JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - For the construction of road connecting Delhi-Jaipur road to Government College, Sidhrawali, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, land measuring 1.05 acres was acquired by the State of Haryana pursuant to notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which was issued on 1.4.1986. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.12.1986. The Land Acquisition Collector, Ambala Cantt. (for short, the Collector) announced his Award in respect of land measuring 0.96 acres on 18.3.1987 whereby following compensation was announced: Chahi and Gair Mumkin: Rs.50,080/- per acre. Gair Mumkin Rasta: Rs.20,000/- per acre. All other statutory benefits were allowed. 2. It was also noticed that difference of 0.9 acres of land in between the publication of notifications under Sections 4 as also 6 of the Act was due to miscalculation of area of min Khasra numbers or because of the reason that only approximate area had been taken for the purpose of declaration by the acquiring department. 3. Aggrieved with the impugned Award of the Collector, the landowners had filed their references seeking enhancement of compensation to the Collector which were referred to the District Judge, Gurgaon. Consequently, such references were decided under Section 18 of the Act by the Court of Sh. Ramendra Jain, the then Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. In the said references, landowners had taken an objection that the acquired land was having great potential as the same was situated adjacent to National Highway No.8 where other buildings were also located. It was set up that the Collector had not taken locational and situational facts of the land as also its nature and potentialities. It was claimed that no compensation had even been paid for Pacca well existing in the lane and pumping set which had been installed in the land. 4. The appellant-State of Haryana had resisted these references claiming that there was no scope for any enhancement. To determine the compensation payable while arriving at the market value of the land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the reference court had considered oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the rival claimants and had come to a conclusion that market value of the acquired land was Rs.3,20,000/- per acre on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Sale deed Ex.P1 proved by its vendee Jai Narain (PW1), sale deed Ex.P2 proved by its vendee Ram Sarup (PW2) and sale deed Ex.P3 proved by its vendee yet another Ram Sarup as also sale deeds Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 proved in evidence by J.E. Tej Parkash had also been taken into consideration. One of the landowners viz. Suraj Bhan appearing as PW4 has left nothing for guess work when it was explained by him that acquired land was Chahi and was under tubewell irrigation. He further explained that market value of the acquired land was more than Rs.3 lacs per acre at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. 5. Hearing has been provided. 6. Notification under Section 4 of the Act is of 15.4.1986. Sale deed Ex.P1 was executed on 1.10.1986 and sale deed Ex.P3 is of 25.7.1986. Sale deed Ex.R2 which had been produced by the appellant-State of Haryana is copy of sale deed Ex.P2. 7. Documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 were rightly ignored by the reference court as those had come into existence after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Thereafter, the reference court was left with sale deed Ex.P2 as also sale deeds Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Comparison of contents of sale deed Ex.P2 reveals that sale deed Ex.R2 is in fact only copy of the sale deed Ex.P2. Once the acquiring State has itself relied on sale deed Ex.R2 with a view to determine the market value of the acquired land, reference court was right in making this instance of sale to be the foundation for ascertaining the market value of the land. 8. Sale deed Ex.P2/Ex.R2 was executed on 26.12.1985 whereas the date of notification is 15.4.1986. Sale deed Ex.P2 is thus of a prior date. Sale deed Ex.R1 pertains to land of village Palra. Land acquired is located in village Sidhrawali. Sequelly, sale deed Ex.R1 was to be of no help to the reference court in determination of the market value. 9. Sale deed Ex.P2/Ex.R2 was executed on 26.12.1985 whereas the date of notification is 15.4.1986. Sale deed Ex.P2 is thus of a prior date. Sale deed Ex.R1 pertains to land of village Palra. Land acquired is located in village Sidhrawali. Sequelly, sale deed Ex.R1 was to be of no help to the reference court in determination of the market value. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-State referring to K.S. Shivadevamma and others Versus Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and another 1996 AIR (SC) 2886 and State of Haryana Versus Mohinder Singh 1999(2) PLR 389 (P&H) has urged that in case of acquisition of land by State Government, sale instances of smaller pieces of land cannot form basis for determination of just and fair market value of the land. There is no dispute about the proposition of law laid down in these authorities and there cannot be any. 10. No doubt, land sold vide sale deed Ex.P2/Ex.R2 is 5 Marlas but it cannot be ignored that even the land acquired is not a big chunk but is only small one. The land acquired was even less than one acre. In fact, it was 0.96 acre of land. In the backdrop of the peculiar facts of the case where land acquired also was not a big piece of land, no fault can be found with the reference court in having made sale deed Ex.P2/Ex.R2 as the basic pedestal for determining the amount of compensation. 11. Location of the land is also strategic. It was acquired to connect Delhi-Jaipur road with Government College, Sidhrawali. There are important and strategically located buildings in the immediate vicinity. Contention of counsel for the appellants is that even cut on account of development charges was not applied and hence realistic figure of the market value of the acquired land had not emerged. It was not a big chunk of land. A small piece of land was acquired to connect National Highway i.e. Delhi-Jaipur road with Government College, Sidhrawali. 12. The reference court can also not be faultered for not having applied cut on account of development charges which charges the Government generally spends for making the acquired land usable and useful for the purpose for which it has been acquired. A small piece of land was acquired to connect National Highway i.e. Delhi-Jaipur road with Government College, Sidhrawali. 12. The reference court can also not be faultered for not having applied cut on account of development charges which charges the Government generally spends for making the acquired land usable and useful for the purpose for which it has been acquired. As it was a small piece of land and was already so strategically located in a developed area being near the main highway, no expenditure on development was spent. 13. Sequelly, market value of the acquired land having been assessed at Rs.3,20,000/- on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act cannot be faltered on quantum. 14. So far as compensation on account of existence of well and construction in the nature of a building is concerned, there being complete omission of the appellants-claimants in producing evidence, it is a case of no evidence and rightly no compensation on that count was awarded. 15. Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, it is held that the compensation was rightly given by the reference court. Sequelly, affirming the impugned order dated 5.10.1999 passed by the reference court, both the appeals being without any merit, are dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————