Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. This Regular First Appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant against the judgment of Shri R.C. Jain, Additional District Judge, Ambala rendered in L.A.C. Case No. 28/4 of 1981 on 8.4.1982. 2. Notification No. 20018 dated 18.11.1976 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 23.11.1976. Thereafter Notification No. 104/D-2 dated 4.1.1978 under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 17.1.78. The land measuring 7 kanals and 16 marlas of the appellant in Village Patti Mehar, Tehsil and District Ambala was sought to be acquired at public expense for a public purpose, namely, for the construction of a new building of the Police Station, City Ambala and Family quarters for Police Staff. The Land Acquisition Collector, PWD (B&R), Ambala Cantt. (hereinafter referred to as "the Collector") assessed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 31/- per sq. yard at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Act vide his award dated 29.11.1979 and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,289.00 as the total price of the acquired land besides compulsory acquisition charges at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 31,943.35/-. He did not award any amount in respect of the structures standing in the area under acquisition, as the land owner had allegedly made a statement before him stating that he would be removing the Malba of the structures at his own cost. The land owner/claimant being not satisfied with the award of the Collector, filed objections under Section 18 of the Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Ambala. It was pleaded that the Collector had failed to take into account the potentiality of the acquired land. He also did not award any compensation for the buildings existing on the spot, even though their market value was not less than Rs. 5.00 lakhs. It was further pleaded that the Collector had also ignored the fact that the claimant had suffered damages on account of acquisition as also the fact that he had entered into an agreement for leasing out the premises to the Food Corporation of India at the rate of 48.00 paise per sq. foot. A claim was also made for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of liquidated damages. A sum of Rs. foot. A claim was also made for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of liquidated damages. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was claimed as expenses for shifting from Ambala to Delhi. The claim put forward was controverted by the State. The learned Additional District Judge framed the following two issues:- "(1) What was the market value of the acquired land at the time of notification U/S 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ? OPP. (2) Relief." 3. On Issue No. 1, after noticing the facts, the learned Additional District Judge records the gist of the evidence given by Madan Lal, Patwari, Land Acquisition Office, PWD (B&R), Ambala Cantt. This witness had been produced by the State. He conceded in so many words in his cross examination that the acquired land is at a distance of about one Kilometre from the Civil Hospital and at a distance of half a Kilometre from the Polytechnic College, Ambala City. It was also quite adjacent to the Police Lines, Ambala City. It has also been noticed that the acquired land is located in Patti Mehar, Ambala City and that there are Police Lines towards the East and North of the acquired area, the Ambala Jagadhri Road towards its South and vacant land towards its North. It has also been noticed that there is a Women Hostel adjacent to the acquired land. The claimant had produced site plan Ex.A-1 sanctioning the repairs to be carried out in the Kothi by the Municipal Committee. He also produced receipt, Ex.P2 issued by the Municipality, Ambala in this behalf. The learned Additional District Judge notices the fact about the agreement, A3 between the Food Corporation of India and the claimant. It is, however, noticed that the original agreement has not been proved on record and therefore, the same deserves to be ignored. His claim for the compensation of superstructures has also been rejected as he had stated before the Collector that he will remove the structures at his own cost. The claim for shifting the residence from Ambala to Delhi has also been rejected as no evidence was placed on record. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the learned additional District Judge, however, notices as follows:- "7. The claim for shifting the residence from Ambala to Delhi has also been rejected as no evidence was placed on record. In paragraph 7 of the judgment, the learned additional District Judge, however, notices as follows:- "7. The fact, however, none-the-less remains that the acquired area having laid in the close proximity of the Police Lines and the Ambala Jagadhri Road at Ambala City, had great potential value for being used as residential purposes at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This is also true that it is in the unrebutted evidence adduced by the claimant that the acquired area lies in Patti Mehar, Ambala City as is the case in respect of the acquired area covered under my own judgment dated 5.12.1981 (Certified copy Ex.A6), but it is a matter of common knowledge that Patti Mehar abounds in an immensely vast area. Otherwise also, the judgment (copy Ex.A6) cannot be said or held to be of much avail to the claimant inasmuch as in the cases covered thereunder, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was 22.5.1978 and, therefore, the market value in respect of the cases of the judgment in question had fallen for assessment as it was about 11/2 years after the date of notification in the present instance. In the absence of the concerned sale-deeds, copies of mutations Exs.RX, RY and RZ are of no consequences." 