Judgment G.S.Singhvi, J. 1. These appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) arise out of awards dated 13.1,1997, 14.1.1997, 16.1,3997 and 20.1.1997 passed by Additional District Judge, Ropar in relation to acquisition of land failing in the revenue estates of Villages Singhpura and Chanalon, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar. While the landowner (hereinafter described as the claimants) have prayed for further enhancement of the compensation, the Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited, Chandigarh (for short, the Corporation), on whose behalf the land was acquired by the State Government, has prayed for setting aside the enhancement granted by Additional District Judge, Ropar. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noticed from R.F.A. No. 1461 of 1997 - Nasib Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., because arguments were addressed by learned counsel for the parties with reference to that appeal 3. The Government of Punjab acquired 29,53 acres of land situated in Village Singhpura, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar vide notifications dated 27.3.1991 and 23.1.1992 issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the 1894 Act for a public purpose, namely, setting up of an Industrial Focal Point, Chanalon. Land Acquisition Collector, Industries Department, Punjab vide his award dated 21.9.1992 determined the market value of the land at the following rates: _______________________________________ Chahi : Rs. 1,78,078/-per acre Barnai : Rs. 1,33,536/- per acre Banjar : Rs. 89,024/- per acre Gair Mumkin : Rs. 44,512/-per acre _______________________________________ He also awarded compensation for fruit bearing trees. 4 Feeling dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the claimants filed application under Section 18 of the Act and prayed for grant of compensation at the rate of 10 lacs per acre. They also claimed enhanced compensation for fruit and timber trees in the following terms: i) 53 Guava trees Rs. 1,90,000/- ii) 3 Mango Rs. 20,000/- iii) 3 Aarroo Rs. 10,000/- iv) 1 Nakh v) 1 Anar Rs. 20,000/- vi) 1 Alubukhara vii) 3 Desi Mango Rs. 50,000/- ix) 2 Lemon Rs. 15,000/- x) 1 Galgal xi) 1 Tunt Rs. 15,000/- xii) 1 Neem xiii) 16 Trees Rs. 1 lac 5. Telu alias Tirlok Singh, one of the claimants, pleaded for award of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for 65 fruit bearing Gauva trees. 6. 20,000/- vi) 1 Alubukhara vii) 3 Desi Mango Rs. 50,000/- ix) 2 Lemon Rs. 15,000/- x) 1 Galgal xi) 1 Tunt Rs. 15,000/- xii) 1 Neem xiii) 16 Trees Rs. 1 lac 5. Telu alias Tirlok Singh, one of the claimants, pleaded for award of compensation of Rs. 5 lacs for 65 fruit bearing Gauva trees. 6. In lieu of standing crops, the claimants prayed for award of the following compensation: i) 1 acre Gajar and Mooli Rs. 15,000/- ii) 1/2 acre Barsin | iii) 1/2 acre Maki Bajra | Rs. 5,000/- iv) 1-1/2 acre Sugarcane Rs. 15,000/- v) 1-1/2 acre Harhar Rs. 5,000/- 7 In the end, the claimants pleaded for grant of benefits in terms of Section 23 (1-A) etc. as amended by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. 8. In the written statement filed on behalf of the State Government, it was pleaded that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was just, fair and adequate and the claimants are not entitled to enhancement. However, it was admitted that the claimants are entitled to receive solartum at the rate of 30% and additional market value of 12%. Similar written statement was filed on behalf of the Corporation. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge framed the following issues: "1. What was the market value of land at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to that enhancement of compensation? If so, to what extent? OPP 3. Whether, the applicants are entitled for compensation in respect of trees and tubewell etc.? OPP 4. Relief." 10. The claimants examined Jasbir Singh (PW. 1), Amar Singh (PW.2), Gurcharan Singh, Patwari (PW.3), Tejwinder Singh (PW.4) and Nasib Singh (PW.5). They also produced documentary evidence in the form of copies of sale-deeds, site plans etc. The respondents examined Mohan Singh Patwari (RW. 1), Rajinder Singh, Horticulture Development Officer (RW.2) and Balwant Singh, Deputy Ranger (RW.3). 11. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, vide his award dated 14.1.1997, fixed the price of the land at the following rates: NNN_26.htm 12. He also held that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of one bore and khada at the rate of Rs. 11. After considering the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned Additional District Judge, vide his award dated 14.1.1997, fixed the price of the land at the following rates: NNN_26.htm 12. He also held that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation in respect of one bore and khada at the rate of Rs. 12,000/- instead of Rs.7,295/- and that they are entitled to statutory benefits under Sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. 13. Still dissatisfied, the claimants have filed appeal under Section 54 of the Act and prayed for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 7,25,000/- per acre. They have also prayed for award of enhanced compensation for fruit bearing and other trees, superstructures (two tuebwells, khada and bore) and in lieu of change of place of business and residence. 