JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These appeals are directed against judgment, award and decree dated 23.1.1985 given by IVth A.D.J., Ghaziabad in the following Land Acquisition References : 1. Land Reference No. 61 of 1983, Ramesh Chandra v. State. 2. Land Reference No. 62 of 1983, Nanak Singh v. State. 3. Land Reference No. 63 of 1983, Shamshad v. State. 4. Land Reference No. 64 of 1983, Mahesh Chandra v. State. 5. Land Reference No. 66 of 1983, Bundu Khan v. State. 6. Land Reference No. 68 of 1983, Bhagwat Prasad v. State. 7. Land Reference No. 69 of 1983, Sher Singh v. State. 3. The above references were allowed by the impugned judgment. Three more references, i.e. Land Acquisition References No. 60, 65 and 67, all of 1983, were also decided by the same judgment, however those references were rejected. 4. A vast area of land was acquired for development and residential planning in the municipal limits of Hapur for U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad-appellant. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act equivalent to Section 28 of U.P.A.E.V.P. Adhiniyam was published on 5.7.1974. Total acquired area was about 20.5 acres, however the award in question by Special Land Acquisition Officer related to about 24 bighas of land. S.L.A.O. determined the market value of the land at the time of acquisition at Rs. 22.27 per squire yard and offered the compensation accordingly. Dissatisfied by the award respondents and other similarly situate persons applied for making references. Accordingly, references were made and decided by the impugned judgment. Through the impugned judgment, market value has been determined to be Rs. 37.50 per squire yard holding that the apparent market value was Rs. 50/- per squire yard, however 25% deduction was warranted to be applied. 5. It is important to note that none of the parties led any oral evidence before the reference Court. Claimants relied upon a sale deed executed by Raghunath Prasad in favour of Laxman Chandra Sharma. Through the said sale deed, area of 35 squire yard was sold for Rs. 2000/-. The sale deed was executed on 30.7.1974. Certified copy of the sale deed was filed by the claimants before the reference Court. In the sale deed, it is mentioned that the land is situate at Bulandshahr-Road Hapur. Permission to sell the said land was taken on 21.2.1974. 2000/-. The sale deed was executed on 30.7.1974. Certified copy of the sale deed was filed by the claimants before the reference Court. In the sale deed, it is mentioned that the land is situate at Bulandshahr-Road Hapur. Permission to sell the said land was taken on 21.2.1974. The land through the said sale deed was sold @ Rs. 57/- per squire yard. Before the reference Court, appellant also filed certified copies of twelve sale deeds. Lands had been sold through the said sale deeds from Rs. 8/- to Rs. 18/- per squire yard. 6. Reference Court held that sale deeds filed by either of the parties could not be helpful in assessment of the market value. Thereafter, the learned A.D.J. discussed the situation of the land, its potentiality and its location including the distance from Bus Station, Railway Station, Tehsil and Abadi etc. 7. In the very first sentence under Issue No. 1, learned A.D.J. had clearly mentioned that none of the parties had led any oral evidence. In view of this, it was not open for the learned A.D.J. to decide the market value on the basis of situation and potentialities. These factors are subject matter of evidence and require to be proved by adducing evidence. 8. However, I find that the sale deed filed by the claimants was wrongly rejected on the ground that it was stray transaction pertaining to road side land. Even sale deed of a small portion of land may be taken into consideration after applying suitable deduction. In this regard, reference may be made to AIR 2005 SC 2214 , “Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat referred in great detail in AIR 2005 SC 3708, Union of India v. Pramod Gupta. In the authority of V.J. Contractor, in Para-20, certain positive and negative factors have been mentioned. The first two positive factors are smallness of size and proximity to a road. In the exemplar dated 30.7.1974, both the factors were present. Size was only 35 squire yards and the plot was just adjacent to the road. 9. It has further been held in the aforesaid authority that keeping in view the advantageous and dis-advantageous position of the exemplar, suitable deduction is to be made, which may vary from 20% to 50%. In AIR 1988 SC 943 , Administrator Genl. Size was only 35 squire yards and the plot was just adjacent to the road. 9. It has further been held in the aforesaid authority that keeping in view the advantageous and dis-advantageous position of the exemplar, suitable deduction is to be made, which may vary from 20% to 50%. In AIR 1988 SC 943 , Administrator Genl. of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi also this aspect was discussed in detail and it was held that in certain cases even 53% deduction is warranted. In AIR 2007 SC 740 , Deputy Director, Land Acquisition v. Malla Atchinaidu and others, it has been held that if the acquired land is situate in a developed or almost developed area, the deduction should be less. However, in the instant case, there is no evidence on record to show any sort of development. 10. In my opinion, in view of these two exemplars, advantageous factors attached to the exemplar, smallness of area and nearness to the road, a deduction of 50% is warranted. Rs. 57/- per squire yard deducted by 50% comes to Rs. 28.50 per squire yard. 11. Learned Counsel for respondents/claimants has cited the authority of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 709 , Atma Singh v. State of Haryana and has contended that as was done in the said authority, in the instant case also only 10% cut must be applied to the rate on which land was sold through exemplar dated 30.4.1974 (@ Rs. 57 per squire yard). However in the said authority only 10% cut was applied due to two main reasons. Firstly entire acquired land was having potentiality for being used as commercial, industrial and residential purposes and secondly land was acquired for establishing factory which could utilise almost the whole land. In the instant case, both these factors are missing. 12. Even though the sale deed dated 30.4.1974 was executed after few days of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act but permission to sell the plot had been taken about five months’ before the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the sale deed with suitable deduction may be taken to be a good exemplar. 13. Accordingly, appeals are allowed in part and impugned judgment and decree is modified. Accordingly, the sale deed with suitable deduction may be taken to be a good exemplar. 13. Accordingly, appeals are allowed in part and impugned judgment and decree is modified. It is held that respondents are entitled to the compensation on the basis of market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 28.50 at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 30% solatium and interest at the rate awarded in the impugned judgment shall also be paid. ————