JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan J.: - Both these appeals are at the instance of the land owners seeking for enhancement of compensation for the land acquired through a notification issued on 19.10.1987 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The property acquired was an extent of 14.3 acres in village Bazidpur Saboli, Tehsil and District Sonepat for construction of Camp Building for ITBP, Government of India. The Collector had determined a compensation of Rs.55,000/- per acre besides compensation for tubewells and the compensation assessed by the Collector was retained by the Reference Court. 2. Before the Reference Court, there was fairly large volume of evidence which was adduced and the Court below had tabulated the values of property brought through various sale deeds. Of the documents, Exs.PB, PB/1 and PB/2 were in respect of small extent of land in less than 20 marlas and since the property acquired was agricultural land, the sale deeds did not provide the appropriate exemplar. Ex.PB/3 was in respect of 19 marlas . It was also not an appropriate comparison. Ex.PB/7 and PB/8 were in respect of the agricultural lands where the considerations referred to Rs.2,70,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-. Ex.PB/7 was with reference to 13 kanals 18 marlas and Ex.PB/8 was in respect of 8 kanals 2 marlas. The State on its part had filed two documents in respect of transactions of agricultural lands Ex.R/2 and R/3. Ex.R/2 was for an extent of 7 kanals 9 marlas and R/3 was in respect of 8 kanals. The consideration had been Rs.38,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. 3. The entire focus was, therefore, only on the consideration in relation to the valuation as stated under Ex.R2 and R3 and Ex.PB/7 and PB/8. The Court rejected Ex.PB/7 by reference to the fact that the sale was dated 16.12.1988 that was about 14 months after the acquisition and therefore, could not be taken for consideration. Ex.PB/8 was also postnotification on 26.09.1989 that was after 23 months of the date of acquisition. Ex.R2 and R3 themselves provided for a valuation, which was lower than the valuation made by the Collector and therefore, the Collector’s award itself was confirmed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants cites before me a judgment of this Court in Rampat Vs. The State of Haryana and others in RFA No.2323 of 1991 dated 29.05.2008. Ex.R2 and R3 themselves provided for a valuation, which was lower than the valuation made by the Collector and therefore, the Collector’s award itself was confirmed. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants cites before me a judgment of this Court in Rampat Vs. The State of Haryana and others in RFA No.2323 of 1991 dated 29.05.2008. This decision was in respect of acquisition notification issued on 06.11.1986 for the very same purpose of construction of camp building for ITBP from the very same village Bazidpur Saboli. The compensation determined by the Court was Rs.55,000/- per acre. This Court was holding that the Court could take judicial notice of the fact that the property was in the proximity of GT road and that it was just at the outskirts of Delhi. A judicial determination of price to a property in the proximity is always a relevant factor for consideration for compensation. I would, therefore, take the valuation as taken by this Court and provide for a modest increase of 7.5% being a rural property for two years at 15%. The compensation per acre would, therefore, be Rs.58,250/- per acre besides valuation already determined for structures in the property. There shall be an enhancement of compensation as above with additional amount and solatium as provided under the Land Acquisition Act. 5. The appeals are allowed with costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------