Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2184 (PNJ)

State Of Haryana v. Suresh Kumar

2008-12-23

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2008
Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This Judgment shall dispose of 175 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 2936 to 3009 all of 2003 filed by the State of Haryana and another, and 530, 33, 531 to 542, 544,890,882,883,1113,34 of 2004,4418,4419 of 2003, 35, 36 of 2004,4420,4421 of 2003,37 of 2004, 4422 of 2003, 38, 39 of 2004, 4423, 4424 of 2003,40 of 2004,235 of 2005,41,42 of 2004,1530,43, 1531, 866,44,758,45,46,237, 47,238 of 2004,4416 of 2003,239,240 of 2004, 4417 of 2003, 241 to 246, 261, 522 to 529 of 2004, 4745 of 2003, 413 of 2004, 4642, 4746, 4643,4747,4649,4748,4650,4749,4651,4750, 4652 to 4655,4657 to 4660,4662 to 4664,4644, 4646, 4648, 4661, 4751, 4738 to 4744 of 2003 filed by the landowners/claimants, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. 2. Land measuring 1003 acres situated in the revenue estate of village Khedar, Hadbast No. 127, Tehsil and District Hisar, was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,the Act) on 12.1.1996, published in the Official Gazette on 17.1.1996, followed by a notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act published in the Haryana Government Gazette on 16.12.1996, for public purpose, namely, for the installation of Thermal Power Station, Hisar. However, on actual measurement on the spot, the acquired land was found to be 989.21 acres. 3. The Land Acquisition Collector, P.W.D (Power), Haryana, Ambala City (for short, the Collector), vide his award No. 2 for the year 1998-99 dated 7.12.1998 classified the land as per its nature and kind and awarded separate market value for each category, which is tabulated as under:- Sr. Nature of land Amount per acre 1. Nehri Rs. 1,25,000/- 2. Taal Rs. 70,000/- 3. Tibba Rs. 55,000/- 4. The Collector also awarded compensation for the trees and super structure which existed over the acquired land at the time of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act. Since the landowners were not satisfied with the award of the Collector, therefore they filed objections under Section 18 of the Act in which it was, inter-alia, alleged that the compensation awarded by the Collector is highly inadequate because the potentiality of the land has not been appreciated. The acquired land is near abadi of village Khedar, Railway Station and Barwala mandi. Factories are also situated at a distance of 1 kilometer from the acquired land. The acquired land is near abadi of village Khedar, Railway Station and Barwala mandi. Factories are also situated at a distance of 1 kilometer from the acquired land. The acquired land had residential, commercial and industrial potentiality having urban trapping but the Collector has wrongly categorised the land as agricultural. The land owners claimed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 10,00,000/- per acre at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 5. The respondent/ State Of Haryana, contested the claims of the landowners and submitted that there was no residential colonies in the vicinity of the acquired land. Abadi of village Khedar, Railway Station , Mandi Barwala and factories were at a distance of 1 to 5 kilometers from the acquired land. Therefore, the acquired land was not having residential, commercial and industrial potentiality and was rather purely agricultural. 6. In order to prove their claims, the land-owners/claimants examined Manohar Lal Engineer and Valuer as PW1, Prem Singh son of Dariya singh as PW2, Subhash son of Telu Ram as PW-3, Mahinder Singh son of Fateh Singh as PW-4, Om Parkash son of Kanshi Ram as PW-5, Bharat Singh Assessment Clerk as PW-6, Prem Kumar Assistant Draftsman as PW-7, Om Parkash son of Hira Lal as PW-8, Mewa Singh son of Chandu as PW-9 and Thandi Ram son of Ujala as PW-10. The land owners also tendered into evidence documents Ex.P-1 to P-358. On the other hand, the respondents examined Jagmal Singh Patwari as RW-1, Yogeshwar Vohra, Junior Engineer as RW-2 and Dalip Singh Agricultural Development Officer as RW-3. They also tendered into evidence documents Exs R-l to R-28. 7. Although, only one material issue was framed by the learned Reference Court as to "what is the market value of the acquired land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act", yet while appreciating the evidence brought on record, the learned Reference Court separately dealt with the issue of location and potentiality of the acquired land, classification of land and fair market value. 8. While dealing-with the location and potentiality of the acquired land, the learned Reference Court held that the acquired land was used for agricultural purpose on the date of notification as such, the same is to be considered as agricultural land. 8. While dealing-with the location and potentiality of the acquired land, the learned Reference Court held that the acquired land was used for agricultural purpose on the date of notification as such, the same is to be considered as agricultural land. In this regard, the learned learned Reference Court dealt- with the revenue record in detail and held that the land shown as Nehri in the jamabandi for the year 1996-97 or recorded as canal irrigated in canal girdawari as detailed in para 21 of his judgment or falling in Rectangle Nos. 165 to 212 and 219 are to be treated as Nehri land for the purpose