JUDGMENT Mr. K.Kannan, J.:- All the appeals are at the instance of the landowners seeking for enhancement of compensation for the property acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The details of acquisition are as follows:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of notification under Section 4 19.02.1998 Village Bir Pipli, Bazidpur Total extent acquired 12 acres, 5 kanals, 14 marlas Purpose of acquisition Setting of pump station of Indian Oil Corporation Collector’s award 4 lakh for 4 kanals-4 marlas abutting Pipli- Ladwa Road-3 lakhs Reference Court 6.60 lakhs for 4 kanals-4 marlas abutting Pipli- Ladwa Road-3 lakhs for other lands ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. At the trial, there had been substantial reference to the documents of sale for the properties adjoining the acquired land to serve as exemplars for determination of compensation. There had been also references to earlier awards passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, under Ex.P51 which was a land that fell west of the National Highway, that is, towards the town of Thanesar and the Reference Court rejected the entire award as irrelevant since it pertained to the acquisition of land for floating a commercial sector, namely, Sector 2, Park-II, while the acquired land fell 800 meters towards east of National Highway, that is, farther away from the town of Thanesar. There was yet another award dated 15.12.2000 regarding acquisition of land for Village Ratgal for construction of sector road for Sector 10, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra. It was also seen to be located west of the National Highway and far away from the acquired land and the said award was also excluded. The earlier awards being themselves not providing any basis for determination of compensation, the whole assessment fell to be considered on the basis of sale instances. 3. At the trial, a site plan (Ex.P1) had been produced that set out locations of various buildings. The Reference Court had noticed that New Grain Market, Pipli was close to the GT Road, whereas the acquired land was 800 meters away from the GT Road. There had been two shops on the acquired land and some fruit plants as well, but the remaining land was being used for agricultural purposes at the time of acquisition and admitted to be so by the landowners during the time of trial. There had been two shops on the acquired land and some fruit plants as well, but the remaining land was being used for agricultural purposes at the time of acquisition and admitted to be so by the landowners during the time of trial. The landowners themselves had pleaded that the irrigation facilities that existed for the lands for agriculture and how the acquisition had caused severance for some of them that made it difficult for them for carrying on agricultural operations for the unacquired land. The Reference Court had considered this evidence and held that barring Rectangle No.29/8 measuring 4 kanals 4 marlas that was described as gair mumkin which abutted Pipli-Ladwa road, all other lands were only agricultural lands and they had to be assessed as such. The Land Acquisition Collector had therefore awarded compensation @ Rs. 4 lakh per acre for the said land of 4 kanals-4 marlas and @ Rs.3 lakh per acre for the remaining acquired land which formed a compact block and farther away from the Ladwa-Pipli road. The depth of gair mumkin land itself was more than 50 karams from Ladwa-Pipli road and as such, the remaining acquired land lying at a distance of 50 karams from the said road had been rightly categorized separately by the Collector. The Reference Court, therefore, rejected the claim by the landowners that all the properties must be treated as non-agricultural commercial properties and rejected also out of consideration several documents of sale in respect of small parcels of land where the transactions had dealt with the properties as nonagricultural commercial or residential plots. The Reference Court was therefore deliberately discarding transactions of sales P4 to P16, P42, P43, P65, P66 and P71 as not worthy of consideration. Amongst the documents filed by the State, the Reference Court found R11 to R20 had dealt with properties at the rate of about Rs.2 lakhs per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector himself had awarded the compensation @ Rs.3 lakhs for the land in the Village Bazidpur which was more than the average sale price brought through the sale instances. The Reference Court found a justification for the same by making reference to P12, dated 03.09.1993 which was about 4 ½ years prior to the instant notification where the transaction was with respect to land in Bazidpur. The Reference Court found a justification for the same by making reference to P12, dated 03.09.1993 which was about 4 ½ years prior to the instant notification where the transaction was with respect to land in Bazidpur. P23 was dated 25.07.1997 in respect of 1 ½ marlas of land sold for Rs.95,000/-. The average sale was still less than Rs. 3 lakhs and the Court found that the Collector was justified in assessing the compensation payable for the land in Village Bazidpur at Rs. 3 lakhs. 