall also be entitled to proportionate costs. Appeals partly allowed.