Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. By this common order, I shall be disposing of 19 Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 4334 of 2001, 4336 to4338 of 2001, 5798,4340,4341,4652,4653,4670 to 4673 of 2001, 4332,4333,4335 and 4339 of 2001 and 2076 of 1995 and 2074 of 1996, filed against the order of Sh.Virender Kumar, Additional District Judge, Amritsar dated 23.2.2001 by which award of the Collector has been upheld and two Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 2076 of 1995 filed by claimant S.Gurcharanjit Singh and 2074 of 1996 filed by Union of India against the order of Sh. S.K. Garg, Addl.District Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.5.1995, by which the compensation has been enhanced to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- lacs per acre. All the appeals are arising out of the same notification and award of the Collector. The facts, however, are extracted from RFA No. 4334 of 2001 (Kartar Singh v. Punjab State) decided by Sh.Virender Kumar, Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 23.2.2001. 2. Vide notification dated 29.8.1989 issued by the Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Punjab, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), land measuring 21 acres, 7 kanals 10 marlas situated in village Daudpura, 52 acres, 2 kanals 2 marlas in village Mehmoodpura, and 20 acres and 16 marlas in village Valtoha (total measuring 94 acres 2 kanals 16 marlas) was acquired for public purpose, namely, for the construction of Battalion Head Quarters of Border Security Force. 3. The Land Acquisition Collector, Amritsar (for short, the Collector) vide his award dated 26.7.1991 (Ex.AW7/l) assessed the compensation of the acquired land @ Rs. 68,000/- per acre for the land falling on the front side of the road and @ Rs. 50,000/- per acre for the land situated away from the road. 4. Provoked by the insufficiency of the compensation awarded by the Collector, the claimants filed objections under Section 18 of the Act, in which it was contended that their acquired land has a value between Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre to Rs.10 lacs per acre. 5. In reply to the claims put up by the landowners, State of Punjab asserted that the Collec, tor had awarded just and adequate compensation. It was also averred that the acquired land was agricultural and the market value at the time of notification was not between Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre to Rs. 5. In reply to the claims put up by the landowners, State of Punjab asserted that the Collec, tor had awarded just and adequate compensation. It was also averred that the acquired land was agricultural and the market value at the time of notification was not between Rs. 1,90,000/- per acre to Rs. 10 lacs per acre. It was further alleged that the claimants had also been given in addition solatium @ 30% and extra price of. 12% which would come to Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre approximately, therefore, the award of the Collector does not require any interference. 6. In order to substantiate their respective cases, the claimants examined AW-1 Jagir Singh, AW-2 Virsa Singh, a retired Kanungo, AW-3 Darshan Singh, Lambardar of village Mehmoodpura, AW-4 Inderjit Singh, one of the applicants who holds power of attorney on behalf of sons of the applicants, AW-5 Swinder Singh, a retired Kanungo, who remained posted as Patwari in villages Mehmoodpura and Daudpura, AW-6 Gurdev Singh,Patwari of village Valtoha, who had prepared Akas-Shajra Ex.A-2,pertaining to village Valtoha, AW-7 Nirmal Singh, who also holds power of attorney on behalf of sons of the applicants and AW-8 Gurbax Singh. Besides the aforesaid evidence, the claimants also produced sale deeds which are tabulated as under :- Sr.No. Ex. Date or Area Sale deed Village Price in Rs. 1. AW7/2 14.7.1988 6K 13M Valtoha 1,70,000/- 2. AW7/3 14.7.1988 8K 12M Valtoha 1,98,000/- 3. AW7/4 11.7.1988 8K 12M Valtoha 1,98,000/- 4. AW7/5 14.7.1988 8K 12M Valtoha 1,98,000/- 5. AW7/6 14.7.1988 6K 13M Valtoha 1,70,000/- 6. AW7/7 14.7.1988 14K 15M _ 1,50,000/- 7. AW7/8 14.7.1988 10 K 11M _ 1,99,000/- 7 As against this, the respondents also led oral as well as documentary evidence. They examined RW-1 Jagmohan Singh, Naib Tehsildar RW-2 Surinder Singh, Tehsildar RW-3 S.I.A.Rizvi,Commander 191, Bn.B.S.F Amarkot and RW-4 Ram Singh Patwari Cricle. They also produced certain sale deeds i.e. Ex.Rl dated, 28.3.1988, Ex.R2 dated, 13.3.1988, Ex.R3 dated 28.3.1988, Ex.R4 dated 10.3.1988, Ex.R5 dated, 25.2.1988, Ex.R6 dated, 10.3.1988 and Ex.R7 dated, 29.3.1988 vide which 12 kanals 8 marlas, 4 kanals 3 kanals, 17 marlas. 31 kanals-11 Marlas and 11 kanals 8 marlas of land situated in village Valtoha was sold for sums of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 35,000/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 14,250/- respectively. 