4. As regards the market price for 4 kanals-4 marlas for gair mumkin land, the landowners had relied on substantial documents. Out of 43 sale instances, the sale price in about 28 transactions was less than Rs. 4 lakhs. P17, P19 to P22 and P24, according to the Reference Court, offered a sound basis for determination of value. However, P17 itself included certain constructions and, therefore, the total consideration could not have provided the basis for valuation of acquired lands. P19 and P21 were within the municipal limit, while the acquired land was outside the municipal limit. P22 was a shop and the sale price had included the cost of the shop also. P25 was just prior to Section 4 notification, but it was comprised of a shop and located at Ladwa road itself. R1 to R10 averaged the sale price of Rs.13,19,222/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Collector had applied a 60% cut and taken the compensation at Rs.4 lakhs per acre. The Court observed that 60% cut was on a higher side and applied a 50% cut to assess the value of the property for gair mumkin at Rs. 6,60,000/- per acre and enhanced the same. 5. As regards the remaining properties in Village Bir Pipli, there were 13 sale instances which averaged a market value of Rs.2,96,025/- per acre and finding that there were no other transactions, the Reference Court observed that compensation payable would be Rs. 3 lakhs as determined by the Collector and there was no justification for making enhancement. 6. 5. As regards the remaining properties in Village Bir Pipli, there were 13 sale instances which averaged a market value of Rs.2,96,025/- per acre and finding that there were no other transactions, the Reference Court observed that compensation payable would be Rs. 3 lakhs as determined by the Collector and there was no justification for making enhancement. 6. The learned counsel for the landowners would contend that the Reference Court was not justified in rejecting the immense potential of the properties for non-agricultural use and he must have taken note of the already existing constructions in some buildings and must have adopted the valuation as brought through the sale deeds Exs.P4 to P16 as well as the other documents that had treated the property as non-agricultural property. Existence of market in about 800 meters is not too far away a plot and if the Court found that there was evidence that mandi was in a distance of less than 1 kilometer and there were also some plots in some of the acquired properties, the Court could not have rejected the potential of the land for non-agricultural use in future and treated the properties only as agricultural lands. Indeed, the sale instances relied on by the landowners themselves were not essentially only for small extents of land but there were sufficient number of documents which had dealt with larger extents. Considering the fact that the total property acquired for the Villages in Bir Pipli and Bazidpur was 12 acres for setting up a pump station for Indian Oil Corporation, that is, for a homogeneous purpose of establishing one huge complex of fuel station, with no prospect of land of any piece of land for being set apart for common purpose for further development, the comparable sales would be with reference to transactions which were reasonably large. I, therefore, would identify as relevant the following transaction of sales which were more than 2 kanals of land and where the transactions had been not merely with reference to small portions in a few marlas. Though the sale transactions dealt with properties as agricultural lands, the fact that they were in the immediate proximity of shops and buildings and existence of national highway, the prospect of non-commercial purpose in future would itself have dictated higher prices. Sale instances ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By claimants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ex. Though the sale transactions dealt with properties as agricultural lands, the fact that they were in the immediate proximity of shops and buildings and existence of national highway, the prospect of non-commercial purpose in future would itself have dictated higher prices. Sale instances ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By claimants ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ex. Date Extent Consideration Value per acre P5 14.07.1991 7K 15 M 5,08,000/- 5,24,387/- P6 14.03.1991 7K 10M 4,92,000/- 5,24,800/- P16 19.12.1996 2K 8M 4,00,000/- 13,03,448/- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ By State ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ R1 14.03.1997 2K 6M 60,000/- 2,08,645/- R3 06.06.1997 12K 1M 3,76,000/- 2,49,626/- R4 07.07.1997 8K 4M 2,50,000/- 2,43,902/- R5 15.07.1997 8K 1M 2,01,500/- 2,00,248/- R8 20.11.1997 4K 37,500/- 75,000/- R9 21.11.1997 24K 4,50,000/- 1,50,000/- R10 08.12.1997 7K 3M 44,000/- 3,06,086/- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7. If amongst the sales cited as relevant on the side of the landowners and the principle of averaging were to be applied for transactions of the year 1991 and provide for escalation @ 12% for 7 years between the dates of sale and the dates of notification, the value per acre turns out to be Rs.9,02,300/-. On the other hand, if the transactions of sales of the year 1997 are