Judgment Vinod K.Sharma, J. 1. This common judgment shall dispose of RFA No. 2082 of 2004 titled State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mithu Singh & Ors., and other connected RFA Nos. 2083 to 2099 of 2004, and 1580 to 1590 and 1593 to 1599 of 2005 titled State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Makhan Lal & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Gulzara Singh & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr v. Smt. Baltej Kaur & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Midda Singh & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Dhanantar Singh & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Manmohan Lal Gupta & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Maya Devi & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sudesh Kumar & Anr., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Saroj Rani & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Subhash Chander & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jal Kaur & Anr., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Tarsem Chand & Ors., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Atma Singh & Anr., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr., State of Punjab & Anr. v. Maya Devi & Anr., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Saroj Rani & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Maya Devi & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Baltej Kaur & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Sukhdev Singh & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Mukhtiar Singh & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Manmohan Lal Gupta & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Maya Devi & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Makhan Lal & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Dhanantar Singh & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Jal Kaur & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Sudesh Kumar & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Mithu Singh & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Modan Singh & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Gurdev Kaur & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Subhash Chander & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Harinder Singh & Ors., Market Committee, Bhikhi v. Tarsem Chand & Ors., respectively, as these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment/award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa. 2. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from RFA No. 2082 of 2004. 2. For the sake of brevity facts are being taken from RFA No. 2082 of 2004. State of Punjab by way of this RFA has challenged the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa on an reference made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the Act). State of Punjab in order to establish new grain market issued a notification under section 4 of the Act dated 30.11.1992. The notification was published in the Punjabi Tribune on 11.12.1992 and in the English Tribune on 14.12.1992. Objections filed by the land owners were dismissed on 22.4.1993 and notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 24.12.1993. By way of notification under section 6 of the Act land measuring 31 acres 1 kanal and 4 marlas was ordered to be acquired and notice under section 9 of the Act was issued to the owners on 9.4.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector entertained the claims of the landowners and passed award dated 18.7.1994 fixing the market value of Nehri land at Rs. 45019/- (Rupees forty five thousand and nineteen only) per acre and for Gair Mumkin land at the rate of Rs. 59,378/- (Rupees fifty nine thousand three hundred and seventy eight only) per acre. The landowners were further held entitled to solatium at the rate of 30 per cent and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 3. The land owners being dissatisfied from the award sought reference under section 18 of the Act which were forwarded to the learned District Judge, Mansa for decision. Besides market value the assessment was also made for superstructures and trees standing on the land. The landowners/claimants prayed for grant of compensation of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 35 lacs per acre. The landowners also sought enhancement of compensation of superstructure and the trees. 4. On notice the appellant/State contested the claims and took a stand that the compensation has rightly been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector as per the recommendation of Commissioner, Ferozepur Division, Ferozepur. A plea of reference being time barred was also taken. 5. Learned reference court held that the reference was within the period of limitation having been filed in time. The compensation for building, structures and trees was also held to be correctly assessed. 6. A plea of reference being time barred was also taken. 5. Learned reference court held that the reference was within the period of limitation having been filed in time. The compensation for building, structures and trees was also held to be correctly assessed. 6. On the issue : "Whether claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation of land for the reasons recorded in the objection petition ? If so to what extent and what amount of compensation, they are entitled to ?, the parties led evidence. 7. The landowners in support of their claim produced AW 4 Darshan Pal Jindal Expert to prove the estimate of standing trees and superstructures. He proved on record documents as Ex.A.5 to A.16. As against the claim of 200 trees of Makhan Lal, one of the claimants, in report Ex.A.8 it was mentioned that the number of trees were 160. Ex.A.5 showed the number of trees to be four. Maya Devi wife of Hakam Singh on the basis of Exs.A.5 and A.6 claimed the value of superstructure at Rs. 2,43,181, whereas vide Ex.A.7 Makhan Lal claimant claimed the value of superstructure at Rs. 2,78,078/-. Sukhdev Singh produced Ex.A.9 and Ex.A.10 claiming compensation for structure at Rs. 76,689/-. May Devi wife of Girdhari Lal on the basis of Exs.A.11 and A.12 claimed the value of superstructure at Rs. 05,00,960/- (Rupees five lacs nine hundred and sixty only). 