JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. - This order shall dispose of a bunch of Letters Patent Appeals. All the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common judgment dated September 9, 1994 rendered by the learned Single Judge. A set of appeals has been filed by the claimant landowners claiming enhancement of compensation for the acquired land. Another set of appeals has been filed by the National Fertilizers Limited, a Company for which the land in question was acquired. The Company has claimed reduction of compensation as awarded by the learned District Judge, Vide a notification dated January 24, 1983 issued under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") the land measuring 29.68 acres situated in village Bathinda was acquired for a public purpose, at public expense, namely, for setting up of National Fertilizers Limited Colony by the Company-National Fertilizer Limited, Bathinda. The Land Acquisition Collector vide his award dated March 19, 1986 categorised the acquired land in three categories and assessed the market value of the acquired land at different rates. For the Nehri land Rs. 57,800/- per acre was assessed as the market value; for the Barani land, Rs. 24,150/- per acre was assessed as the market value and similarly the Gair Mumkin land was also assessed at the rate of Rs. 24,1501- per acre. The claimant- landowners felt dissatisfied with the award. They claimed reference under section 18 of the Act. The matter was duly referred. 2. Before the reference Court, the parties led their evidence. The learned Additional District Judge, after taking into consideration the aforesaid material, assessed the market value of the acquired land at a uniform rate of Rs. 32.50 per sq. yard. 3. The claimants were still dissatisfied. They approached this Court through various regular first appeals claiming further enhancement. The State of Punjab also filed appeals claiming the reduction in the amount of compensation awarded by the reference Court. All the appeals were taken for consideration jointly by the learned Single Judge. Vide the judgment under challenge, the learned Single Judge upheld the compensation awarded by the reference court and dismissed all the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the State of Punjab. The claimants have, accordingly, fled the present set of Letters Patent Appeals. National Fertilizer Limited, the Company, has also filed another set of Letters Patent Appeals. 4. Vide the judgment under challenge, the learned Single Judge upheld the compensation awarded by the reference court and dismissed all the appeals filed by the claimants as well as the State of Punjab. The claimants have, accordingly, fled the present set of Letters Patent Appeals. National Fertilizer Limited, the Company, has also filed another set of Letters Patent Appeals. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the record of the case. 5. It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the land in question was situated within the Municipal Limits of Bathinda since 1977 and was surrounded on all sides by residential colonies. It has further been argued that the acquired land was situated on National Highway leading from Bhatinda to Ferozepur. The learned counsel have placed reliance upon the award E.A3 vide which the acquired land in the aforesaid case was assessed at the rate of Rs. 450/- per sq. yard. The aforesaid award was upheld by this court through the judgment Ex.A14 in RFA No. 1145 of 1987 and the compensation of Rs. 450/- per sq. yard was upheld. On that basis the learned counsel claimed that the claimant-landowners in the present appeals were also entitled to a similar compensation. Additionally, a reliance has also been placed upon another award Ex.A 15 rendered by this court in RFA No. 906 of 1988 decided on November 8, 1989. In the aforesaid award the acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 176/- per sq. yard. Additionally, reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel on the sale deeds Ex.A.16 and Ex.A.17, to claim that the compensation awarded by the learned reference court as upheld by the learned Single Judge, was wholly inadequate. Our pointed attention has also been drawn to the site plan and Aks Lattha to show the location of the acquired land vis-a-vis, the land covered under the aforesaid awards and the sale deeds and also to show the location of various residential colonies, offices and other areas around the acquired land. 6. In contrast, the learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the Land Acquisition Collector had itself taken into consideration the relevant facts and had assessed the compensation of the market value on that basis. 6. In contrast, the learned counsel for the respondents have argued that the Land Acquisition Collector had itself taken into consideration the relevant facts and had assessed the compensation of the market value on that basis. Accordingly, it has been argued that the enhancement of compensation by the reference coma itself was erroneous and much on the higher side and as a matter of fact the same was liable to be reduced. 7. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also taken into consideration the evidence relied upon by them. 8. AW1, Roshan Lal Patwari, Halqa Bathinda Patti Jhutti had prepared the Aks Lattha Ex. A1. In his statement he has admitted the land in question was acquired for the expansion of colony of National Fertilizer Limited, Bathinda, It has further been admitted by him that the acquired land was situated on National Highway leading from Bathinda to Ferozepur and was situated within the Municipal limits of Bhatinda. "The statement of said witness further shows that the land in question was surrounded by main residential colonies, such as, N.F.L. Colony, Sucha Singh Colony, Amar Singh Colony, Kheta Singh Colony, Mandir Colony etc. Besides that there were many other industrial concerns also near the acquired land. It has been further admitted by the aforesaid witness that the habitation of Bathinda town was expanding towards the land in question. The said witness has been candid enough to admit that the Bhatinda town had developed very rapidly after the setting up of thermal plant. The said witness has also given the distance between the acquired land and the Railway Station as about four kms. It has also been stated by the said witness that on the southern side of the acquired land there existed I.T.I., Milk Plant, Punjab Spinning and Weaving Mills, Engineering College etc. It has also been admitted by the said witness that the distance between the acquired land and the Thermal Plant is about 1-1/2 kms by road. AW2 Partar Singh, Sarpanch, AW3 Sukhwinder Singh, Patwari, Halqa Sibian, AW4 Kuldip Kumar, Building Clerk, Municipal Committee, Bathinda, AW5 Sohan Lal, Draftman, AW6 Natha Singh, Lambardar, have also made statements to the effect that the acquired land had great urban potentiality. AW2 Partar Singh, Sarpanch, AW3 Sukhwinder Singh, Patwari, Halqa Sibian, AW4 Kuldip Kumar, Building Clerk, Municipal Committee, Bathinda, AW5 Sohan Lal, Draftman, AW6 Natha Singh, Lambardar, have also made statements to the effect that the acquired land had great urban potentiality. All the aforesaid witnesses have deposed about the existence of various industrial units and residential colonies around the acquired land and that the acquired land was situated within the Municipal Limits since 1977. The aforesaid witness have also deposed about the high value of the acquired land which was estimated to be between Rs. 500/- to Rs. 600/- per sq. yard. 9. The State of Punjab produced RW 1 Basant Singh, Patwari who proved the Aks Shajra Ex. R1 and various sale deeds Ex.R2 to Ex. R11. Even the aforesaid witness admitted that the acquired land was situated within the Municipal limits of Bhatinda and further that the land opposite the acquired land had earlier been acquired for the installation of NFL Plant. RW2 Hanninder Singh, Assistant Foreman (Civil), RW3 B.K.Sharma, Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) also proved various sale instances and location of the acquired land vis-a-vis the other colonies etc. 10. The learned Additional District Judge had placed reliance upon two documents Ex.AX and Ex.AY. Then foresaid documents, although were merely sale agreements have been taken into consideration taking them to be sale deeds. The reliance was also placed upon an earlier award given by the High Court in the case of Sadhu Singh v. Union of India and others, 1990(2) C.L.J. (Civil) 84, wherein the market value of the said acquired land was assessed at the rate of Rs. 17/- per sq. yard. In Sadhu Singhs case (supra) the land was acquired for the purpose of expansion of Military Cantonment vide notification dated October 29, 1976. After giving the necessary increase of 12% in view of the time gap between the two notifications, the market value of the present acquired land was determined at an average of the sale consideration as reflected in Ex.AX and Ex.AY and the land acquired for Military Cantonment in Sadhu Rams case. 11. The aforesaid documents Ex.AX and Ex.AY were not the sale deeds, as described by the learned reference court, but were merely sale agreements and, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration, as no details with regard to date of execution were proved by the claimants. 11. The aforesaid documents Ex.AX and Ex.AY were not the sale deeds, as described by the learned reference court, but were merely sale agreements and, therefore, could not have been taken into consideration, as no details with regard to date of execution were proved by the claimants. Inspire of the aforesaid fact the learned Single Judge upheld the valuation assessed by the reference court by placing reliance upon the award in Sadhu Singhs case (supra). The other evidence i.e. Ex. A.13, Ex. A.14 and Ex. A.15 and also the two sale deeds Ex.A 16 and Ex. A17 were not taken into consideration. Vide the aforesaid Ex. A.13, some land was acquired for the construction of 100 ft. wide sector road from the Power House road to the Bhagu road. The learned reference court as well as the learned Single Judge, ruled out the said award on the ground that it was a small piece of 1 bigha 16 biswas of land which had been acquired for the purpose of construction of road and, therefore, the same did not reflect the market value of the acquired land in the present case. Similarly, it has been noticed by the learned reference court, as well as by the learned