JUDGMENT (Kuldip Singh, J.) - This judgment shall dispose of nine appeals, i.e. RFA Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 94 and 100 of 2001, which have arisen out of common award, dated 20.5.2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur, in Land Ref. Case Nos. 23, 26, 28, 22, 29, 27, 21, 30 and 25 of 1999, respectively. 2.The facts in brief are that State of Himachal Pradesh acquired land for construction of Namhol-Bahadurpur road for which notification, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act) was published on 22.4.1995. The Land Acquisition Collector (for shot, the Collector), passed the award on 20.3.1997. The details of lands of the respondents and the compensation awarded to them by the Collector, as referred in the impugned award, are as follows :- Sr. No.No. & Name of PetitionTotal Area AcquiredCompensation awarded 1.23 of 1999, Puran Ram Vs. LAC1-2 BighaRs. 9,255.00 2.30 of 1999, Shankar Singh Vs. LAC3-10 BighaRs. 16,038.00 3.26 of 1999, Nand Singh Vs. LAC1-2 BighaRs. 16,245.00 4.22 of 1999, Sant Ram etc. Vs. LAC13 BiswasRs. 7,882.00 5.28 of 1999, Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. LAC6 BiswasaRs. 2,702.00 6.29 of 1999, Kanshi Ram Vs. LAC19 BiswasRs. 8,792.00 7.25 of 1999, Shri Balak Ram etc. Vs. LAC1-3 BighaRs. 6,776.00 8.27 of 1999, Kanshi Ram Vs. LAC7 BiswasaRs. 1,685.00 9.21 of 1999, Smt. Devku Vs. LAC1-14 BighasRs. 12,083.00 3.The respondents were aggrieved by the award of the Collector, therefore, they filed reference petitions for enhancement of compensation. The learned District Judge vide order dated 2.11.1999, in Land Reference Petition No. 23 of 1999, titled Puran Ram v. LAC, consolidated the reference petitions. The Collector contested the reference petitions. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the petitioners of these petitions are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation, if so, to what extent ? OPP. 2. Relief. 4.The learned District Judge, vide award dated 20.5.2000, has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- 1. Whether the petitioners of these petitions are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation, if so, to what extent ? OPP. 2. Relief. 4.The learned District Judge, vide award dated 20.5.2000, has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha. It was held that the respondents are entitled to solatium at the rate of 30% on the enhanced amount of compensation, additional compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act at the rate of 12% per annum from 22.4.1994 to 20.3.1997, 9% interest for one year from 20.3.1997 and thereafter interest at the rate of 15% per annum till the amount are paid or deposited by the Collector. The above appeals have been filed against the common award dated 20.5.2000. 5.I have head Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General for the appellant, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for the respondents in all appeals and gone through the record. On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that learned District Judge has erred in assessing the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 6000/- per biswa or Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha. The Collector, who inspected the spot was in a better position to assess he market value of the acquired land, some transactions had taken place amount the owners of the same village to enhance the market value. The Collector has given sound reasons for determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 5000/- per bigha. The land was acquired for social service. The interest has not been awarded in accordance with law. The interest is payable from the date of notification, under Section 4 of the Act and not from any date earlier to notification. 6.On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that the evidence led by them in the reference Court was not rebutted by the opposite side. The respondents have led legal evidence on record. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and enhanced the market value of the acquired land as per impugned award. It has been submitted that deduction made by the learned District Judge while assessing the market value of the acquired land is excessive. The respondents have supported the impugned award. The learned District Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record and enhanced the market value of the acquired land as per impugned award. It has been submitted that deduction made by the learned District Judge while assessing the market value of the acquired land is excessive. The respondents have supported the impugned award. 