JUDGMENT Mr. K. Kannan, J.: (Oral) - The appeal is for enhancement of compensation for acquisition of the land of the appellant to an extent of 5 kanal 7 marlas in village Bawanikhera. The purpose of acquisition was use of the property for laying a bypass road. The notifications under Section 4 and 6 were respectively issued on 12.01.1989 and 26.07.1989. The possession had been taken even prior to the notifications in the year 1978 itself. 2. Against the assessment of value of the property at Rs.60/- per sq. yard by the Collector, the reference Court increased it to Rs.80/- per sq. yard. The appellant relied essentially on a transaction of an inter-departmental sale namely of a Municipal Committee to Telecommunication department of a property which the appellant claimed to be in its proximity at Rs.200/- per sq. yard. He also relied on a transaction of sale in yet another place of house site with construction thereon, which had also been sold for Rs.200/- per sq. yard. 3. The State relied on transactions of sale exhibited as R8 to R13 that dealt with farther east of the properties acquired of various parcels of land that spell out prices ranging between Rs.40/- to Rs.60/- per sq. yard. The reference Court on an overall assessment of the documents assessed the value of the property at Rs.80/- per sq. yard. Against this assessment, the present appeal has been filed for enhancement. 4. The appellant relies on the evidence of witnesses particularly of the officials connected to the Municipal Committee who spoke about the fact that a land to an extent of 7 kanal 12 marlas was transferred to the Telecommunication department for Rs.200/- per sq. yard. There appeared to be no sale deed for the same but the evidence produced were copies of official notings and the communications evidencing the value assessed and the amount offered to be paid by the Telecommunication department to the Municipal Committee. PW2 was a Clerk of the Municipal Committee that spoke about the transaction and PW3 was a Lamberdar of the village. His evidence was to the effect that the land, which was acquired, was in ward No.6 and the bypass road was upto the abadi and that even across the bypass road there were certain houses. PW2 was a Clerk of the Municipal Committee that spoke about the transaction and PW3 was a Lamberdar of the village. His evidence was to the effect that the land, which was acquired, was in ward No.6 and the bypass road was upto the abadi and that even across the bypass road there were certain houses. However, in the cross-examination it was elicited through him that in killa No.24 itself which was a property acquired from the appellant, there was no house and no water or electricity connection. PW4 was the Secretary, Municipal Committee who spoke also of the fact that the property was transferred to Telecommunication department at Rs.200/- per sq. yard. He also stated that the Colony was chalked out by the Municipal Committee at bypass road near the land in question and also stated that between the land which was transferred to the Telecommunication department and the appellant’s land, there was a distance of about 700-800 yards. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contests the reliance on an inter-departmental transaction and also argued that it will hardly reflect the basis of valuation what a willing buyer is prepared to pay to a willing purchaser. He would refer to a decision taken by a learned Judge of this Court in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors. in RFA No.122 of 2000 and a bunch of cases, where the Court discarded a transfer of sale by one Government department to the other as not affording the good piece of evidence for determining the fair value of the land. The learned counsel would also rely on a decision of the Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy and other v. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad reported in (1995) 2 SCC 305 where the Court was examining the effect of oral evidence and the inferences drawn by an ineffective crossexamination on the evidence of valuation given orally. The attempt of the State counsel was to lay emphasis on the quality of evidence placed through PW3 and PW4 who merely gave evidence on the valuation of the property without any documentary support for their assertions. The attempt of the State counsel was to lay emphasis on the quality of evidence placed through PW3 and PW4 who merely gave evidence on the valuation of the property without any documentary support for their assertions. The learned counsel would also argue that the sale deeds filed by the State was east of the property in its proximity and the valuation as given for sale of agricultural lands provided the appropriate exemplars for assessing the value of the acquired land as well. 6. The value of the property could be assessed inevitably only on the basis of the documentary evidence that is brought before the Court and there is hardly a scope for a judge to bring his own assumptions of how valuable the property could be in a given place. I am unwilling also to subscribe to an observation made by my brother Judge that inter-departmental transactions cannot offer a proper guide for assessment of value. One would suppose that Government functionaries bring to scrutiny transactions with greater circumspection than even private individuals could since all monetary transactions are subject to a lynxed eye examination through audit from Government departments. We may discard sham transactions in Government which are subject to detailed investigations by authorities like CBI and Police but I would hold generally transactions between Government in relation to the property and a price assessed could never be arbitrary. In this case again I may not be weary of accepting the evidence of witnesses who have been functionaries in the Municipal Committee or in the revenue department, for, they were not placing the testimony in air with no grounding to documents. On the other hand, there had been reference to official communications and proceedings that they were personally acquainted with and on which basis the evidence was led. I find, therefore, no reason to even assume that the decision in P. Ram Reddy’s case will have relevance for consideration in this case. 7. A rough sketch detailing location of the property which were transferred by the Municipal Committee to the Telecommunication department as well as the property transactions that were dealt with through Ex.R8 to Ex.R13 are spelt out. 7. A rough sketch detailing location of the property which were transferred by the Municipal Committee to the Telecommunication department as well as the property transactions that were dealt with through Ex.R8 to Ex.R13 are spelt out. I find that the property acquired from the appellant is shown immediately proximate to a road running nearby and the property transferred by the Municipal Committee lies along the same road but at a distance of about 700-800 yards as spoken by a witness. The transactions of sales covered through Ex.R8 to Ex.R13 relate to property which are far away from the road but of extent which are in the range of more than 1acre except for Ex.R9 which is relatively a small piece of land of only 3 kanal. The documents relied on even by the appellant as regards the inter-departmental transaction is about one and half years subsequent to Section 4 notification and the sale transaction covered by A7 includes a house property as well. The acquired property, however, is much more valuable than the property covered by Ex.R8 to Ex.R13 and I have already held that the property related to transaction farther from the road. The property cannot simply be taken as agricultural land since there is clear evidence that it is proximate to the abadi and the property situated in ward No.6 which is a part of the residential dwellings of the Panchayat. The value of the property for assessment has to be somewhere between the evidence brought by the State through Ex.R8 to Ex.R11 and the evidence brought by the appellant through P-1 and P-7. The valuation as found in the documents must, therefore, veer around valuation, which after certain approximation, I would think, could be taken at Rs.150/- per sq. yard. The award of the reference Court, therefore, stands modified at Rs.150/- per sq. yard. 8. In the matter of calculation of interest and solatium, it is also stated in the order of reference Court that the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act shall be taken from the date of notification till the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking over possession. yard. 8. In the matter of calculation of interest and solatium, it is also stated in the order of reference Court that the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act shall be taken from the date of notification till the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking over possession. In this case, the possession has been taken over nearly 9 years prior to the Section 4 notification itself, therefore, the observation of the District Judge must be understood as the benefit of Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act to enure from the date of notification till the date of award of the Collector. The case would require a fresh consideration for use and occupation of the property from the date of taking of possession to the date of the notification under Section 4. This order shall conclude the valuation of the property by the modification referred to above and as such executable and the remand to the Collector shall be consigned only for determination of use and occupation from the date of taking possession till the date of Section 4(1) notification and having regard to the fact that the proceedings relate to the notification issued in the year 1989, the Land Acquisition Collector shall proceed to conduct the inquiry and conclude the same within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 9. The award stands modified and the appeal allowed to the above extent.