4. Having given the aforesaid findings with regard to the acquired land lying in Patti Mehar, Ambala City and that the circumstances of similar acquisition, the instance was, however, ignored. Copy of the judgment in the earlier instance was placed on record as Ex.A6. The same had been ignored on the ground that the date of notification in the earlier instance was 22.5.1978 which was 11/2 years after the date of Notification in the present instance. It was observed that in the absence of the concerned sale-deeds, copies of mutations Exs.RX, RY and RZ are of no consequences. After discussing the evidence, it has been held by the learned Additional District Judge that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 40/- per sq. yard at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the compensation was enhanced by Rs. 9/- per sq. yard over and above the compensation already awarded. After discussing the evidence, it has been held by the learned Additional District Judge that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 40/- per sq. yard at the time of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the compensation was enhanced by Rs. 9/- per sq. yard over and above the compensation already awarded. The appellant was also held to be entitled to solatium on he enhanced compensation at the rate of 15%, and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of possession having been taken over till actual payment. 5. In the present Regular First Appeal, the appellant has filed application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for placing on record three judgments of this Court marked as Annexures A-1 to A-3 as also the plan (Annexure A-4). According to the appellant, the judgments (Annexures A1 to A3) pertain to the land which was similarly situated and much higher compensation has been granted. 6. Judgment (Annexure A-1) was rendered by this Court in R.F.A. No. 245 of 1979 on 15.5.1980. This judgment pertains to land acquired from Khasra Nos. 526, 523 and 524 situated in Patti Mehar. The land had been acquired for the extension of the Municipal Park within the town of Ambala City. In that case, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued in February, 1973. The judgment (Annexure A-2) in L.P.A. No. 1340 of 1982 was rendered by this Court on 28.11.1990. Here again the land measuring 79.41 acres in the revenue estate of Village Patti Mehar was acquired by Notification published on 30.1.1973. The land was acquired for the development and utilisation of land as residential and commercial areas in the urban estate at Ambala. The third judgment (Annexure A-3) sought to be relied upon by the appellant is the judgment rendered in R.F.A. No. 985 of 1981 by this Court on 18.5.1982. In this case, by Notification published on 30.5.1978, the State of Haryana acquired 68 Kanals 15 marlas equal to 8.59 acres of land in the revenue estate of Patti Mehar within the municipal limits of Ambala City for the construction of road and an over-bridge on the Railway Lines passing through the town of Ambala City. In these circumstances, compensation has been granted at the rates varying between Rs. In these circumstances, compensation has been granted at the rates varying between Rs. 70/- per square yard and Rs. 100/- per square yard. 7. The State of Haryana has also filed R.F.A. No. 1057 of 1982 against the same judgment. The State of Haryana claims that the grant of Rs. 40 per square yard of compensation is excessive. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. In support of the application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC seeking permission to lead additional evidence, it has been submitted by Mr. Sarin, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant that the judgments (Annexures A-1 to A-3) were not available to be produced before the learned Additional District Judge. The judgment (Annexure A-1) though having been rendered on 15.5.1980 was not in the knowledge of the appellant. Judgments contained in Annexures A-2 and A-3 were rendered subsequent to the judgment given by the learned Additional District Judge, and therefore, could not have been produced before the learned Additional District Judge. Furthermore, the authenticity of the judgments sought to be produced on the record of the present case, has not been disputed by the State of Haryana. No prejudice would be caused to the State of Haryana, if the aforesaid judgments are read into evidence. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned Sr. Counsel relies on a Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Pirbhu Dayal and Ors. v. Prem Dass Chela Kishan Lal and Ors., (1995-2)110 P.L.R. 119. In the aforesaid case, this Court had permitted the production of revenue record pertaining to the land in dispute on the ground that the documents sought to be produced by way of additional evidence are not such documents which could be procured or manipulated. On the other hand, Ms. Monga, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently argued that the application for leading additional evidence does not deserve to be allowed as it would amount to filling in the lacunae as the appellant had failed to produce the relevant evidence before the courts below. 9. Having considered the entire matter, I am of the considered opinion that the application for leading additional evidence needs to be allowed to avoid miscarriage of justice. 