14. At this stage, I consider it necessary to notice some facts from R.F.A. No. 988 of 1997 - Dr. Balbir Chand and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors., which can be treated as representative appeal of the claimants of Village Chanalon. 98.14 acres of land situated in that village was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide notifications dated 27.3.1991 and 23.1.1992 for setting up of an Industrial Focal Point, Chanalon. The Land Acquisition Collector vide award dated 21,9.1992 determined the market value of the land at the following rates: Chahi : Rs. 2,22,560/-per acre Barani : Rs. 1,66,920/-per acre Gair Mumkin : Rs. 55,640/- per acre Banjar Jadid : Rs. 1,11,280/-per acre 15 The applications filed by the appellants and other claimants for award of higher compensation were disposed of by Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar vide his award dated 13.1.1997. He rejected the appellants plea for award of higher compensation except in the cases of Bhajan Singh and others Rajinder Kumar, to whom he granted additional compensation for eucalyptus trees. The claimants have filed appeal for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lacs per acre. 16. The Corporation has filed appeals against the awards passed by Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar in relation to the land falling in Village Singhpura by contending that the enhancement granted to the claimants is unjustified. 17. The claimants have filed appeal for award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 lacs per acre. 16. The Corporation has filed appeals against the awards passed by Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar in relation to the land falling in Village Singhpura by contending that the enhancement granted to the claimants is unjustified. 17. Shri R.C. Setia argued that the impugned awards should be declared as vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as, while determining the compensation payable to the claimants, the learned Additional District Judge completely ignored the sale-deeds produced by the claimants. He further argued that the learned Additional District Judge gravely erred in treating the status of the acquired land as agricultural for the purpose of payment of compensation ignoring the fact that large number of industries had already been set up before the commencement of acquisition proceedings and the purpose of acquisition was to set up an Industrial Focal Point. Learned counsel also assailed the compensation awarded for fruit bearing and other trees and argued that the learned Additional District Judge erred in fixing the life of the trees ignoring the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2463 and by this Court in Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, ( 1983)85 P.L.R. 471; Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab and Anr., 1990(1) R.R.R. 2 and Urmila Kakar v. State of Haryana, 1998(2) L.A.C.C, 340. 18. Shri H.P.S. Gill, learned Deputy Advocate-General and counsel representing the Corporation also argued that the impugned award should be quashed because the learned Additional District Judge committed a serious error by fixing the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector. They further argued that the sale instances produced by the claimants relate to small parcels of land and as such, the same could not be relied upon for determination of the market value of the acquired land. 19. I have given serious thought to the respective arguments. They further argued that the sale instances produced by the claimants relate to small parcels of land and as such, the same could not be relied upon for determination of the market value of the acquired land. 19. I have given serious thought to the respective arguments. A careful reading of award dated 14.1.1997, which is subject-matter of challenge in R.F.A. No. 874 of 1997, shows that in support of their claim for grant of enhanced market price, the claimants had produced the following sale-deeds: Sale deed Dated Area of land Sale price K-M (Rs.) Ex.A.12 6.6.1990 0-3 12,000/- Ex.A-13 4.12.1989 3-5 1,22,000/- Ex.A-14 21.12.1990 1-10 1,00,000/- Ex.A-15 1.2.1991 0-17 68,000/- Ex.A-16 5.6.1990 1-2 66,000/- 20. To substantiate their assertion that the market rate fixed by the Land Acquisition Collector was just and fair, the respondents also produced the following sale-deeds: Ex.R.1 18.4.1990 0-10 Rs. 5,000/- Ex.R.2 30.5.1990 0-8 Rs. 4,000/- Ex.R.3 27.7.1990 6-4 Rs. 46,500/- Ex.R.4 1.8.1990 5-7 Rs. 40,000/- 21. The learned Additional District Judge brushed aside all the sale-deeds without even adverting to the prices specified therein and without considering whether the same could be made basis for determination of the market price, but enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants of Village Singhpura on the premise that the claimants of Village Singhpura on the premise that the claimants of Village Chanalon have been given higher compensation and there was no justification to discriminate between similarly situated claimants. The conclusion recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in relation to issues No. 1 and 2, which were considered by him together, reads as under: "I further find that the sale transactions produced by the