8. After taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence and also the decision rendered by Sh. 31 kanals-11 Marlas and 11 kanals 8 marlas of land situated in village Valtoha was sold for sums of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 6,000/-, Rs. 35,000/-, Rs. 5,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 14,250/- respectively. 8. After taking into consideration the aforesaid evidence and also the decision rendered by Sh. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.5.1995 in LA. Case No. 33 of 1993 in which compensation for the same acquisition has been assessed @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, the reference Court of Sh.Virender Kumar, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, found that the claimants cannot be given the benefit of acquisition of land which comprises in one block, and maintained the award of the Collector. Whereas in the two Regular First Appeals bearing Nos. 2076 of 1995 and 2074 of 1996, which have arisen out of the order passed by Sh.S.K.Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.5.1995, pertaining to the same acquisition, the compensation has been assessed @ Rs. 2,00,000/-per acre on the ground that there is no single document on the record which could show as to how the Collector has taken base value of the land in dispute @ Rs. 68,000/- per acre and Rs. 50,000/- per acre, whereas it has been mentioned in para 3 of the written statement filed by the respondent-State that average value of the acquired land within the belt of 80 karams was Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, though it was assessed by the Collector @ Rs. 68,000/- per acre. Sh.S.K.Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar also found that the sale deed Ex.A-1 pertaining to village Valtoha for an area of 6 kanals 13 marlas is fetching price of Rs. 1,70,000/- which comes to Rs. 2,40,500/- per acre in the year 1988 and according to the other sale deeds, the per acre rate comes to Rs. 1,84,000/- of the period of July, 1988, whereas land was acquired under Section 4 of the Act on 3.3.1989. Keeping in view these factors into consideration, the compensation @ Rs 2,00,000/- per acre has been awarded. 9. Mr. G.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in all the appeals but for Regular First Appeal Nos. 2076 of 1995 and 2074 of 1996, has relied upon the award of Sh. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. Keeping in view these factors into consideration, the compensation @ Rs 2,00,000/- per acre has been awarded. 9. Mr. G.S. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the claimants in all the appeals but for Regular First Appeal Nos. 2076 of 1995 and 2074 of 1996, has relied upon the award of Sh. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.5.1995 and submitted that since the land has been acquired by one notification for one purpose and is comprising in one block having identical and similar advantages, all the claimants should have been awarded the compensation at the same rate. 10. In order to buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the claimants/landowners has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Dia v. State of Haryana 1994 (2) RRR 288, a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Mangtoo @Mangoo v. Union of India & Ors. 2001 (Supp),All India Acquisition & Compensation Cases 590, Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar and others v. State of Haryana, 2005 (1) All India Land Acquisition & compensation Cases, 253, a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Narain v. State of Haryana, 2001 (1) Land Acquisition & compensation Cases 520, Kaila Devi and others v. State of Haryana, 1999(2) RCR(Civil) 522 : 1999(1) PLJ 585, whereas Mrs. Ekta Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in RFA No. 2076 of 1995 wherein Sh. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 15.5.1995 awarded Rs. two lacs per acre, has challenged the said award on the ground that value of the similarly situated land has been sold vide sale deed Ex. A-1 comes to Rs. 2,40,500/- per acre, therefore, the claimant should have been awarded the same compensation instead of two lacs per acre. In this background, learned counsel prayed for further enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,40,500/- per acre. 11. The learned counsel for the State, while supporting the order of Sh. Virender Kumar, learned Addl. A-1 comes to Rs. 2,40,500/- per acre, therefore, the claimant should have been awarded the same compensation instead of two lacs per acre. In this background, learned counsel prayed for further enhancement of compensation from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 2,40,500/- per acre. 11. The learned counsel for the State, while supporting the order of Sh. Virender