Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of seven Letters Patent Appeals as all the appeals have been directed against the common judgment dated November 4, 1993 passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Vide a notification dated May 2, 1980 issued under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 336 Bighas 9/8 Biswas situated in village Bara, Tehsil Sirhind, was acquired for establishment of New Mandi Township at Sirhind. Vide his award dated August 27, 1984, Land Acquisition Collector categorised the land into three blocks, A, B and C. For the land failing in Block A Rs. 1,10,000/- per acre was assessed as the market value, the land falling in block B was evaluated at Rs. 90,000/- per acre; and the land falling in block C was assessed at the rate of Rs. 70,000/-. The claimant-landowners remain dissatisfied. They claimed reference under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was accordingly referred. 3. During the course of reference proceedings, the parties led their evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the learned District Judge assessed the market value of the acquired land at a flat rate of Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. The claimants still remained dissatisfied and approached this Court through various first appeals. 4. Learned Single Judge re-examined the evidence on record. Reliance was primarily placed upon three sale deeds Ex.A3, Ex.A5 and Ex.A14. The average price of all the three sale transactions was taken to be Rs. 2,52,800/- per acre. A cut of 1/3rd was applied on the aforesaid sale price and, accordingly, the market value of the acquired land was assessed at Rs. 1,68,600/- per acre. The claimants were also held entitled to the grant of statutory benefits as per amended provisions of the Act. 5. The claimants have now approached this Court claiming further enhancement on the ground that the learned Single Judge was not justified in applying a cut of 1/3rd on the aforesaid sale instances. 6. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and have also heard Shri A.S. Grewal, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab. 7. Shri A.S. Grewal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the compensation assessed by the learned Single Judge was wholly appropriate and adequate and no further enhancement was required. 6. We have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge and have also heard Shri A.S. Grewal, the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab. 7. Shri A.S. Grewal, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab has argued that the compensation assessed by the learned Single Judge was wholly appropriate and adequate and no further enhancement was required. It has further been argued by Shri Grewal that since the sale instances relied upon by the claimant-landowners related to small plots, therefore, it was imperative for the purpose of assessment to impose a substantial cut to determine the market value of the acquired land. In support of the aforesaid argument, learned Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector Varanasi,. 8. Having given thoughtful consideration to the claim made by the appellants as well as the arguments of the learned Counsel for the respondents, we find that the grievance made by the claimants with regard to 1/3rd cut imposed by the leaned Single Judge was wholly justified. 9. At the outset we may notice certain observations made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the potentiality of the acquired land as follows: Before adverting to the sale deeds, it is necessary to take into consideration the potentialities of the acquired land. In fact, the potentialities of the land were not disputed during the course of arguments. It was not disputed at the bar even by the State counsel that the entire acquired land was situated within the municipal limits of Sirhind town as is shown in the site plan Ex.AW-6/1. The State Counsel was not in a position to deny the correctness of the aforementioned site plan according to which G.T. Road is situated on one side of the acquired land and on the other side of the acquired land, by-pass road connecting Sirhind town with the G.T. Road was situated. In fact, it is evident from the site plan that the by-pass connects G.T. Road with Sirhind town. Even on G.T. Road there were certain shops, workshops and petrol pumps near the acquired land. As has been rightly observed by the District Judge, the inhabited area of Sirhind town was also not at a much distance from the acquired land. In fact, it is evident from the site plan that the by-pass connects G.T. Road with Sirhind town. Even on G.T. Road there were certain shops, workshops and petrol pumps near the acquired land. As has been rightly observed by the District Judge, the inhabited area of Sirhind town was also not at a much distance from the acquired land. From the site plan, it is clear that the municipal limits extended beyond the acquired land towards Rajpura side. In the light of high potentiality of the acquired land, this Court is to see as to which sale deeds should be relied upon. 10. From the perusal of the aforesaid observations, it is apparent that the acquired land was situated within the municipal limits of Sirhind town. According to the plan, G.T. Road is situated on one side of the acquired land whereas bypass road connecting Sirhind Town with the G.T. Road was situated on the other side. Even on G.T. Road there were many shops, workshops and petrol-pumps near the acquired land. Even the inhabited area of Sirhind town was at a short distance from the acquired land. Accordingly, it has also been held by the learned Single Judge that the acquired land had a high potentiality for urban development and the assessment was required to be made on that basis. 11. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge further shows that the claimants had placed reliance upon various sales instances such as Ex.A3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5, Ex.A6, Ex.A10, Ex.A14 and Ex.A19. The learned Single Judge ruled, sale instances Ex.A4, Ex.A6, Ex.A10 and Ex.A19, out of consideration on the ground that the aforesaid sale deeds pertained to sale of very small pieces of land. However, reliance was placed upon three sale instances Ex.A3, Ex.A5 and Ex.A14. At this stage, it may be noticed that all the sale instances relied upon by the claimants pertained to sale transactions of land which was out of the acquired land. Ex.A3 and Ex.A5 pertained to sale of one Bigha of land whereas Ex.A14 pertained to 10 Biswas of land. The average sale price of the three sale transactions was taken to be Rs. 2,52,800/-. However, after determining the aforesaid average sale price, the learned Single Judge chose to apply a cut of 1/3rd to determine the market value of the acquired land. The average sale price of the three sale transactions was taken to be Rs. 2,52,800/-. However, after determining the aforesaid average sale price, the learned Single Judge chose to apply a cut of 1/3rd to determine the market value of the acquired land. The grievance of the claimant-appellants is with regard to the aforesaid cut. It has been maintained by the appellants that since the acquired land was already situated within municipal limits and since there was development all around and the said sale instances pertained to sale of land out of the acquired land itself, therefore, there was no justification to apply any cut. It has further been maintained by the appellants that since the acquired land was situated within the municipal limits, there could be no sale instance with regard to bigger chunk of land within the municipal area. Accordingly, the claimants have prayed that they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre. 12. There is no quarrel with the proposition, as has been laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collectors case (supra), that where the sale instance relied upon by the claimants comprised of small plot of land, then a cut has to be applied while evaluating a large tract of land. However, in one considered view, the aforesaid proposition of law would not be attracted to the present case. As has been noticed by the learned reference Court as well as by the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the acquired land was situated within the municipal limits. G.T. Road was situated on one side of the acquired land whereas on the other side of the acquired land a by-pass road connecting Sirhind town with the G.T. Road was situated. There were certain shops, workshops, and petrol-pumps near the acquired land. In this view of the matter, certain observations made by the Hon ble Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna and Ors. v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, 1992 L.A.C.C. 314 may be noticed": The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which shall plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, 1992 L.A.C.C. 314 may be noticed": The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which shall plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. With regard to the nature of the plots involve in these two cases, it has been satisfactorily shown on the evidence on record that the land has facilities of road and other amenities and is adjacent to a developed colony and in such circumstances it is possible to utilise the entire area in question as house sites. In respect of the land acquired for the road, the same advantages are available and it did not require any further development. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has erred in applying the principle of deduction and reducing the fair market value of land from Rs. 10/- per sq. yard to Rs. 6.50 per sq. yard. In our opinion, no such deduction is justified in the facts and circumstances of these cases. 13. Following the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, a Division Bench of Madras High Court in Special Tehsildar (Adi Dravidar Welfare) v. Abdul Reguman, 1996 L.A.C.C. 394 held as follows: In our view the observation made by the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the case in hand. Admittedly, the land in question is already in a developed area and situated in an advantageous position and quite suitable for building purpose. It is also proved in evidence that the land in question has all the amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified in deducting 20% from the market value. We, therefore, set aside that part of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, fixing the market value at Rs. 1325/- Less 20%. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge is not justified in deducting 20% from the market value. We, therefore, set aside that part of the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, fixing the market value at Rs. 1325/- Less 20%. The cross objection is, therefore, allowed and the order of the Subordinate Judge is modified to this extent. 14. It has been noticed by the learned Single Judge himself that all the sale instances relied upon pertained to the sale of land which was out of the acquired land. However, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on May 3, 1980 whereas all the three sale instances relied upon by the learned Single Judge are prior in time to the said notification. Since the said sale instances pertained to sale of land in municipal area itself, therefore, it could not be accepted that there would be any sale instance with regard to bigger chunk of land. The learned Single Judge in our considered view was not justified in applying any cut on the average price of the aforesaid sale instances. The proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samannas case (supra) and by the Madras High Court in Abdul Regumans case (supra) is fully attracted. 15. Consequently, the present appeals are allowed and it is held that the claimant-landowners would be entitled to the market value of Rs. 2,50,000/- per acre as compensation for their acquired land. Besides the aforesaid compensation, the appellant-claimants shall be entitled to grant of statutory benefits as per the amended provisions of the Act.