7.PW-1 Puran Ram has stated that his land measuring 1-2 bighas in village Ghial was acquired by H.P.P.W.D. for construction of Namhol-Bahadurpur road about 16 years back. He was paid compensation at the rate of Rs. 37/- per biswa against the market value of Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha. The acquired land was cultivable land. He is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,00,000/- per bigha. Many sales transactions had taken place in his village prior to acquisition. In cross-examination, he has stated that village Salowan is at a distance of about 8 kilometers from the acquired land and village Tepra is adjacent to village Salowan. PW-2 Jasjit Singh has stated that in the year 1992, he has sold one biswas land to Sant Ram of village Namhol in village Ghial for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- per biswa. Ex.PA is the certified copy of the sale deed which bears his signature. In cross-examination, he has stated that Sant Ram had purchased one biswa land for construction of shop. He has denied that the sale deed is not genuine and was executed only to get compensation of the acquired land. He has also denied that he had not received Rs. 15,000/-. The land sold by him was situated on Ghagas-Shimla road. PW-3 Sant Ram has stated that he has purchased one biswa land for Rs. 15,000/- from Jasbir Singh PW-2 in the year 1992 vide sale deed Ex.PA. He has constructed a shop on the said land. He had paid full amount of Rs. 15,000/- to the vendor. The land which he has purchased is at a distance of one furlong from the acquired land. In cross-examination, he has stated that Namhol-Bahadurpur road was constructed about 16 years back. He denied that he did not pay Rs. 15,000/- and the sale deed was executed only to enhance the compensation. 8.PW-4 Shankar Dass has stated that he has purchased one biswa land for Rs. In cross-examination, he has stated that Namhol-Bahadurpur road was constructed about 16 years back. He denied that he did not pay Rs. 15,000/- and the sale deed was executed only to enhance the compensation. 8.PW-4 Shankar Dass has stated that he has purchased one biswa land for Rs. 15,000/- from Smt. Tripat Kaur at village Ghial in the year 1992 for construction of his house, Ex.PB is the copy of registered sale deed. He had purchased the said land at the prevalent market value. The road in Ghial was constructed in the year 1982-83. In cross-examination, he has stated that the land which he has purchased is at distance of two furlong from the main road. He has denied that inflated sale consideration was got recorded in Ex.PB. He has also denied that he did not pay Rs. 15,000/- to the vendor. PW-5 Dhani Ram is another vendee of registered sale deed Ex.PC vide which he has purchased one biswa land from Tripat Kaur in the year 1992 for Rs. 15,000/- for construction of a shop. He has stated that he had paid full sale consideration of Rs.15,000/- to the vendor. In cross-examination, he has stated that his village Samari is at a distance of eight kilometers from Ghial. He has constructed two rooms of his shop on one biswa. He has denied that he did not pay Rs. 15,000/- to the vendor and inflated sale price was recorded in Ex.PC. 9.PW-6 Sohan Singh has stated that he has purchased two biswas of land from Ganga Dutt in the year 1995 for a consideration of Rs. 62,000/- Ex.PD is the copy of registered sale deed. This land is situated in village Ghial. He had paid full sale consideration of Rs. 62,000/- to the vendor. The village Ghial is one kilometer from Namhol. Shimla-Mandi road passes through village Ghial. He has constructed his shop on the said road. In cross-examination, he has denied that he did not pay Rs. 62,000/- and inflated sale consideration was shown in the sale deed. PW-7 Nand Lal has stated that he has purchased one biswa land from Dharmender etc. in the year 1992 in village Ghial for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- for construction of a house vide sale deed Ex.PE. The village Ghial is adjacent to village Namhol. 62,000/- and inflated sale consideration was shown in the sale deed. PW-7 Nand Lal has stated that he has purchased one biswa land from Dharmender etc. in the year 1992 in village Ghial for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- for construction of a house vide sale deed Ex.PE. The village Ghial is adjacent to village Namhol. In cross-examination, he has denied that inflated sale price has been shown in the sale deed and he has not paid Rs. 15,000/-. The appellant did not lead any evidence and the evidence of appellant in all the cases was closed by the Reference Court, vide order dated 17.4.2000. 