Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. Identical question of law and facts are involved in five Regular First Appeals bearing No. 1147 to 1149, 1328 and 1329 of 1991 filed by the State as well as by the claimants against the award of learned Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra dated 30.11.1990. Therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment. The facts, however, are being extracted from RFA No. 1328 of 1991 titled as Gurbachan Singh v. State of Haryana. 2. Land measuring 11 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in the revenue estate of Patti Jhambra of Sahabad, Hadbast No. 253, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short `the Act) followed by notification of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act dated 4.8.1988, published in the official gazette dated 16.8.1988, at public expenses, for public purpose, namely, "Disposal of works (Sewerage Scheme)" of Municipal Committee Sahabad. Although initially 11 Kanals 11 Marlas land was notified for acquisition but later on land measuring 1 Kanal 18 Marlas out of Rectangle, Khasra No. 53/19 adjoining the Sahabad Ladwa Metalled Road was released on the request of land owners. Thus, an area of 1 Kanal 18 Marlas was excluded and the remaining land measuring 9 Kanals 9 Marlas was acquired which was classified as Chahi. The Land Acquisition Collector (for short `the Collector) vide his award dated 2.2.1989 awarded Rs. 66,000/- per acre for Chahi land. The claimants were aggrieved against the award of the Collector. They filed Objections under Section 18 of the Act and demanded a sum of Rs. 7000/- per marla of the acquired land alleging, inter alia, that it falls within the Municipal Committee of Shahbad(M); it falls on the Shahabad Ladwa General Main road; the prospects of the acquired land are very bright as it could be put to commercial as well as residential use; it is surrounded by Rice Shellers, Cold Storages, Anaj Mandi, Chemical Plants, FCI Godowns, Poultry Farms, College, Schools, Medical Clinics, Cinema, Abadi, Sugar Mill and HUDA has developed a residential colony nearby. The claim was contested by the respondent State and it was urged that Collector has already awarded the compensation in accordance with law. Therefore, no further compensation was required to be enhanced. The claim was contested by the respondent State and it was urged that Collector has already awarded the compensation in accordance with law. Therefore, no further compensation was required to be enhanced. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : (i) What was the market value of the suit land at the time of issue of notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act ? OPP. (ii) Relief. 3. Both the parties led their respective evidence in support of their case. The claimants besides leading oral evidence relied upon documentary evidence in the shape of sale deeds and allotment letter dated 17.12.1986. The relevant documentary evidence relied upon by the claimants is tabulated as under : Exhibit of Sale deed Date of sale Area sold Sale Price Price per acre Price Sq.Yard/per marla P-1 25.2.88 Patti of acquired land, 0K-8M Patti Shahbad 48,000/- 9,60,000/- 198.34 per sq.yard 6000 per marla P-5 23.6.88 2K 3M Zambra Shahabad 1,97,800/- 7,36,000/- 152.06/- 4600/- P-6 21.5.87 7K-18M 2,10,500/- 2,13,164,54 44.04/- 1332.27 P-9, Allotment letter dated 17.12.1986 qua plot No. 155 of 220 Sq.meter in Sector 1, Urban Estate Colony, Shahabad @ 198/- per sq.metre. Similarly the respondent-State also relied upon the following sale deeds, which are tabulated as under : Exhibit of sale deed Date of Sale Area sold Sale Price Price per acre RA 25.5.88 8K-19M 49,000/- 43,500/- RB 20.1.88 20K-3M 2,01,500/- 80,000/- RC 28.1.88 12K-6M 46,125/- 36,000/- RD 23.12.87 12K-6M 46,125/- 36,000/- RE 27.4.88 18K-16M 1,48,050/- 63,040/- RF 24.12.87 20K 1,57,500/- with tubewell 63,000/- 4. After taking into consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Reference Court found that it would be just and expedient to consider Ex.P1, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,36,388/- per acre besides awarding all the statutory benefits in terms of the Amended Act. Still unsatisfied, the claimants as well as State of Haryana have filed their respective appeals before this Court. The claimants are praying for enhancement of compensation whereas the respondent-State is aggrieved against the compensation that has been awarded to the claimants, therefore, they are praying for reducing the compensation. 