Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. Land of the appellants was acquired pursuant to notification dated 14.3.1975 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) for extension of Police Lines, Fardikot. The Collector vide award dated 28.10.1983 determined market value of the land to be Rs. 80,000/- per acre for a part of the land and Rs. 45,000/- per acre for another part of the land. The appellants preferred a reference. The reference Court affirmed the award of the Collector and fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. Other statutory benefits were also allowed. Hence this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that compensation ought to have been enhanced having regard to location of the land and its potential value. He submitted that admittedly, the land was within municipal limits and near the Bungalows of government officers like Deputy Commissioner, Senior Superintendent of Police etc. He submitted that the reference Court erred in rejecting the sale instances which were produced by way of mutations, as summarised in para 9 of the impugned award to the following effect :- MN_724.htm 3. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon judgments of the Delhi High Court in Mani Ram Sharma v. Union of India A.I.R. 1986 Delhi 140 and the Andhra Pradesh High Court in The Sub-Collector and Land Acquisition Officer v. V.N. Mahaboob Saheb and Ors., A.I.R. 1993 Andhra Pradesh 173, in support of his submission that land was to be valued not merely with reference to the use to which it had been put but also with reference to the use to which it was capable of being put. He also relied upon a judgment of this Court in Puran Singh v. State of Haryana (1986-1)89 P.L.R. 453, to submit that judicial notice could be taken of rise in prices of lands. 4. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned award and submitted that the reference Court rightly brushed aside mutations Exhibits Al and A2 as the said instances were of the year 1982 while acquisition in the present case is of March 1975. He also submitted that though, the trial Court has held that Ex.A3 was not relevant being three years prior to acquisition and Exs. A.4 and A.6 were subsequent to the acquisition, even if the same are taken into account, average will work out to Rs. He also submitted that though, the trial Court has held that Ex.A3 was not relevant being three years prior to acquisition and Exs. A.4 and A.6 were subsequent to the acquisition, even if the same are taken into account, average will work out to Rs. l, 14,000/- and if l/3rd cut is applied, the price will work out to Rs. 72,000/- per acre. 5. Learned counsel for the State distinguished the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants by submitting that in the present case, the potential value has been taken into account and the instances relied upon by the appellants are for the purposes of residential use and not for agricultural use. He submitted that lands covered by the instances are small pieces of land which could not be for agricultural purposes. He submitted that taking into account potential for residential purpose also, enhancement of compensation was not justified. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 7. There is no dispute with the proposition that market value is to be determined not merely with reference to the actual use of the land but also with reference to any use to which the land is capable of being put: If agricultural land is acquired and the land is capable of being used for residential or commercial purpose, evidence of sale of land for residential or commercial purpose may also be relevant. Contention that land had potential for residential development by itself is not conclusive for determination of market value. Significance of this contention is to make relevant evidence of land for residential purpose for determining value of agricultural land. But for such a potentiality, sale of land for residential purpose will be irrelevant where market value of agricultural land is to be determined. It is well-settled that comparable instances of sale are relevant for determining market value. Applying this principle, what is relevant is to see the evidence on record. Instances relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants appear to be of sales for residential/non-agricultural purposes. It is equally settled that smallness of size of a sale instance will require an allowance to be made for determining value of a larger piece of land apart from considering other relevant factors. Instances relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants appear to be of sales for residential/non-agricultural purposes. It is equally settled that smallness of size of a sale instance will require an allowance to be made for determining value of a larger piece of land apart from considering other relevant factors. Thus, taking into account the instances relied upon, market value of the land works out to be around Rs. 80,000/- per acre which has already been awarded to the appellants. No ground is made out for allowing any further enhancement. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.