9. Having considered the entire matter, I am of the considered opinion that the application for leading additional evidence needs to be allowed to avoid miscarriage of justice. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board, Bangalore and Ors., A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 869 that when different market values are available on different dates for the same locality, it would be reasonable to assess the market value by taking the mean between the different market values. In that view of the matter, the petitioner now seeks to place on record various other judgments rendered by this Court with regard to the land which is similarly situated and is in the same locality. This Court was dealing with acquisition of land in the same revenue estate. In all these cases, the land fell within the municipal limits. It is not disputed that the land in the present proceedings also fell within the municipal limits. 10. In view of the above, the application under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC for placing the documents (Annexures A-1 to A-4) on record by way of additional evidence, is allowed. Judgments Annexures A1 to A3, relating to the acquisition of land in the same revenue estate would be relevant for assessing the market value of the acquired land in the present case. 11. The Supreme Court in the case of Virender Singh and Ors. v. Union of India, 2003(3) Supreme Today 688, has held that the judgments rendered with regard to the acquisition of similar land earlier or later would be relevant. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court referred to conflicting judgments of the High Court and relied upon one of the judgments which dealt with land which was similarly situated. In paragraph 6 of the judgment, the Supreme Court observed as follows:- "6. Taking that judgment as the basis and giving due allowance to the rising prices between 1959 and 1962 and keeping in view the location of the land which according to the High Court, is quite far from the main road intervened by the lands of others, we are of the view that the market value of the land acquired could be reasonably fixed at Rs. 20.00 per Bigha." 12. 20.00 per Bigha." 12. In the present case, the learned Additional District Judge notices the earlier award which ultimately became the subject matter of the judgment which is annexed as Annexure A-3, but ignores the same on the ground that in the acquisition proceedings covered under the aforesaid judgment, Notification under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on 22.5.1978. In the present case, the notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued on 18.11.1976. A perusal of the judgments Annexures A-1 to A-3 indicates that for the similarly situated land, compensation has varied from Rs. 70.00 per sq. yard to Rs. 100 per sq. yard. In R.F.A. No. 245 of 1979 decided on 15.5.1980, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in February, 1973. The acquired land was 11 Kanals and 2 marlas. In that case, this Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 70.00 per sq. yard for the level land and Rs. 50.00 per sq. yard was granted for the land which was in depression. In the judgment, Annexure A-2, again the notification was issued on 30.1.1973 with regard to land in the same revenue estate i.e. Village Patti Mehar within the Municipal limits of Ambala. In this case, an appeal had been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge where the compensation had been enhanced from Rs. 25.00 to Rs. 40.0 per square yard. This was further enhanced by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 28.11.1990 to Rs. 70.00 per sq. yard. In the judgment, Annexure A-3 rendered in RFA No. 985 of 1981, on 30.4.1981, this Court awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs. 100 per sq. yard, excepting the strip described as "C-D" for which the compensation was paid at the rate of Rs. 70.00 per sq. yard. In the aforesaid case, the Notification had been published on 30.5.1978. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Krishna Yachendra Bahadurvaru (supra), Mr. Sarin submits that the Notification in the present case having been issued on 18.11.1976, the appellant was entitled to a higher compensation than Rs. 70.00 per square yard which had been granted in cases where the Notifications had been issued in January and February, 1973. For the land which was acquired by Notification dated 30.5.1978, this Court had grated compensation in the sum of Rs. 70.00 per square yard which had been granted in cases where the Notifications had been issued in January and February, 1973. For the land which was acquired by Notification dated 30.5.1978, this Court had grated compensation in the sum of Rs. 100.00 sq. yard. 13. Adopting the formula as given by the Supreme Court, I am of the considered opinion that it would be reasonable to enhance the compensation to Rs. 90.00 per square yard. I do not find merit in the submission of Mr. Sarin with regard to the non-grant of compensation for the superstructures as the appellant had himself made a statement before the Collector that he would remove structure at his own expenses. I also do not find much substance in the submission of Mr. Sarin that the appellant is entitled to Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of compulsorily shifting from Ambala City to Delhi. 14. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and the appellant is held to be entitled to the enhancement of compensation to Rs. 90.00 per square yard.