5. Sh. Still unsatisfied, the claimants as well as State of Haryana have filed their respective appeals before this Court. The claimants are praying for enhancement of compensation whereas the respondent-State is aggrieved against the compensation that has been awarded to the claimants, therefore, they are praying for reducing the compensation. 5. Sh. A.S. Virk, Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants has vehemently contended that Reference Court has committed palpable error while taking an average of all the sale deeds Ex.P1, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 whereas the Reference Court should have taken into consideration sale deed Ex.P1 which forms part of the acquired land which is just in close proximity of the date of acquisition. He further contends that this fact that the land sold vide Ex.P1 found part and parcel of the acquired land is admitted by the respondent in its written statement. 6. As against this, Sh. Rajiv Kawatra, Sr.DAG Haryana for the respondent-State while opposing the prayer made by counsel for the claimants in respect of enhancement of compensation and arguing their appeals for the purpose of reduction of compensation, has vehemently contended that the Reference Court has committed an error while not appreciating the sale deeds tendered by the respondent-State Ex.RB and by the claimants Ex.P6. It is contended that value arising out of sale deed Ex.RB dated 20.1.1988 is Rs. 2,01,500/- and sale deed is executed pertaining to an area of 20 K-3 M whereas vide sale deed Ex.P6 dated 21.5.1987 land measuring 7 kanals 18 marlas was sold for Rs. 2,10,500/- which comes to Rs. 2,13,164.54. He further submits that sale deed Ex.P1 cannot be taken into consideration because purchaser of the plot, namely, Ghasita Singh AW2 has stated in examination-in-chief that the said land has been purchased by him was for the purpose of shop and residence for his children. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submits that in case sale deed Ex.P1 is to be taken into consideration then it would be only of 8 marlas of land as against land measuring 9 kanals 9 marlas, therefore, an appropriate cut of 1/3rd should be applied on the principle of small sale instance. 7. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 8. It is not in dispute that sale deed Ex.P1 dated 25.2.1988 forms part of the acquired land. 7. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 8. It is not in dispute that sale deed Ex.P1 dated 25.2.1988 forms part of the acquired land. It has also come on record that sale deeds Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are of the same village Jhumbra and are just adjoining the acquired land at a distance of one killa (acre) from Shahbad Ladwa Road and also one killa from the acquired land. Insofar as sale deed Ex.P6 is concerned, it is at a distance of one killa from Shahbad Ladwa Road and at a distance of one killa from the acquired land but learned counsel for the State could not point out its location from the record. In my view, sale deeds Ex.RB and Ex.P6 cannot be relied upon in the presence of sale deed Ex.P1 which forms part and parcel of the acquired land itself. Counsel for the appellants/claimants has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu and others v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram (1980) 1 SCC 575 and a decision of this Court in the cases of Ram Singh v. State of Haryana and others 2006(3) RCR(Civil) 826 and Gurmukh Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another 2004(1) RCR(Civil) 378 wherein it has been held that best evidence is authentic sale transactions of sale in respect of the acquired land. In the present case, the learned Reference Court has taken into consideration all the three sale deeds Ex.P1, Ex.P5 and Ex.P6, relied upon by the claimants the value of which comes to Rs. 19,09,164/- per acre and after taking the average thereof, the value has been arrived at Rs. 6,36,388/- per acre. Even if for the sake of argument, sale deed Ex.P1 is taken into consideration then after applying 1/3rd cut, the value would be almost the same which has been awarded by the learned Reference Court. 9. Thus, looking from any angle, the compensation that has been awarded by the Reference Court, is just and adequate which does not call for any interference either for enhancement or for reduction. 10. In view of the above discussion, all the appeals either filed by the claimants or by the State of Haryana, are found to be without any merit and are dismissed without any order as to costs.