of assessing the compensation. Insofar as the market value of the acquired land is concerned, the learned Reference Court has tabulated the relevant sale deeds produced by the landowners as well as the State of Haryana, which are reproduced below :- Ex. No. Sale deed Date of saledeed Area sold Consideration Rs. Rate per acre Rs. Ex.P11 584 24.9.96 8K-0M 1,78,000/- 1,78,000.00 Ex.P16 560 24.6.99 2K-17M 1,02,000/- 2,86,315.77. Ex.P17 1086 25.11.99 4K-16M 1,00,000/- 1,66,666.65. Ex.P18 1563 7.7.94 0-12-M 74,000/- 9,86,666.65 Ex.R-2 684 30.12.93 12K-0M 90,000/- 60,000/- Ex.R-3 655 21.11.95 16K-4M 1,32,500/- 65,432/- Ex.R-4 1403 16.6.94 18K-4-M 1,50.000/- 65,934/- Ex.R-5 1633 21.7.94 2K-8-M 30,000/- 1,00,000/- Ex.R-6 600 31.10.95 4K-0M 60,000/- 1,20,000/- 9. While appreciating the aforesaid sale deeds, the learned Reference Court has held that in sale instance Ex. P-l1, land measuring 8 kanal comprised in Rectangle No. 362, KillaNol was sold on 24.9.1996 for a sum of Rs. 1,78,000/-per acre, but the landowneres have led no evidence to establish the distance of the sale instance from the acquired land nor the land of sale instance has been shown in the site plan Ex.P-1 as well as in Ex. R-1. The sale instance Ex.P-11 was thus ignored on the ground that it is at a far off distance from the acquired land. The sale instance Ex.P-16 is pertaining to the land measuring 2 kanals 17 marlas, being l/4th share of the total land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Rectangle No. 226, Killa No. 17/2 and 24 was sold on 24.6.1999 @ Rs. 1,02,000/- which comes to Rs. 2,86,315.77 paise per acre. The sale instance Ex.P-16 is pertaining to the land measuring 2 kanals 17 marlas, being l/4th share of the total land measuring 11 kanals 7 marlas comprised in Rectangle No. 226, Killa No. 17/2 and 24 was sold on 24.6.1999 @ Rs. 1,02,000/- which comes to Rs. 2,86,315.77 paise per acre. It is observed by the learned Reference Court that site plans Ex.P-1 and Ex.R-1 indicate that the land of the said instance Ex.P-16 is toward northern side of the abadi of village Khedar and is at far oil distance of about 113 acres from the nothern corner of the acquired land. According to sale instance Ex.P-17, the land measuring 4 kanals 16 marlas being 96/1013 shares of the total land measuring 58 kanals 13 marlas was sold on 25.11.1999 for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,66,666.65 paise per acre, but that has also been ignored on the ground that there is no evidence led by the landowners to prove the location of the land of sale instance Ex.P-17. It was also observed by the learned Reference Court that the sale deeds were for small piece of land. They relate to post notification period and of the land situated at far off distance from the acquired land and was not found as a comparable sale instance for the purpose of assessment of the market value. The sale instance Ex.P-18 is the only sale instance found to be prior in time as the sale deed was executed on 7.7.1994 for an area of 0-12 marla for a consideration of Rs. 74,000/- which comes to Rs. 9,86,666.65paise per acre but sale instance Ex.P-18 was pertaining to land measuring 12 marlas being 12/64 shares of the total land measuring 3 kanals-4 marlas sold out of Khasra No. 375/252 min. Thus, this sale instance was also not found to be relevant piece of evidence on the ground that PW-9 Mewa Singh had stated that he purchased the said land for residential purposes as he was feeling short of area as they were six brothers. Mewa Singh also stated that land forming part of sale instance Ex.P-18 was within abadi deh. Thus, this sale instance was also not found to be relevant piece of evidence on the ground that PW-9 Mewa Singh had stated that he purchased the said land for residential purposes as he was feeling short of area as they were six brothers. Mewa Singh also stated that land forming part of sale instance Ex.P-18 was within abadi deh. Thus, the learned Reference Court found that land owners have not been able to produce any sale instance relating to the sale of land in the vicinity of the acquired land,having same location and potentiality, prior to the date of notification. It was also observed that no importance can be attached to the oral evidence of the landowners regarding the market value of the acquired land. 10. Insofar as the sale instances of the respondents are concerned, it was held by the learned Reference Court that vide sale instance Ex.R-2, land measuring 12 kanals bearing rectangle No. 197,killa No. 21, and Rectangle No. 198, Killa No. 25 was sold on 30.12.1993 for a consideration of Rs. 90,000/- which comes to Rs. 60,000/- per acre. It was found that as per site plan Ex. R-1, the sale instance Ex. R-2 is a part of the acquired land. The nature of the land in sale instance Ex.R-2 was shown as Taal in which it was categorically stated that the land was sold along-with rights appurtenent thereto including irrigation, passages, water course, dols and trees. It was observed that the said land was with in the command area and there was a share in the canal water regarding the same. The learned Reference Court had also taken into account the statement of PW-6 Bharat Singh, Assessment Clerk, who stated that land of Rectangle Nos. 165 to 212 was within the command area irrigated by canal. It was also found that as the sale took place on 30.12.1993 @Rs. 60,000/-per acre and even after giving an increase of 12% per year, the market value on the date of notification would still be less than the compensation awarded by the learned Collector for Nehri land @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. Thus, this sale deed was not considered to be suitable for determining the compensation. The sale instance Ex.R-3 pertains to land measuring 16 kanals 4 marlas falling in Rectangle No. 283, Killa No. 7-6 min and 15/l dated 21.11.