Kumar, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 23.2.2001 vide which the award of the Collector has been maintained, contended that the claimants have not led any evidence to prove that the land, subject matter of the order passed by the reference Court dated 23.2.2001, had the same potentiality as that of the land which was subject matter of the order passed by the reference Court on 15.5.1995, therefore, both cannot be compared and as such, no further enhancement can be given by relying upon the order passed in L.A. Case No. 33 of 1993. He further contended that the sale deeds produced by the respondents depict the actual value of the acquired land. 12. While pursuing their Regular First Appeal No. 2074 of 1996 which has been filed against the award of Sh. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.5.1995 and opposing the appeal bearing Regular First Appeal No. 2076 of 1995, Mr. S.K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Union of India has vehemently contended that the compensation assessed by the reference Court is based upon an admission made by the Collector which is against the interest of the Union of India, therefore, value of the acquired land cannot be assessed solely on that basis. In respect of the various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the claimants/landowners about the compensation to be awarded on the basis of the land being in compact block, Mr. Sharma, submitted that the said judgments are distinguishable on their own facts and are inapplicable. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 14. There is no doubt that vide award dated 15.5.1995 in the case of S. Gurcharanjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Sh. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, has awarded the compensation @ Rs. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. 14. There is no doubt that vide award dated 15.5.1995 in the case of S. Gurcharanjit Singh v. State of Punjab, Sh. S.K. Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, has awarded the compensation @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre for the land which has been acquired by notification issued under Section 4 of the Act dated 3.3.1989 measuring 94 acres 2 kanals 16 marlas for the purpose of construction of Battalion Headquarters of Border Security force. In the said case, the reference Court not only relied upon the admission made by the Collector in the written statement who has stated that the amount of compensation would be within the range of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, but also relied upon the sale deed Ex. A-1 of village Valtoha relating to the land measuring 6 kanals 13 marlas which was sold for Rs. 1,70,000/- on 14.7.1988 which comes to Rs. 2,40,500/- per acre and came to a conclusion that since the land has been acquired in the present case on 3.3.1989 after the sale deed Ex. A-l, the value should not be less than Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. It was also observed that no evidence could be led by the respondent-State to show the reasoning adopted by the Collector to fix the market value @ Rs. 68,000/- per acre and Rs. 50,000/- per acre. Now the question arises whether the sale deeds which have been produced by S.Gurcharanjit Singh in the case of Regular First Appeal No. 2076 of 1995 are also part of the record of the cases decided by Sh.Virender Kumar learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, on 23.2.2001. 15. On perusal of the judgment dated 23.2.2001, I have found that all the sale deeds which have been mentioned in the order of Sh.S.K.Garg, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.5.1995 are there in the judgment of Sh.Virender Kumar, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 23.2.2001. Thus, the sale deed Ex. A-1 available in the record of Regular First Appeal No. 2076 of 1995 is the same in the record of Regular First Appeal No. 4334 of 2001 as Ex.AW7/2. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 15.5.1995 are there in the judgment of Sh.Virender Kumar, learned Addl. District Judge, Amritsar, dated 23.2.2001. Thus, the sale deed Ex. A-1 available in the record of Regular First Appeal No. 2076 of 1995 is the same in the record of Regular First Appeal No. 4334 of 2001 as Ex.AW7/2. The order dated 15.5.1995 passed by Sh.S.K.Garg, the then learned Addl.District Judge,Amritsar in L.A.C.Case No. 33 of 1993 is on record of the cases decided by Sh.Varinder Kumar, the then learned Addl.District Judge, Amritsar as Ex.AW 4/6. 16. While dealing with this evidence, the learned Addl.District Judge,Amritsar, in order dated 23.2.2001, has observed that "no evidence has been led that the land acquired in the present cases, had the same potentials or value, as the land acquired, which was subject matter of the order dated 15.5.1995 passed by Sh.S.K.Garg, the then learned Addl.District Judge, Amritsar, in L.A.C Case No. 33 of 1993, therefore,both the cases cannot be taken on the same footing". 