petitioners exhibit higher consideration and whereas the sale transactions produced by the respondents are depicting low prices according to the award given by the Land Acquisition Collector. He has relied upon the rates supplied to him by the Financial Commissioner. It is an admitted fact that the land of the petitioners has been acquired for setting up of an Industrial Focal Point at Chanalon. The land of Village Chanalon has also been acquired for the same purpose and this fact is admitted by the respondents. In the case of Chanalon, the Land Acquisition Collector granted compensation at the following rates as the copy of the award Ex.A. 18 shows: Chahi Rs. 2,2,2,560/- per acre Barani Rs. 1,66,920/-per acre Banjar Rs. The land of Village Chanalon has also been acquired for the same purpose and this fact is admitted by the respondents. In the case of Chanalon, the Land Acquisition Collector granted compensation at the following rates as the copy of the award Ex.A. 18 shows: Chahi Rs. 2,2,2,560/- per acre Barani Rs. 1,66,920/-per acre Banjar Rs. 1,11,280/- per acre Gair Mumkin Rs. 55,640/- per acre. It is also an admitted fact that the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector has been upheld by this Court separately and it has been held that the compensation paid to the landowners of Chanalon was fair and adequate compensation. Keeping in view the fact that the lands of both the villages have been acquired for the same purpose, therefore, one set of landowner cannot be treated in preferential manner than others. In the circumstances, I hold that the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation at the same rates as has been allowed to the landowners of Chanolan." 22 In my opinion, the manner in which the learned Additional District Judge dealt with the sale transactions leaves much to be desired. He did not discuss any of the sale transactions with reference to the situation of the land the purpose for which the sale had been effected and their relevance in the context of acquisition made by the State Government. In Anand Sarup v. State of Punjab, 1988 P.L.J. 366, this Court considered the question relating to determination of the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the evidence of sale transaction pertaining to small pieces of land and held as under: ".....No doubt, the above sale transactions being of small pieces of land, comparatively higher consideration would have been paid of 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. 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 to Rs. 1,08,268/-." 23. In Ravinder Narain v. Union of India, (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 262, their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the argument that sale instance of small plots cannot be made basis for fixation of the market value and held as under: "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. 24. In Amarjit. Kaur and Ors. v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and Ors., 2004(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 590 (P&H) a learned Single Judge of this Court following the law laid down in Ravinder Narains case (supra) and Anand Sarup s case (supra) enhanced the compensation payable to the claimants by relying on sale transactions relating to small pieces of land and at the same time applied 1/3rd cut. 25. In Baldev Krishan Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector, Ludhiana, (1999-3)123 P.L.R. 394, a Division Bench of this Court held that where sale transactions relating to small pieces of land are relied upon for determination of the market value, a cut of 25% would be just and proper. 26. By relying on the ratio of the afore-mentioned decisions, I hold that the learned Additional District Judge committed a serious error by determining the market price of the acquired land completely ignoring the sale instances produced by the parties and this has resulted in substantial failure of justice. 27. On issue No. 3, the learned Additional District Judge referred to the evidence of the parties and recorded his conclusion in the following words: "On the consideration of the evidence produced by the parties, I find that no case is made out for enhancement, in this case. 27. On issue No. 3, the learned Additional District Judge referred to the evidence of the parties and recorded his conclusion in the following words: "On the consideration of the evidence produced by the parties, I find that no case is made out for enhancement, in this case. The Land Acquisition Collector, besides awarding the compensation for land also awarded compensation in respect of fruit trees and fuel trees. He also awarded compensation for the superstructure in this connection. I accept the reports of the Government experts who are public servants. They have no ill-will or enmity with the petitioners. In the discharge of their official duty they submitted their reports to which presumption of truth is attached. In the absence of any animus on their part to make false reports, their reports/statements cannot be ignored. The Land Acquisition Collector made the reports on the Government Officers as the basis for granting compensation. The reports submitted by the experts produced by the claimants cannot be accepted as true and correct, because apparently they have a bias in favour of the