Single Judge, that Ex.A14 also pertains to execution of land for construction of over bridge. Similar reasoning was adopted to reject the aforesaid document as well. 12. With regard to Ex.A.15 (Karam Singhs case), the learned Single Judge held that the land in the aforesaid case was acquired on August 30, 1983 whereas in the present case the same was acquired on January 24, 1983. It was also observed that the land acquired in Karam Singhs case was for municipal park which is situated beyond Sirhind canal and at a great distance. Thus, ruling out the aforesaid award Ex. A.15, the learned Single Judge preferred the assessment made in Sadhu Singhs case (supra). In Sadhu Singhs case, the land had been acquired through a notification dated October 29, 1976 for the purpose of expansion of Military Cantonment. 13. We have taken into consideration the site plan produced by the claimant landowners. From the aforesaid site plan, we find that the area of Military Cantonment was far away from the locality of city of Bhatinda and as such had much theater distance from the acquired land than the land covered in Karam Singhs case. 13. We have taken into consideration the site plan produced by the claimant landowners. From the aforesaid site plan, we find that the area of Military Cantonment was far away from the locality of city of Bhatinda and as such had much theater distance from the acquired land than the land covered in Karam Singhs case. which had been acquired for municipal park. Further the land for the purpose of military cantonment in Sadhu Singhs case had been acquired in the year 1976 i.e. much earlier than the inclusion of the present acquired land in municipal limits which was done in the year 1977 and even much earlier to the setting up of the various colonies in the municipal limits of Bhatinda around the present acquired land. In our considered view, the land in Sadhu Singhs case acquired for the purpose of expansion of Military cantonment could not be preferred over the award in Karam Singhs case wherein the land had been acquired for municipal park through a notification dated August 30, 1983. Even otherwise from the perusal of the site plan we find that the location of the municipal park is much nearer to the acquired land than the location of the Military Cantonment. 14. We have also perused the award Ex.A15, rendered by this Court in RFA No. 906 of 1988 decided on November 8, 1989 (Karam Singh v State of Punjab). In the aforesaid award, section 4 notification was issued on August 30, 1983. A land was acquired for the setting up of a municipal park. The learned Single Judge of this Court took into consideration various sale deeds executed in the year 1973. The aforesaid sale instances reflected the sale prices ranging from Rs. 62.50 per sq. yard to Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. The average rate of the aforesaid sale transaction was taken at Rs. 80/- per sq. yard. It was further taken into consideration that the aforesaid sale transactions had taken place more than 10 years prior to the said acquisition in question and taking into consideration the time gap between the said sale transaction and the date of notification, the market value of the acquired land in the aforesaid case was assessed at the rate of Rs. 176/- per sq. yard. 15. 176/- per sq. yard. 15. As noticed above, we find that the aforesaid assessment in Karam Singhs case is much more comparable and relevant for making assessment of the market value for the present acquired land as well. Although we find that the aforesaid municipal park was located at some distance from the present acquired land, and also that a period of nearly 7 months had elapsed between the present notification, which was issued on January 24, 1983 and the notification issued in Karam Singhs case, which was issued on August 30, 1983, we find that for that reason alone, the said assessment cannot be ruled out of consideration. Further, it would be most just and appropriate to apply a reasonable cut for making assessment of the market value for the present acquired land. Having taking into consideration the location of the present acquired land its potentiality, we find that Rs. 120/- per sq. yard would be a just and reasonable market value for the present acquired land. In view of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement and the reasoning given in the award Ex.P 15, we do not wish to take into consideration the other evidence produced by the claimants on record. 16. Since we have already held that Rs. 120/- per sq. yard is the just and reasonable market value of the present acquired land, therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the company i.e. National Fertilizer Limited for reduction of the compensation. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeals filed by the claimant- landowners are allowed and it is held that the claimant-landlowners shall be entitled to the market value of Rs. 120/- per sq. yard for the acquired land. The claimant-landowners would also be entitled to other statutory benefits as admissible to them in law as per the amended provisions of the Act. Consequently, the appeals filed by the National Fertilizer Limited are dismissed. Both the parties shall bear their own costs. Order accordingly.