17. While dealing with the sale deed Ex. AW7/2, he further observed that "no cogent and convincing evidence has been led to suggest that the land sold vide the aforesaid sale deed adjoins the land acquired" On these premises, the sale deed Ex.AW7/2 and the award Ex.AW7/6 were discarded by the learned Court below while maintaining the award of the Collector. As has been argued and it is a matter of fact that 94 acres, 2 kanals and 16 marlas of land situated in three villages of Daudpura, Mehmoodpura and Valtoha was acquired by the same notification dated 29.8.1989 for the same public purpose, namely for the construction of Battalion Headquarters of Border Security Force. It is also not in dispute that the entire land is in compact block. Sale deed Ex. AW7/2 is of village Valtoha dated 14.7.1988, which is in close proximity of the date of acquisition which is 29.8.1989 and since the land of three villages has been acquired running into 92 acres, it is not required that the land sold in village Valtoha vide Ex. AW7/2 must be adjoining to the acquired land. Therefore, the order dated 23.2.2001 deserves to be set aside, more particularly in view of the fact that the sale deed Ex. AW7/2 must be adjoining to the acquired land. Therefore, the order dated 23.2.2001 deserves to be set aside, more particularly in view of the fact that the sale deed Ex. A-1 in the case of S.Gurcharanjit, Singh and Ex.AW7/2 in the present case of Kartar Singh are same and gives the value of the land sold in village Valtoha on 14.7.1988 to the tune of Rs. 2,40,500/- per acre. 18. Insofar as the appeal filed by the appellant in the case of S.Gurcharanjit Singh against the award dated 15.5.1995 is concerned, whereby the appellant prayed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the learned reference Court has considered the sale deed Ex. A-l which gives the value of Rs. 2,40,500/- per acre, therefore, the same amount be awarded instead of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has vehemently argued that the sale deed Ex.A-1 pertains to village Valtoha vide which 6 kanals 13 marlas of land has been acquired which cannot be equated with the acquired land measuring 92 acres and some cut has to be applied due to sale instances being small and for that purpose, a minimum cut of 1/3rd should be appropriate. 19. I have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties in this regard and am of the view that the award of the learned reference Court dated 15.5.1995 does not call for any interference because in case minimum cut of 20% is applied to the sale deed Ex. A-1, the value of the sale deed would come to Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre which has been awarded by the reference Court. Thus, in my view, there is no scope for further enhancement of compensation. 20. Now the question arises whether in the cases arising out of the award dated 23.2.2001 where the Collectors award has been maintained, the claimants / appellants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-per acre as has been upheld in the case of award dated 15.5.1995. Thus, in my view, there is no scope for further enhancement of compensation. 20. Now the question arises whether in the cases arising out of the award dated 23.2.2001 where the Collectors award has been maintained, the claimants / appellants are entitled to the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-per acre as has been upheld in the case of award dated 15.5.1995. In this regard, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Nand Ram v. State of Haryana, 1988(4) Supreme Court Cases 260, that the State cannot refuse to pay same and similar amount of compensation in respect of the land acquired under the same notification to the landowners whose similarly situated land was acquired under the same notification for the same public purpose. Similar is the view taken by this Court in the cases of Ram Dia, Nafe Singh, Mangtoo and Suresh Kumar etc. (Supra). 21. Thus, I hold that since the entire land is in one compact block which has beer, acquired by the same notification and for the same public purpose, then it deserves to be awarded the same compensation as that has been upheld in the case of S. Gurcharanjit Singh in Regular First Appeal No. 2076 of 1995 to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. Thus, all the appeals except Regular First Appeal Nos. 2076 of 1995 and 2074 of 1996 are allowed and the compensation is redetermined @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre with cost and all the statutory benefits in terms of the provisions of the amended Act. The two appeals bearing No. 2076 of 1995 filed by the claimant and No. 2074 of 1996 filed by Union of India and another against the award dated 15.5.1995 are dismissed, though without any order as to costs.