1. The appellants herein impugn judgment/decree passed by Pr. District Judge, Pulwama on 26.6.2003 on a reference under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act where under he raised per kanal compensation from Rs. 1.75 lacs to Rs. 2.00 lacs with 15% solatium and 6% interest per annum from date of award till final payment. 2. Main ground projected against impugned order is that during reference proceedings appellants had led evidence to show that lands adjacent to acquired land had been sold at around Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal at relevant point of time which was over looked by learned Judge below ignoring the facts and law attracted in this case. During course of submissions while appellants counsel has quoted from certain portions of evidence led in the matter and the impugned judgment to canvass his claim for enhancement in the compensation as fixed by learned District Judge in reference, learned Government counsel has contended that in given circumstances of the case the compensation fixed by learned District Judge was in keeping with market value of the acquired land. 3. I have heard learned counsel and considered the matter. It appears that Collector Land Acquisition, Pulwama acquired two kanals of land under survey No. 537/min in village Gangoo from applicants for construction of Fisheries Development Complex and awarded compensation @ Rs. 1.75 lacs per kanal plus 15% Solatium which as per his award had been fixed in keeping with the rates paid for adjacent land acquired by Agricultural Department. Feeling aggrieved of the award appellants challenged it and sought a reference to District Jude where they claimed enhancement to the tune of Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal. The respondent/department did not express any grievance against Collectors award for that matter the District Judges order on reference. It appears that after framing an issue as to whether compensation assessed by Collector reflected the market value prevalent in concerned locality, learned District Judge asked appellants/claimants to adduce evidence who produced as many as five witnesses besides supporting their own case. They also produced deeds to witness sale of land in the area under reference at Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal which has not been rebutted by any evidence whatever by official side. In addition thereto the land under reference admittedly acquired in 2000 is almost contaguous to the main township of Pulwama, the District Headquarter just at the main road site. 4.50 lacs per kanal which has not been rebutted by any evidence whatever by official side. In addition thereto the land under reference admittedly acquired in 2000 is almost contaguous to the main township of Pulwama, the District Headquarter just at the main road site. This too has not been denied by any side, that the future potential of land under reference should have been assumed at the time of its acquisition because of its vicinity to the District Headquarter. 4. In over all consideration of the attending factual scenario, two circumstances appear to be undisputed: first that the aforesaid land being in close vicinity of District Headquarter and located at road side had tremendous developmental potential which could certainly raise its market rate in near future, and secondly that while making his initial report regarding market value of the land. Concerned Tehsildar fixed it at Rs. 2.50 lacs which appears to have been reduced by concerned Collector to Rs. 1.75 lacs without however giving any plausible reasons for the same. These two factors taken together should ordinarily have weighed with learned District Judge while determining the quantum of compensation payable to appellant/claimant. 5. In so far as the sale of land in area under reference at Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal as reflected by certain depositions on record, is concerned it does not appear to be applicable to instant case because the relevant sale deeds show that small areas of ten marlas and three marl as of land have been sold thereunder which cannot be taken to be the yard stick for determination of compensation for larger chunks of acquired land, 32 kanals in the instant case out of which two kanals under reference belong to appellant/claimant; reason being that small patches of land are usually purchased by people requiring them most are always prepared to give a higher price for the same for their own reasons. In that much thus the learned trial Judge appears to have been right in ignoring the sale deeds furnished by appellant/claimant. 5. In over all circumstances of the matter as catalogued above, therefore, compensation of Rs. In that much thus the learned trial Judge appears to have been right in ignoring the sale deeds furnished by appellant/claimant. 5. In over all circumstances of the matter as catalogued above, therefore, compensation of Rs. 2.50 lacs per kanal for the acquired land under reference appears to be just and proper to which incidentally the appellants counsel also agrees, in view whereof compensation at that rate is directed to be paid to the appellant/claimant alongwith solatium and interest at the statutory rates. To that extent the impugned judgment/decree of learned Pr. District Judge, Pulwama stands modified and appeal stands accordingly disposed, of. Subordinate file be sent down alongwith with a copy of this order. Registry to follow up.