taken and an averaging is applied, leaving out R8 which is unusually low, the value of the property providing for escalation at 12% turns out to be Rs.2,53,587/-. A huge variation obtains by the fact that sales of the year 1997 reflected an average price between Rs.2 lakhs to Rs.3 lakhs, while the transaction of sales in the year 1991, that is, nearly 7 years prior to the notification shows substantially higher prices. It is not possible for me to gauge the cause for such variation where the prices of the land in the year 1991 have registered a higher value than the prices of the value of properties in the year 1997. The location of these properties cited as sale deeds are themselves not identified in the plan which is filed as Ex.P1. I would assume that the transaction of sales in the year 1991 relied on by the landowners have actually taken note of potentiality of the lands for nonagricultural purposes, while the sale deeds relied on by the State have been only by reference to the lands being treated as agricultural lands only. I would assume that the transaction of sales in the year 1991 relied on by the landowners have actually taken note of potentiality of the lands for nonagricultural purposes, while the sale deeds relied on by the State have been only by reference to the lands being treated as agricultural lands only. Normally, sale instances taken as exemplars shall be within a period of 4-5 years, as laid down by the Supreme Court in ONGC Versus Rameshbai Jivanbhai Patel- (2008) 14 SCC 745 , I shall give the benefit of increase to the landowners that command a higher price than the sale deeds produced by the Government would fetch. Ex P16 relates to a period of just two years prior to the notification, and being the highest price at around Rs.13 lakhs, I shall take the said valuation but will find no reason to make any further provision for enhancement but will apply a 30% deduction for taking the sale instance of a relatively small parcel of land. The Reference Court has provided the value of the lands at Rs. 3 lakhs but I am of the view that the sale transactions produced by the landowners being higher in value, the same will be preferred by application of the principle that the landowners would be entitled to consideration of the highest prices and there shall be no averaging amongst of sales of various years especially when the variation is significant. The principle of averaging itself will be applied only if the prices of lands operate within a narrow bandwidth, as held by the Supreme Court in Anjani Molu Dessai Versus State of Goa, [2011(2) Law Herald (SC) 1623] : (2010) 13 SCC 710 . Applying a 30% deduction on Rs. 13 lacs, I shall assess the valuation of the property to be Rs. 9,10,000/- per acre. Since the whole extent of properties fall in two categories, namely 4 kanals and 4 marlas along the road at a relatively higher price and the remaining properties which were actually used as agricultural lands situate at more than 800 meters from the national highway at another rate, I maintain the same categorization and hold 4 kanals 4 marlas in Rectangle No.29/8 that were identified by the Reference Court to deserve a higher compensation shall be provided with Rs. 9.1 per acre and a proportionate reduction of value for the remaining properties, being ¾ of the valuation viz., Rs. 6.75 lacs per acre. This principle has been approved for properties situate at more than 500 m from the main road in several decisions including Union of India Versus Mangatu Ram- (1997) 6 SCC 59 . Just not the distance, if even the manner of treatment of the properties at the time of acquisition had been different, namely, some non-agricultural and others agricultural, (see also Ludhiana Improvement Trust Versus Brijeshwar Singh Chhal- (1996) 9 SCC 188 ) differential valuation through a belting system could be adopted for properties adjacent to the road and for properties lower in level and where some more development works had to be done. Differential rates for agricultural and non-agricultural lands were also adopted in Sher Singh Versus State of Haryana- (1991) 3 SCC 335 . 8. Apart from determination of compensation for the land, there had been also evidence with reference to value of some structures and for severance. The persons, who have given evidence for value of some structures are Jai Pal-PW21, PW18-Raghbir Singh, who have claimed that there was boundary wall and PW20 Om Parkash who claimed that he had constructed a barber shop. I find no reason for making provision for the value of these structures since none of these parties are before the Court in any appeal. PW23-Chander Bose has claimed damages for severance which, according to him, had been caused to his land but even the said person is not in appeal before this Court. All the above cases have been therefore addressed for enhancement only as regards the value of the lands without reference to structures. 9. The increase in compensation assessed viz. at Rs. 9,10,000/- per acre for property in Rectangle No.29/8 and Rs. 6,75,000/- for the rest of the properties shall also attract all the statutory benefits under sections 23 (1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. 10. The appeals are allowed to the above extent. ---------0.B.S.0------------