8. Atma Singh on the basis of Exs.A.13 and A.14 claimed the value of superstructure at Rs. 1,72,051/- (Rupees one lac seventy two thousand and fifty one only) and Jai Kaur on the basis of Exs.A.15 and A.16 claimed compensation of superstructure at Rs. 8,98,960/- (Rupees eight lac ninety eight thousand nine hundred and sixty only). 9. Mr. R.M. Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant respondents sought enhancement of compensation on the basis of documentary evidence produced on record. 10. After going through the evidence it is found that the demand raised was cryptic and supported by no material evidence. The claims were merely based on the bald statements. The finding of the learned reference court, therefore, cannot be faulted with and this finding is affirmed. 11. In support of the market value of the land the claimants produced on record following documents : Exs. Documents Dated Land sold Price Per Acre Per Sq.Yd. A.17 sale deed 4.2.64 2K 5 M Rs. The finding of the learned reference court, therefore, cannot be faulted with and this finding is affirmed. 11. In support of the market value of the land the claimants produced on record following documents : Exs. Documents Dated Land sold Price Per Acre Per Sq.Yd. A.17 sale deed 4.2.64 2K 5 M Rs. 1000/- 3556 Paise 90 A.18 sale deed 6.3.87 6 M Rs. 5000/- 1,33,333 Rs. 33/- A.19 sale deed 15.3.78 8/3/4 M Rs. 800/- 14,629 Rs. 3.65 A.20 sale deed 4.2.82 16 M Rs. 1500/- 15,000 Rs. 7.75 A.21 sale deed 23.1.84 10M Rs. 3000/- 48,000/- Rs. 12/- A.22 sale deed 4.6.81 1K 9 Rs. 25000/- 1,37,931 Rs. 34/- A.23 sale deed 16.10.74 1K 12 Rs. 9,000/- 45,000 Rs. 11.25 A.24 sale deed 8.11.76 5K IM Rs. 1000/- 1584 Paise 40 A.27 sale deed 13.7.81 1K 17 Rs. 11000/- 47,568 Rs. 12/- A.3 & A.4 Field maps A.5 to A.16 Estimates of calculations for trees and structures 25 and A.26 Documents regarding correction of names from Sudesh Kumar to Suresh Kumar Field maps were proved on record as Ex.A.3 and A.4 to show that the land was near the road. Sale deeds Exs.A.17 to Ex.A.24 and Ex.A.27 in favour of the claimants from the year 1964 to 1987 were also pressed into service. However, these were held to be not relevant for determination of market value. Correction was also sought of the name Sudesh Kumar to Suresh Kumar. Sale deeds Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 were proved by AW Raj Kumar and AW 2 Surinder Kumar, whereas AW 3 Balwinder Singh, Patwari Halga proved Ex.A.3 and A.4. AW 4 proved Ex.A.5 to Ex.A.16 showing estimate of standing trees and construction. AW 5 Sukhraj Singh proved the form of acquired land near abadi area of Bhikhi and potentiality for residential and commercial purposes. Evidence was also led to prove the potentiality of the acquired land. 12. As against the evidence led the State proved on record notifications issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Act and sale deeds Ex.R.5 to R.8. Sale deed Ex.R.5 was dated 30.4.1992 vide which land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas was sold for Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). Ex.R.6 was sale deed dated 16.6.92, vide which 2 kanals land was sold for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only); whereas Ex.R.7 was sale deed dated 5.6.92 for 2 kanals of land for Rs. Sale deed Ex.R.5 was dated 30.4.1992 vide which land measuring 2 kanals 16 marlas was sold for Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand only). Ex.R.6 was sale deed dated 16.6.92, vide which 2 kanals land was sold for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only); whereas Ex.R.7 was sale deed dated 5.6.92 for 2 kanals of land for Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Ex.R.8 sale deed dated 24.6.92 vide which land measuring 13 kanals 12 marlas was sold for Rs. 63,000/- (Sixty three thousand only). Ex.R.9 and R.10 are Aksh Sijra and site plan of acquired land. Ex.R.11 is the report of Forest Officer regarding assessment of standing trees. Ex.R.12 is the report of Assistant Engineer PWD regarding structures and assessment of buildings. Documents were proved by Darshan Singh RW 1, Satish Kumar RW 2, Harjit Singh Patwari RW 3, Kirpal Singh RW 4 and Nasib Singh RW 5. 13. Learned reference court on appreciation of evidence recorded that the price of land which is land locked and which is farther away from the National Highway should not be the same as that which abuts on the National Highway and therefore, held that the mathematical formula applied qua the price of entire land irrespective of location of different parcels of land could not be upheld. Learned reference court also held that the rates of small plots could be taken into consideration for determining the market value of large area after making necessary deduction/adjustment. Learned reference court was of the view that whether the sale was within reasonable time of the date of notification can be taken for the purpose of comparable case. The learned reference court also held that though the land was agricultural land but it could be treated as urban land when it had the potentiality for residential, commercial and industrial purpose. Thus, the learned reference court held that the land had potentiality for residential commercial and industrial purposes and therefore, could not be categorized as agricultural land. The learned reference court also held that for the purposes or assessment of market value its future potential use was also required to be taken into consideration. 14. Learned reference court thereafter concluded that the bona fide sale irrespective of acquired land but best piece of evidence for determining the amount of compensation and in absence of any such sale or sale of neighbouring land could be taken into consideration. 