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. Thus, this sale deed was not considered to be suitable for determining the compensation. The sale instance Ex.R-3 pertains to land measuring 16 kanals 4 marlas falling in Rectangle No. 283, Killa No. 7-6 min and 15/l dated 21.11.1995 for a consideration of Rs. 1,32,500/- which comes to Rs. 65,934/- per acre. The site plan Ex. R-l shows that the said land abuts Barwala-Hisar road located at a distance of 1 or 1-1/2 acres from the south east portion of the acquired land. The sale instance Ex R-4 is in respect of 18 kanals 4 marlas of land being share of the land measuring 36 kanals 9 marlas comprised in Rectangle Ns.68 and 79 dated 16.6.1994 sold for Rs. 1,50,000/- which comes to Rs. 65,934/- pere acre. The sale instances Exs. R-3 and R-4 being less than the award of the Collector were not considered in view of Section 25 of the Act. The sale deed Ex.R-5 is regarding the land measuring 2 kanals 8 marlas out of land measuring 23 kanals 4 marlas bearing Rectangle Nos. 288 and 367 dated 21.7.1994 sold for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre.The value of the sale instance is found to be less than the value assessed by the Land Acquisition Collector. The sale instance Ex. R-6 dated 31.10.1995 vide which 4 kanals of land was sold for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- which comes to Rs. l,20,000/-per acre.The learned Reference Court observed that this sale instance is at a distance of about 35% acres diagonally on the northern side of abadi of village Khedar, which was not relevant for consideration as a comparable sale instance. 11. Thus, after discussing the entire evidence led by the landowners as well as the State of Haryana in respect of potentiality, nature of the land, market value, the learned Reference Court came to the conclusion that the award of the Collector is just and fair and was upheld as such. 12. Learned counsel for the landowners/ claimants have fairly submitted that the sale instances Exs. P-16 and P-17 dated 24.6.1999 and 25.11.1999 respectively are almost 2-1/2 years and 3 years later than the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 17.1.1996 and may not be considered as a comparable instance for the determination of compensation. 12. Learned counsel for the landowners/ claimants have fairly submitted that the sale instances Exs. P-16 and P-17 dated 24.6.1999 and 25.11.1999 respectively are almost 2-1/2 years and 3 years later than the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 17.1.1996 and may not be considered as a comparable instance for the determination of compensation. Similarly, it was also submitted that sale instance Ex.P18 dated 7.7.1994 is pertaining to only 12 marlas of land which has been purchased by Mewa Singh PW-9 in the abadi deh for the purpose of residence may not be a suitable comparable sale instance. Learned counsel for the appellants have principally relied upon the sale deed Ex.P-11 dated 24.9.1996 and submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed a palpable error of law in misreading the document Ex. P-1 in which sale instance Ex.P-11 has been conspicuously depicted, but learned Reference Court has held that the said sale instance has not been shown in the site plan Ex.P-1 as well as Ex.R-l. Secondly, it is submitted that the sale instance Ex.P-11 comprised in Rectangle No. 362 is of an area of one acre of land situated at a distance of about 12 acres only from the outer boundary of the acquired land. It is further contended that although the sale instance Ex.P-11 is post notification sale of about 8 months, but still it can be taken into consideration being a bonafide sale transaction. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,Poona and another, 1988(2) RRR 136 :AIR 1988 Supreme Court 1652 and a decision of this Court in the case of Tara Singh (deceased) v. State of Punjab, 1983 PLR 286. Learned counsel has thus submitted that the landowners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,78,000/- per acre as the land sold vide sale deed Ex.P-11 is one acre or 8 kanals and is not a small piece of land and for that purpose does not attract deduction/cut. 13. Learned counsel has thus submitted that the landowners are entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,78,000/- per acre as the land sold vide sale deed Ex.P-11 is one acre or 8 kanals and is not a small piece of land and for that purpose does not attract deduction/cut. 13. As regards the location and potentiality of the land in question, it has been contended that the presence of various factories, industrial establishments near the acquired land and the proximity with the abadi deh of village Khedar as well as Barwala Mandi shows that it has urban trapping and cannot be termed as an agricultural land. It is further contended that though the acquired land may not have immediate potentiality of urban land on the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act but its location near Barwala town clearly shows that the acquired land can be put to use for residential, industrial or commercial purposes in future. It is further submitted that once the Court comes to the conclusion that the acquired land is a canal irrigated land, then its acquisition by the Collector and the Reference Court according to its nature and kind would automatically evaporate. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while arguing the appeals filed by the State of Haryana and opposing the appeals filed by the landowners/claimants, submitted that the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate in right perspective that the entries in khasra girdawaries for crops of kharif 1995 and jamabandi for the year 1996-97,namely Ex.R-8, are result of fraud played by the revenue Patwari vide which some lands were shown as Nehri which were previously shown as Taal or Banjar Qadim in the earlier jamabandi. Counsel for the State submitted that the sale instances set up by the landowners/claimants have rightly been ignored by the learned Reference Court after a detailed discussion. It is further contended that since the sale instances Ex.P 11, Ex. P-16 and Ex.P-17 are post notification sale deeds therefore, they could not have been taken into consideration and were rightly ignored by the learned Reference Court because it is a common knowledge that after the acquisition of the land, the landowners have the tendency of creating evidence by selling land by inflating prices in sale transaction. P-16 and Ex.P-17 are post notification sale deeds therefore, they could not have been taken into consideration and were rightly ignored by the learned Reference Court because it is a common knowledge that after the acquisition of the land, the landowners have the tendency of creating evidence by selling land by inflating prices in sale transaction. The sale instance Ex.P-18 has also been found to be uncomparable on the ground that the land sold vide this sale instance Ex.P-18 falls within abadi deh. It was rather contended that learned Reference Court has committed an error while discarding the sale deed shown by the State. Learned counsel for the State has fairly conceded that so far as sale instances Exs. R-2, R-3 and R-5 are concerned, market value of the land in these sale deeds is less than the award of the Collector and were rightly not taken into consideration in view of Section 25 of the Act. It was,however, contended that the sale deeds Ex. R-4 and R-6 have been illegaly and erroneously kept out of consideration by the learned Reference Court while upholding the award of the learned Collector. So far as the location and potentiality of the acquired land is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the acquired land has been utilised purely for agricultural purpose upto the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and mere fact that some portion of the acquired land could be utilised in future for industrial, residential or commercial purposes, cannot be considered to be a ground to assess the market value of the acquired land as an urban property. 15. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by counsel for both the parties. 16. Insofar as the argument of learned State Counsel is concerned, sale deeds Ex.R-2 to R-6 gives value less than the award of the learned Collector because highest value per acre is depicted in Ex. R-6 is @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre which is still less than the award of the Collector, who has awarded the amount @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. R-6 is @ Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre which is still less than the award of the Collector, who has awarded the amount @ Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court could not have awarded the compensation less than the award of the Collector in view of Section 25 of the Act therefore, the contention of the learned State Counsel in respect of quantum of market value is ill founded, misconceived and is thus out-rightly rejected. 17. The second contention pertaining to the acquisition of land, the learned Reference Court has observed that in the written statement, no assertion has been made by the Respondent-State that the land falling within the command area described as Taal in the revenue record could not be irrigated. The land in Rectangle Nos. 165 to 212 and 219 were within the command area, therefore, the same could very well be irrigated by canal water. The learned Reference Court has also dealt-with in detail jamabandi for the year 1996-97 (Ex. R-8) and found that the land falling in respect of this jamabandi has been described as Nehri. It was held by the learned Reference court that Collector has erred in not considering the entries of khasra girdawaries for the crop of Kharif of 1995 and for the year 1996-97 showing the same land as Nehri and relied upon the jamabandi for the year 1991-92. The latest jamabandi shall always prevail and presumption of truth is attached to the entry in the jamabandi until and unless rebutted by the cogent evidence. Thus, in my view, there is no error in the assessment of the learned Reference Court in respect of quality of land. 18. In respect of sale instance Ex.P-11, learned counsel for the land-owners submitted that even post notification sale instance can be taken into account. In the case of Chimanlal (supra), the Supreme Court has laid down the following factors to be considered While determining the compensation :- (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct it error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceedings before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the materials produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course, the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing do by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance, which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land). (9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of resultant improvement in development prospects. (some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land). (9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following consideration :- (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors visa-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) the market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13)has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some illustrative (not exhaustive) factors : Sr.No. Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size Largeness of area 2. Proximity to a road Situation in the interior at a distance from the road 3. Frontage on a road Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth 4. Nearness to developed area Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. Regular shape Remoteness from developed locality. 6. Level vis-a-vis land under acquisition Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser 7. Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 Sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense." 19. It is clear from a bare reading of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court that post notification instances are not to be taken into consideration merely because they are not proved on record, rather, they have to be taken into consideration if (i) they are very proximate (ii) genuine (iii) acquisition itself has not motivated chaser to pay higher price on account improvement in development prospects. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported as Mehta Ravindrari Ajitrai through his heirs and Legal Representatives v. State of Gujarat, 1989(2) RRR 243 to contend that post notification sale instances (five months later) to the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act was regarded as reasonably proximate sale by the Apex Court. 21. 21. Insofar as the finding of the learned Reference Court for discarding sale instance Ex.P 11 is concerned, there is an apparent error of fact. The learned Reference Court has held that neither the claimants have led evidence to establish the distance of this sale instance from the acquired land nor the said sale instance has been shown in the site plan Ex. P-l. Thus, it was discarded on the ground that said sale instance is at a far of distance from the acquired land. In this regard, the evidence on record in the shape of site plan Ex.P-1 shows that the land involved in sale instance Ex.P 11 comprises in Rectangle No. 362, Killa No. 1 and is at a distance of 12 acres from the outer boundary of the acquired land. The sale instance Ex. P-l 1 has the proximity in location of the acquired land. 22. Once it has been established that the sale instance Ex.P-11 is quite near to the acquired land and having the same nature, the question arises as to whether the said sale instance Ex.P-11 which is post notification sale of about 8 months could be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of market value and whether it can be said to be an exemple being one acre of land vis-a-vis acquisition of 989.21 acres of land and whether if it is taken into consideration, any deduction cut is to be applied on account of post notification sale as well as the sale instance being small in comparison to the acquired land. 23. Now it is no more in dispute that the claimants have proved on record the sale instance Ex.P 11 which is found located at a distance of only 12 acres from the acquired land as per the site plan Ex. P1 and is a post notificaion sale of a period of eight months. There is also no evidence that the sale instance Ex. P 11 is not genuine or acquisition has motivated the purchaser to pay higher price on account of improvement in development prospects of the area. In such circumstances, the sale instance Ex. P11 which in proximty to location to the acquired land and is a genuine sale instance deserves to be taken in to consideration. P 11 is not genuine or acquisition has motivated the purchaser to pay higher price on account of improvement in development prospects of the area. In such circumstances, the sale instance Ex. P11 which in proximty to location to the acquired land and is a genuine sale instance deserves to be taken in to consideration. However, since the sale instance is only pertaining to one acre of land vis-a-vis acquisition of 989.21 acres of land and is also a post notification sale by 8 months, I deem it appropriate to apply a cut of 25%. Resultantly, after relying upon sale instance Ex.P-11 and the application of cut of 25% on the value of Ex.P-11 i.e. Rs. 1,78,000/- per acre, the market value comes to Rs. 1,33,500/-per acre. Thus, a sum of Rs. 8500/- per acre is being enhanced over & above the compensation awarded by the Collector for the acquired land. 24. In view of the above, the present appeals filed by the claimants are allowed and the appeals filed by the State of Haryana are dismissed. The claimants shall also be entitled to statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the Amended Act with costs of the appeals.