10.The respondents have produced six sale deeds Ex.PA to Ex.PF and out of them Ex.PD pertains to village Namhol and rest of the five sale deeds are of village Ghial. The acquired land is situated in village Ghial, therefore, sale deeds Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC, Ex.PE and Ex.PF which pertain to village Ghial are relevant. The notification, under Section 4 of the Act was published on 22.4.1995. As per sale deeds Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC, Ex.PE and Ex.PF all dated 10.8.1992 one biswa land was sold through each sale deed for Rs. 15,000/-. The sale deeds Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC, Ex.PE and Ex.PF have been proved on record. These sale deeds are of the period prior to the notification, under Section 4 of the Act, which was published on 22.4.1995. There is nothing on record that vendors and vendees of these sale deeds came to know the acquisition of the land in question earlier to the date on which sale deeds Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC, Ex.PE and Ex.PF were executed. There is nothing on record to show that the abovesaid sale deeds are not genuine. There is no dispute that the acquired land is situated in village Ghial and the aforesaid sale deeds also pertain to lands situated in village Ghial, therefore, these sale deeds can be safely relied for assessing the market value of the acquired land. 11.There is no denial of the fact that each sale deed Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.P\c, Ex.PE and Ex.PF is of one biswa, which is small area in comparison to acquired land of the respondents in each appeal. There is no bar for assessing the market value the acquired land on the basis of small area transactions. 11.There is no denial of the fact that each sale deed Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.P\c, Ex.PE and Ex.PF is of one biswa, which is small area in comparison to acquired land of the respondents in each appeal. There is no bar for assessing the market value the acquired land on the basis of small area transactions. In Ravinder Narain and another v. Union of India, 2003(4) SCC 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it cannot be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. If there is no material, it is open to the Court in appropriate cases to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases, necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. Similarly in Rishi Pal singh and others v. Meeruit Development Authority and another, 2006(3) SCC 205, it has been held that there is no bar for considering examples of small plots. In an appropriate case, specially when other relevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplas can be considered after making adequate discount. Therefore, the sale deeds Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC, EX.PE and Ex.PF can be relied for determining the market value of the acquired land, of course suitable deduction/adjustment will have to be made to fix the market value of the acquired land. The learned District Judge has assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 15,000/- per biswa on the basis of sale deeds Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC, Ex.PE and Ex.PF and after applying deduction of 60% from the rates so fixed, he has assessed and fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 6000/- per biswa or Rs. 1,20,000/- per bigha on the basis of sale deeds Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC, Ex.PE and Ex.PF. In Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana, 2003(1) SCC 354, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending upon its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land as to make the plot for residential or commercial purposes. In H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi and others, 2004(2) SCC 184 : 2004(2) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) S.C. 80 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed 33 1/3% deduction towards development costs. This Court in Smt. Kundlu Devi and others v. Secretary (PWD) Govt. of H.P. and others, Latest HLJ 2007 (HP) 851 : 2007(2) Cur.L.J. (H.P.) 379 after noticing H.P. housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi, and V. Hanumantha Reddy (dead) by LRs. v. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal R. Officer, 2003(12) SCC 642 has allowed 1/3rd deduction so as to arrive at correct market value of the acquired land. The respondents have accepted the impugned award and did not file any cross-objections. The market value assessed by the learned reference Court cannot be said to be on the higher side. The appellant in all cases has failed to make out a case for interference. No fault can be found with the other payments and interest awarded by the learned reference Court in the impugned award. The interest has not been ordered to be paid prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act. The reference Court has rightly appreciated the material on record. No case for interference has been made out. 12.The result of the above discussion, all appeals being RFA Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 94 and 100 of 2001 are dismissed, award dated 20.5.2000, passed by the learned District Judge, Bilaspur in each case is upheld. No costs. M.R.B. ———————