14. Learned reference court thereafter concluded that the bona fide sale irrespective of acquired land but best piece of evidence for determining the amount of compensation and in absence of any such sale or sale of neighbouring land could be taken into consideration. 15. Learned reference court in view of the finding referred to above divided the land in three lots : One lot adjoining to the main road; Second lot adjoining to it and Third lot at the end of acquired land from the main road; to avoid the burden of respondents with some sort of compensation. Learned reference court, therefore, fixed compensation payable at : Rs. 140/- square yard for first lot; Rs. 120/- per sq yard for second lot and Rs. 100/- per square yard for third lot. The claimants were further held entitled to solatium and other statutory benefits. 16. Learned State counsel vehemently contended that the award cannot be sustained as the assessment is based on sale deed Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 i.e. dated 31.5.1995 and 3.6.1996. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 30.11.1992 and therefore, subsequent sale deed after issuance of notification could not form the basis for assessment of market value when other evidence of State with regard to sale deed Exs.R.5 to R.8 i.e. immediately prior to prior to notification under section 4 of the Act was available. There is force in this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/State. 17. The learned reference court could not have taken into consideration sale deed Exs.A.1 and Ex.A.3 to form the basis for fixation of market value, being admittedly subsequent to the issuance of notification under section 4 of the Act. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be sustained. 18. After having recorded a finding that the award cannot be sustained, now it has to be decided as to what would be the market value of the acquired land. 19. The claimants produced on record Exs.A.17 to Ex.A.24 and Ex.A.27 i.e. the sale deeds made in favour of the claimants themselves from the year 1964 to 1987. 20. It is well settled law that the sale deed of the claimants qua the land which is under acquisition is the best piece of evidence for fixation of market value. 19. The claimants produced on record Exs.A.17 to Ex.A.24 and Ex.A.27 i.e. the sale deeds made in favour of the claimants themselves from the year 1964 to 1987. 20. It is well settled law that the sale deed of the claimants qua the land which is under acquisition is the best piece of evidence for fixation of market value. Honble Supreme Court in the case of The Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector of Madras (1975) 2 SCC 730, wherein the Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- "5. It is true that compensation for compulsory acquisition, as governed by section 23, gives high priority to the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1). But what is market value ? It is a common place of this branch of jurisprudence that the main criterion is what a willing purchaser would pay a willing vendor. Ordinarily a party will be entitled to get the amount that he actually and willingly paid for a particular property, provided the transaction be bona fide and entered into with due regard to the prevalent market conditions and is proximate in time to the relevant date under Section 23. We may even say that the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the very property to which the claimant is a party. If the sale is of recent date, then all that need normally be proved is that the sale was between a willing purchaser and willing seller, that there has not been any appreciable rise or fall since and that nothing has been done on the land during the short interval to raise its value (See Parks `Principles & Practice of Valuations p. 29-Eastern Law House-Calcutta,-IV Edition 1970). But if the sale was long ago, may be the Court would examine more recent sales of comparable lands as throwing better light on current land value. We emphasize this facet because the appellant himself purchased the land in question just ten months before the notification under section 4(1), at a price of Rs. 410 per ground. But if the sale was long ago, may be the Court would examine more recent sales of comparable lands as throwing better light on current land value. We emphasize this facet because the appellant himself purchased the land in question just ten months before the notification under section 4(1), at a price of Rs. 410 per ground. There was a pond in the plot, the filling up of which is alleged to have cost some extra money according to the appellant, but he gave no evidence before the court on this matter with the result that we are left with the estimate made by the Public Works Department for the filling up of the pond which works out at a much lesser figure. In short, less than a year before the date of commencement of acquisition proceedings, the appellant himself had purchased this land at a price around Rs. 450 (making allowance for the pond which he had filled up) and he has been awarded Rs. 1,800 per ground by the High Court. Instead of wandering around neighbouring lands or guessing as to what the price of the disputed land might have been, we have before us the actual purchase of the suit property by the appellant himself and he has not set up any case of special features or circumstances depressing the land value or affecting the particular transaction so that one could ignore that sale as the product of artificial circumstances. We have thus a situation where the law should express a judgment from the experience of the appellant himself as against a judgment from speculation based on other transactions. 