JUDGMENT Rakesh Kumar Jain J. (Oral):-This judgment shall dispose of 21 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 1205, 1219, 1221, 1222, 1667, 1206, 1204 of 1995 pertaining to village Koli Majra, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala, both filed by the landowners as well as beneficiary M/s Alpha Drugs India Limited and Regular First Appeals bearing Nos.1207 to 1213, 1218, 1220, 1243, 1666, 2139 of 1995 and 538 & 539 of 1996 pertaining to village Somal Heri Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala both filed by the landowners as well as the beneficiaries M/s Alpha Drugs India Limited, as identical questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. 2. The facts, however, are being taken from RFA No.1204 of 1995 titled as “M/s Alpha Drugs India Limited Vs. Ram Singh and others”. 3. In pursuance of the Punjab Government Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 13.9.1988 published in an extraordinary Gazette dated 14.9.1988, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 24.11.1988, land measuring 53 bighas 17 biswas situated in village Koli Majra, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala was acquired, at public expense, for the public purpose, namely, for setting up of a Phenyl Glycine and TMBA Project at Derabassi, District Patiala. 4. The Land Acquisition Collector, Industries Department, Punjab vide his award No.2 for the year 1989-90 dated 4.4.1989 classified the acquired land measuring 53 bigha 17 biswas into two categories, namely, Rosli 52 bighas 7 biswas and Gair Mumkin Naddi 1 Bigha and 10 biswas and awarded compensation @ Rs.45000/- per acre each for Rosli and Gair Mumkin land. 5. Similarly in pursuance of Punjab Government Notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on dated 13.9.1988, published in the extraordinary Gazette dated 14.9.1988, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 24. 11.1988, land measuring 41 bighas 08 biswas situated in village Somal Heri, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala was acquired at public expense, for the purpose, namely, for setting up of Phenyl Glycine and TMBA Project at Derabassi, District Patiala. 6. The Land Acquisition Collector, Industry Department, Punjab vide his award No.1 for the year 1989-90 dated 4.4.1989 found the entire acquired land of the kind of Rosli and awarded compensation @ Rs.45000/- per acre. 7. 6. The Land Acquisition Collector, Industry Department, Punjab vide his award No.1 for the year 1989-90 dated 4.4.1989 found the entire acquired land of the kind of Rosli and awarded compensation @ Rs.45000/- per acre. 7. The landowners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector; therefore, objections under Section 18 were filed by them which were referred by the Collector to the reference Court for adjudication. 8. M/s Alpha Drugs India Limited filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 3.9.1992 and was impleaded as respondent No.2 on 8.5.1993. Both the parties led their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. The landowners/claimants examined Tej Pal Singh as AW1, Subkaran Patwari Halqa Lalru as AW2 and closed their evidence. 9. On the other hand, State of Punjab examined Basant Singh Patwari as RW1, Anil Bhola as RW2 and tendered into evidence copy of the judgment Ex.RX before closing their evidence. Mr. Basant Singh Patwari who appeared as RW 1 proved the following sale deeds tabulated as under: Ex. Sale Deed No. Name of Vendee Khasra Area &Dt. vendor R2 1723/5.1.88 Hakam Nasib 767/3-14 3-14 Singh Singh R3 533/2.6.88 Karam Dalpreet 1320 - 1332, 1334, 17.16 Singh Singh Co1.345, 1333/71-4 Ka 1/4 R4 534/2.6.88 Molar Dilpreet 1330 - 1345, 71- 17.16 Singh Singh 4Ka, 1/4 R5 535/2.6.88 Makhan Dilpreet 1330 - 1345, 71- 17.16 Devi Singh 4Ka, 1/4 R6 599/7.6.88 Kadam Jagjit 1330 - 1345, 71- 17.16 Singh Singh 4Ka, 1/4 R8 787/13.6.88 Ram Singh Alion 1367, 1369, 1371, 15-11 Camp. 1373 1375,47 to 50 1411 = 29-6 Ka 1/2, Ka 1/3 = 0-13 R9 1142/30.8.88 Sarup Mehal 1260/3-8 3-8 Singh Singh R10 Copy of judgment. Sale Price Price per acre Ex.R-2 Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.12,972.97 paise. Ex.R-3 Rs.49,000/- Rs.13,835.29 paise. Ex.R-4 Rs. 49,000/- Rs.13,835.29 paise. Ex.R-5 Rs. 49,000/- Rs.13,835.29 paise. Ex.R-6 Rs. 49,000/- Rs.13,835.29 paise. Ex.R-8 Rs. 48,000/- Rs.14,816.72 paise. Ex.R-9 Rs.15,000/ - Rs.21,176.47 paise. 10. Besides the sale deeds produced by the respondents, the claimants have also produced on record sale deed Ex.A1 dated 26.5.1988 executed by Ram Singh in favour of Mehar Singh in respect of an area measuring 11 min/1 bigha 0 biswa for a sum of Rs.25000/-. 11. 49,000/- Rs.13,835.29 paise. Ex.R-8 Rs. 48,000/- Rs.14,816.72 paise. Ex.R-9 Rs.15,000/ - Rs.21,176.47 paise. 10. Besides the sale deeds produced by the respondents, the claimants have also produced on record sale deed Ex.A1 dated 26.5.1988 executed by Ram Singh in favour of Mehar Singh in respect of an area measuring 11 min/1 bigha 0 biswa for a sum of Rs.25000/-. 11. After taking in to consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, the reference Court vide its award dated 23.12.1994 assessed compensation @ Rs.57,410/- per acre on the ground that sale deed Ex.A1 and sale deed Ex.R8 are both executed by same person Ram Singh (claimant) which is in close proximity to the date of acquisition. In order to arrive at the value of the acquired land, the reference court took the average of the two sale deeds Exs.A1 and R8 and determined the compensation. 12. Sh. B.R. Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the claimants/appellants has vehemently contended that the learned reference Court has committed an error of law in adopting the procedure of averaging of the sale deed, instead of taking up the sale deed fetching the maximum sale price, for the purpose of determination of compensation. The learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Printers House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mst. Saiyadan (deceased) by LRs and others” AIR 1994 SC 1160. 13. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the beneficiary, namely, M/s Alpha Drugs India Limited either to oppose the appeals filed by the landowners or to pursue their own appeals. 14. Ms.Reeta Kohli, Addl.A.G. Punjab, appearing on behalf of the State has also submitted that the procedure of averaging of the sale deeds adopted by the reference Court is just and proper in view of the fact that both the sale deeds Exs.A1 and R8 have been executed by one and the same person and were having the same features pertaining to the acquired land. It is also contended by the counsel for the State that sale deed Ex.A1 dated 26.5.1988 and sale deed Ex.R8 dated 13.6.1988 are in close proximity to the date of acquisition and are also from the same village, namely, Koli Majra. It is also contended by the counsel for the State that sale deed Ex.A1 dated 26.5.1988 and sale deed Ex.R8 dated 13.6.1988 are in close proximity to the date of acquisition and are also from the same village, namely, Koli Majra. It was thus submitted that the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 16. It is an admitted fact that the agricultural land of village Koli Majra and village Somal Heri has been acquired vide notification dated 13.9.1988. It is also an admitted fact that sale deeds Ex.A1 and Ex.R8 are nearest to the date of acquisition and are prior thereto. It is also an admitted fact that in both the sale deeds land in bighas has been sold by none else than the claimant Ram Singh. Then the question is what should be the price basis for determining the compensation, “whether it should be the highest sale deed as claimed by the counsel for the appellant/landowner or it should be by way of averaging as determined by the reference court and supported by the counsel for the respondent”. 17. The guiding factor in this regard is the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Printers House Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In this case, land of three claimants were acquired having different features. The High Court by taking an average of the different land of three claimants determined the compensation which led to the filing of the appeal before the Supreme Court. The questions raised before the Supreme Court were as to whether i) the High Court applied correct principle of valuation of land, in proceeding to determine the market-value of separate plots of acquired lands of the three claimants with differing features at an uniform rate per unit measure? ii) The High Court applied the correct principle of valuation of land in determining the market value of the acquired plots of land by fixing their unit rate by averaging the market value fetched for different lands under sale deeds and previous awards? 18. ii) The High Court applied the correct principle of valuation of land in determining the market value of the acquired plots of land by fixing their unit rate by averaging the market value fetched for different lands under sale deeds and previous awards? 18. The Supreme Court has held that if it is found that the land covered by the sale or award is identical with the acquired land under consideration, the land under the sale or the market value determined for the land in the award could be taken by the Court as the price basis for determining the market value of the acquired land under consideration. But if there are more comparable sales or awards of the same type then no difficulty would arise as the price basis to be got from them would be common. But the difficulty arises when the comparable sales or awards are not of the same kind and each of them furnishes a different price due to special features. It was held by the Supreme Court that the difficulty cannot be overcome by averaging the price fetched by all the comparable sales or awards for getting the price basis on which the market value of the acquired land could be determined. The reason given was that the price basis may vary largely depending even on comparable sales or awards. Moreover, price basis got by averaging comparable sales or awards which are not of the same kind cannot be a correct reflection of the price which the willing seller would have got from the willing buyer, if the acquired land had been sold in the market. The instance was given in the said case of M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. (supra), there were three claimants. The plots of their acquired land which were five in numbers, were not similar because their location, size, shape etc. greatly varied. Thus, it was held that when there are several comparable sales- or awards pertaining to different lands, what is required by the Court is to choose that sale or award relating to the land, which closely or nearly compares to the plot of land the market value of which has to determined, and to take the price of land of such sale or award as the basis for determining the market value of the land under consideration. 19. 19. In the present case, the land under acquisition is agricultural. Out of 53 bighas 17 biswas of acquired land of village Koli Majra, land measuring 52 bighas 7 biswas was found to be Rosli and only 1 bigha and 10 biswas land was found to be Gair Mumkin Naddi. Similarly, land of village Somal Heri, the entire acquired land measuring 41 bighas 08 biswas was found to be Rosli. So the entire acquired land was Rosli and since the acquired land was agricultural, therefore, it has no special feature. The land which has been sold vide Exs.A1 and R8 pertains to same village having been sold by the same person. Thus the reference Court has committed no error in adopting the principle of averaging of two sale deeds while arriving at the price of Rs.57,410/- because in the case of M/s Printers House Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the method of averaging of the lands having different features is not correct. 20. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeals filed by the landowners for further enhancement or by the beneficiary M/s Alpha Drugs India Limited for reduction in the compensation. As such, the appeals filed by both of them mentioned hereinabove, are hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. ------------------