JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan J.: (Oral) - All the appeals are connected and arise out of the same acquisition proceedings. Out of the 20 appeals, 14 are filed by the State challenging the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court and 6 appeals are at the instance of the landowners for further enhancement of compensation for the property acquired for the purpose of Satluj Yamuna Link through a notification issued on 04.09.1989. The Collector had determined the compensation at Rs. 72,500/- per acre for Chahi land, Rs.50,000/- for Barani and Rs.45,000/- for Banjar Qadim and Rs.40,000/- for gair mumkin. On a reference to the District Court at Ropar, the land owners had relied on instances of sale namely Ex.P1 dated 16.10.1984 for 5 biswas of land for Rs.8,000/-. Ex.P2 was another sale instance in relation to the property of 2 marlas of land but both these sale deeds were rejected by the Reference Court on the ground that they were in respect of small extents of property although the value through the sale deeds brought out the value per acre at Rs.1,53,000/- as per Ex.P1 and Rs.3,20,000/- as per Ex.P2. The land owners were also making reference to an agreement which the Collector had made when there were some agitation by the villagers in Khera Gajju adjoining the revenue estate of Salempur where the Chief Minister had offered to pay Rs.1 lac per acre for all property owners, who had been dislocated by the formation of SYL Canal. This agreement itself was referred to in the judgment as forming the basis in State of Punjab Vs. Surjan Singh etc. Vol.XCVII (1990-1) PLR 278 where the acquisition related to properties in village Polwal, Tehsil Rajpura. The Court observed that although the offer was made by the Collector through a settlement which the villagers did not take the character of binding contract since it was not in the manner provided under Article 229 of the Constitution, it could still be taken as piece of evidence for determining the market value. This judgment making reliance on the Chief Minister’s agreement with the people had been relied on subsequently also by two decisions of this Court in Dalip Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab in RFA No.1005 of 1991 dated 11.02.2009 and Nachhatar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another in RFA No.101 of 1994 dated 15.12.2010. 2. This judgment making reliance on the Chief Minister’s agreement with the people had been relied on subsequently also by two decisions of this Court in Dalip Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab in RFA No.1005 of 1991 dated 11.02.2009 and Nachhatar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another in RFA No.101 of 1994 dated 15.12.2010. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, states at the worst that the appellants cannot be denied compensation at least at the rate of Rs.1 lac per acre, which was offered to be given for landlords as early as in the year 1986. Since the properties acquired were also for the year approximate to the year of agreement, the same compensation should be awarded to them as well. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the State would contend that the Reference Court had actually made reference to this agreement, which the Chief Minister had made with the people in his order but he was rejecting it in view of the fact that the Chief Minister’s offer was with reference to villagers, who were agitating for claim of higher compensation but in this case the villagers in Salempur had no such grievance and therefore, the reference to the agreement cannot be the basis. Learned counsel would also contend that there were two sale deeds Ex.R-1 and R-2 in relation to the property of the very same village at the very same time where the properties had been sold for Rs.24,471/- and Rs.27,000/- per acre. Learned counsel would contend that the valuation as found in Ex.R-1 and R-2 would alone provide the exemplar for determining the compensation. 4. When the properties in Ropar District were acquired all along the course of the canal and when the Collector was making an offer of Rs.1 lac per acre to quell disaffection among people and that itself was taken as the basis in some decisions of this Court, I do not think that it would be appropriate to make invidious distinction between one village to another village unless there had been very gross variation in the quality of land itself. All these properties are in reasonable proximity to the city of Chandigarh and lies in the next adjoining district at Ropar. All these properties are in reasonable proximity to the city of Chandigarh and lies in the next adjoining district at Ropar. I will discard the reasoning of the Reference Court that the compensation offered by the Collector with reference to persons who were creating troubles could be given compensation at Rs.1 lac and the persons, who had adopted peaceful ways of not creating a trouble ought not to be provided with the same rate of compensation. That will be sending a wrong signal to make agitation as being rewarded with higher compensation. I would, on the other hand, adopt a view that has been taken by the Court, which is pragmatic that the persons, who own properties alongside the canal must be provided compensation in a homogenous way. The determination of compensation originally by the Collector itself had discarded the sale deeds Ex.R-1 and R-2 and provided for compensation in the range of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.72,000/- starting from gair mumkin to Chahi. This had been raised from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.80,000/- by the Reference Court. I would increase the value of the property for Chahi land at Rs.1 lac, for Barani at Rs.80,000/- and for Banjar Qadim and gair mumkin at Rs.60,000/- per acre. The corresponding increase in compensation shall provide for interest and solatium as stipulated in the statute. 5. The awards are modified and the appeals filed by the land owners in RFA Nos.1674, 1676 to 1679, 1778 of 1991 and Cross Objection No.34-CI of 2000 are allowed to the above extent and the appeals filed by the State in RFA Nos.2453 to 2466 of 1991 are dismissed.