6. Clinching evidence to correct uncertain prophesy is furnished here by the claimants conduct. An actual transaction with respect to the specific land of recent date is a guide-book that courts may not neglect when called upon to fix the precise compensation. Viewed from a slightly different aspect it is but fair that compulsory land acquisition while assuring a just equivalent should not be converted into an avaricious windfall. Can an owner who bought the land at Rs. 400 per ground and laid out a little more money on it, grouse on the score of inadequate or unjust recompense, if within a year after his own purchase he is paid by the State 400 per cent of what he spent for the identical land ? Can an owner who bought the land at Rs. 400 per ground and laid out a little more money on it, grouse on the score of inadequate or unjust recompense, if within a year after his own purchase he is paid by the State 400 per cent of what he spent for the identical land ? Neither morality nor legality is violated in such a case; for even a black marketeers bosom may not be uneasy at the prospect of such a fortune which he could not have bargained for when he became the owner of the land some months before. It is the duty of the State or federal government, in the conduct of the inquest by which compensation is ascertained, to see that it is just, not merely to the individual whose property is taken, but to the public which is to pay for it (See. 27 Am Jur 2nd paragraph 66, p. 53 of Vol. 27). All things considered, the appellant stands self-condemned by his own deed of purchase. 7. Property valuation as a practiced art is greatly influenced by legal and economic constraints. But, in this case, we do not have any complex considerations since helpful indicators are available. Price paid by the owner recently represents an expression of market value, as bona fide evidence of value, subject, to such matters as (a) the relationship of the parties; (b) the market conditions and the terms of sale and (c) the date of sale. It may not end the inquiry but goes a long way to solve the problem. In this collection it may be useful to refer to the decision of this Court in S.L.A. Officer v. T.A. Setty (1) where it was observed : "It is not disputed that the function of the court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1) and the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion of experts, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bone fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired". 21. 21. This view was again reiterated by Honble Supreme Court in the case of V. Subrahmanya Rao v. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, 2004(10) SCC 640, laying down that the sale deed in favour of the parties was a best piece of evidence to fix the market value. Honble Supreme Court in this case was pleased to lay down as under :- "6. There is no doubt that what has to be paid is the market value of the land. As has been held by this Court in the case of Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao the best evidence of market value would be the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property came to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out, these are the relevant factors. If those are not available then the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land have to be taken into consideration. As seen from the deposition of the appellant, extracted hereinabove, certified copies of sale instances were tendered before the Reference Court. The Reference Court has not referred to or dealt with those sale instances and they do not appear to have been shown to the High Court. Even when we asked the appellants counsel what those sale instances were, he was not in a position to answer. It will, therefore, have to be presumed that they are not helpful to the appellant., It was fairly admitted that the appellant is now not relying on them." This view was again reiterated by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntalabai & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 1995(8) SC 501. 22 It may also be noticed that the sale deed of the land owners with respect of acquired land was or the year 1964 to 1987. In order to achieve the market value as on the date of notification 12 per cent escalation can be added to the price fixed in the sale deed in view of the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (Dead) by LRs. In order to achieve the market value as on the date of notification 12 per cent escalation can be added to the price fixed in the sale deed in view of the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash (Dead) by LRs. and others v. Union of India and another, 2004(3) RCR(Civil) 726 : (2004)10 SCC 627, wherein Honble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under :- "9. Interestingly, a perusal of the appeal memorandum of the Union of India shows that, even according to the Union of India the ascertainment of the fair market value of the lands in question should have proceeded on the basis of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963 with 12 % escalation per year. If this method is adopted, according to the Union of India, the fair market value of the land as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act would come to Rs. 56,112/- per bigha, (see ground (e) in the appeals arising out of SLPs Nos. 21335, 21343, 23385 of 2002 and 12968 of 2003 and ground (d) in the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1632 of 2003 and Civil Appeals Nos. 8591-92 of 2003. 10.xx xx xx 11. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha as on 30.10.1963. The High Court noticed that in several judgments of this Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e. 6% per annum from 1959 to 1965, @ 10% per annum for every year from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% per annum from 1975 had been considered to be reasonable increase to arrive at the fair market value, assuming that the pace of escalation during this period was normal for the entire period from 1959 onwards. Since no material was placed on record to show that there was any abnormality during the period, the High Court applied the same principle to the facts and circumstances before it, and accepted, increase of 10% every year progressively from 1963 to 1973 and thereafter @ 12% every year progressively up to the date of acquisition. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is allowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs. 1,28,889/- per bigha. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is allowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs. 1,28,889/- per bigha. In case progressive increase is allowed @ 10% for the entire period, the amount will work out to Rs. 1,08,397/- per bigha. Allowing appreciation @ 12% for every year, not cumulatively, but at a flat rate of 12% per annum from 1963 to 1983, the amount would work out to Rs. 56112/- per bigha. The High Court in its judgment under appeal pointed out that the market value of Rs. 16,750/- per bigha fixed in the case of Dharambir v. Union of India was not in respect of commercial land but only of agricultural land. That the market value of agricultural land is much lower than that of land suitable for commercial purposes, is trite. After having worked out the market value of the lands on various bases and keeping in view the fact that between 8.12.1982 and 2.6.1983, the lands in question had at least some commercial potentiality, the High Court decided that the fair market value of all categories of lands situated in the villages in question as on the date of acquisition should be fixed at Rs. 82,255/- per bigha." This view was reiterated by Honble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana v. Gurbax Singh (Dead) by LRs. And another, 2008(11) SCC 65, wherein Honble Supreme Court was again pleased to reiterate as under :- "8. The Division Bench has only marginally increased the compensation from Rs. 99,668/- per acre to Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre. The Division Bench has merely given the benefit of the two sale deeds being Exhibits P-8 and P-9 in a very limited manner by ordering the enhancement at the rate of 12% per annum for two years since the acquisition in this case had taken place in the year 1983 whereas those sale deeds were of January and March 1981. We do not find anything wrong in this approach. The Division Bench has also justified this increase by observing that there was continuous rise in the prices of land. It has further justified that though the two transactions were in respect of the small pieces of lands, however, the State had not challenged the action of the learned Single Judge in accepting those sales as a valid basis. The Division Bench has also justified this increase by observing that there was continuous rise in the prices of land. It has further justified that though the two transactions were in respect of the small pieces of lands, however, the State had not challenged the action of the learned Single Judge in accepting those sales as a valid basis. It has also further observed that there was no evidence that the market value of the land was lesser than the one mentioned in the two sale deeds. All that the Division Bench, however, did was to marginally increase the quantum of compensation by adding 12% per annum for a period of two years and doing so, the Division Bench rounded off the market value for the year 1983 at Rs. 1,25,000/-. We do not find any thing wrong in this and therefore, the appeals filed by the Government of Haryana (Civil Appeals Nos. 2461-65 of 2000) against this marginal increase would have to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. However, the matters do not stop here." If this principle is followed and potentiality of the land is taken into consideration even by taking a liberal view the market value of the acquired land in view of Exs.A.17 to A.27 would come to Rs. 90/- per square yard., vide sale deed Ex.A.22 land measuring 1 K 9 M was purchased by claimants for Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only). The price per square yard comes to Rs. 34/-, if 12 per cent increase for every year is added the market value comes to Rs. 78/- (seventy eight only) per square yard, another sum of Rs. 12/- per square yard can be added to by additional value, as sale deeds Ex.A.1 and A.2 would show that there was steep rise in prices, after situation in Punjab improved. 23. 34/-, if 12 per cent increase for every year is added the market value comes to Rs. 78/- (seventy eight only) per square yard, another sum of Rs. 12/- per square yard can be added to by additional value, as sale deeds Ex.A.1 and A.2 would show that there was steep rise in prices, after situation in Punjab improved. 23. The land was surrounded by road on two sides and therefore, learned Additional District Judge, Mansa was not right in categorize the land for the purpose of payment of compensation in view of the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gulzara Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors., 1993(3) RRR 247 : 1993 LACC 612, wherein Honble Supreme Court has been pleased to lay down as under :- "Thus we have the evidence that the lands are possessed of potential value for being used for building purposes. In fact, the acquisition itself is for construction of Mandi Township. The principle of belting is perfectly legal and unexceptionable as the lands abutting the main road upto a specified depth, depending on factual material on record, would fetch higher market rate than the lands situated in interior area. However, on facts of this case the belting is not warranted for the reason that as seen on three sides there exist roads and abutting the village. As per the plan as found by the High Court there exists a road cutting across the acquired lands. Therefore, there is not only access on three sides but also to interior lands. Thus in our view belting and fixation of differential rates of value is not justified." For the reasons stated above, all the appeals are partly allowed. Compensation awarded by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansa is reduced to Rs. 90/- (ninety only) per square yard. The respondent/landowners shall, however, be entitled to solatium the rate of 30 per cent of the market value under the provisions of Section 23 (2) of the Act and other statutory benefits under section 23 (2) and 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act.