petitioners to favour them. Their statements cannot be treated as that of independent persons and their reports cannot be given preference over the reports prepared by the official witnesses. All the experts produced by the petitioners admit that they did not call for any official from the Government Department and they did not give any notice before making the inspection. When such are the circumstances, their statements have to be ignored and the plea for enhancement, has to be rejected. To this view I find support from the authority Kalawanti Devi v. Haryana State and Anr., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 471, where it was held to the following effect: The report is an ex parte one and no notice was given to the department when the expert inspected the site and determined the market value of the wells and structure. I may also mention that in respect of wells and structures, appellants in their grounds of appeal have not made any grievance with regard to valuation determined be the Land Acquisition Collector and as affirmed by the Addl. District Judge. In the report Ex.R-7 all the details of the trees which were standing at the spot were taken into consideration and their value was assessed correctly and no interference is called for from this Court. District Judge. In the report Ex.R-7 all the details of the trees which were standing at the spot were taken into consideration and their value was assessed correctly and no interference is called for from this Court. Whatever fruit trees were found at the spot, those were taken into consideration before preparing the reports by the Government experts." 28. In Ranjit Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (supra), a Division Bench of this Court overruled/reversed the two judgments of the Single Benches and laid down the following; proposition: "While evaluating the fruit trees, the price or the cost of land underneath to be taken into consideration. This is obviously for the reason that the price of the land underneath and orchard or plantation of trees is bound to vary from place to place on account of various factors, including the location of the land. It is, therefore, not true that while working out the market value of the orchard or grove land either the price of the land as such (without the fruit trees) and timber value of the trees has to be taken into account or the same has to be determined on the basis of the formula known as Capitalisation. Further, value of fuel or timber is only one of the consideration in determining the market value of the orchard or fruit bearing trees." 29. The Division Bench relied on the published work of S. Harbans Singh, Former Director of Horticulture, Himachal Pradesh under the title "Basic Principles and Methods of evaluation of fruit trees and made the same basis for determination of the market value of the fruit trees. 30. In State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph (supra), the Supreme Court approved the multiplier of 20 for the purpose of fixing the life of fruit bearing trees and refused to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. 31. In State of West Bengal v. Shyamapada and Ors., A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1723, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under: "that it was wholly unjustifiable for the Land Acquisition Officer and the District Judge to grant compensation to the landowners only for the crop standing on the land, since after one crop was taken for 7 to 10 years another crop could be raised after an interval of one to two years. As sale deeds regarding sales of land on which sabai grass was grown were not available, the compensation to be awarded to the landowners should be at 2.0 times the annual income from the land." 32. If the finding and conclusion recorded by the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 3 are critically examined in the light of the judgments referred to here-inabove, there is no escape from the conclusion that the same are legally unsustainable because while fixing the life of fruit bearing tree, lie ignored the formula which was accepted by this Court in Ranjit Singhs case (supra) and also overlooked the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Madras v. Rev. Brother Joseph (supra) and by the learned Singla Judge in Sukhdev Singhs case (supra), 33. In view of the above conclusion, I do not consider it necessary to deal with other issues raised by the parties in these appeals, but give liberty to them to agitate the same before the Reference Court. 34. As a result of the above discussion, the appeals are partly allowed. The impugned awards are set aside with a direction to the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar to pass fresh award(s) after reconsidering the evidence produced by the parties and keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court and this Court in the judgments referred to hereinabove. It is expected that the learned Reference Court would decide the cases afresh within 6 months from the date of receipt of the record. The parties are given liberty to raise all the issues before the learned Additional District Judge afresh, who is expected to pass a reasoned award within the time specified in this judgment. The Registry is directed to remit the records to the Court of Additional District Judge, Ropar.