Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1735 (HP)

General Manager, Northern Railway v. Gian Chand

2014-11-25

RAJIV SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these RFAs, these are taken up together for being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. These regular first appeals are directed against the common award dated 29.9.2007, whereby the learned Addl. District Judge, Una, H.P., has enhanced the compensation. 3. Key facts, necessary for the adjudication of these regular first appeals are that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquiring the land for the construction of Nangal-Talwara Rail Line from Una to Churaru on 21.3.1998. The notification under Sections 6 & 7 of the Act was issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Una on 18.11.1998. The Land Acquisition Collector made the award for acquiring 3-74-68 hectares of land. The respondents-claimants, feeling aggrieved by the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Una filed references under Section 18 of the Act for making reference to the Court on the grounds that the land acquired by the appellants was of great potential value. The land was situated near Una city. The land was situated at Una to Dhamandari road. According to the claimants, the market value of the land was not less than 25,000/- per marla. The land acquired was fertile. The land was also situated in the vicinity of Dera Baba Rudru and Jhalehra town. 4. According to the appellants, the land acquired was situated far away from the Una town as well as from Una Dhamandari road. The issues were framed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Una on 14.2.2006. The learned Addl. District Judge, Una, partly allowed the land references and claimants were held entitled to enhanced market value at the uniform rate of Rs. 25,000/- per kanal for all categories of the acquired land as per their respective shares recorded in the statement recorded under Section 19 of the Act alongwith the statutory benefits. Hence, these regular first appeals. 5. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the learned Addl. District Judge, Una, has wrongly relied upon Ext. PW-2/A for enhancing compensation. According to him, the market value of the land vide Ext. RW-1/A to RW-1/K was less than what has been awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Una. He lastly contended that the learned Addl. 5. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the learned Addl. District Judge, Una, has wrongly relied upon Ext. PW-2/A for enhancing compensation. According to him, the market value of the land vide Ext. RW-1/A to RW-1/K was less than what has been awarded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Una. He lastly contended that the learned Addl. District Judge, Una has taken into consideration the sale deeds pertaining to small plots of land though the land acquired was big chunk of land. On the other hand, Mr. G.R.Palsra, Advocate, has supported the award dated 29.9.2007. 6. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the award and records of the case carefully. 7. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the H.P. Gazettee on 21.3.1998. The notifications under Sections 6 & 7 were published on 18.11.1998. The land has been acquired for the construction of Railway Line. The learned Addl. District Judge, Una, has clubbed the matters and has recorded common evidence on all these petitions. 8. PW-1 Piare Lal has proved copy of location plan Ext. PW-1/A and PW-1/B, site plan. He has proved these documents after visiting the spot. PW- 2 Jugal Kishor, Registration Clerk, has proved sale deed Ext. PW-2/A. PW-3 Suram Singh, deposed that he has sold land measuring 0-01-12 hect. for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Jagtar Singh son of Sh. Amar Nath. The copy of sale deed is Ext. PW-2/A. He has put his signatures on the same. He has received a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from Jagtar Singh. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the money was required by him for the marriage of his daughter. PW-4 Jagtar Singh deposed that in the year 1998, he has purchased land measuring 0-01-12 hect. About 6 marlas from Sh. Suram Singh for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- vide sale deed Ext. PW-2/A. He has signed the same. He has paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Suram Singh. PW-5 Shamsher Singh deposed that in the year 2005, he has purchased 6 marlas of land from Gian Chand for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as per Ext. PW-2/B. This land was situated near the railway track. One of the claimants Gian Chand has appeared as PW-6. He has led his evidence by filing an affidavit. 10,000/- to Suram Singh. PW-5 Shamsher Singh deposed that in the year 2005, he has purchased 6 marlas of land from Gian Chand for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as per Ext. PW-2/B. This land was situated near the railway track. One of the claimants Gian Chand has appeared as PW-6. He has led his evidence by filing an affidavit. According to the averments contained in his affidavit, the acquired land was capable of raising two crops. It was irrigated, however, in the revenue record entry to this effect was not made. The map was prepared by P.L. Bains. This land is situated near Una-Takka road, Jhalera Takka road and Dangehra Takka road. The potential of the land is on the higher side since it abuts this road and suitable for construction of shops, hotel and industry etc. The land is situated near Una town. They used to earn livelihood by cultivating the same. The compensation paid by the Land Acquisition Collector was meager. The Una was fast developing town. They were entitled to Rs. 25,000/- per kanal. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that the land was not abutting the road. He denied the suggestion that one portion of the acquired land was 'banjar kadim’ and remaining 'birani avval’. 9. RW-1 Joginder Singh, Naib Tehsildar, has produced the record of the Land Acquisition Collector. The award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 18.9.2000 after completing all the formalities. 10. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 21.4.1998. The learned Addl. District Judge, Una, has rightly taken into consideration Ext. PW-1/A dated 22.7.1998. it was proximate to the notification dated 21.4.1998. According to this sale deed Ext. PW-1/A, PW-3 Suram Singh has sold land measuring 0-01-12 hect. for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Jagtar Singh. He has proved copy of sale deed Ext. PW-2/A. He has received the consideration amount for 10,000/- from PW-4. PW-4 Jagtar Singh has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has purchased land measuring 0-01-12 hect. about 6 marlas from PW-3 Suram Singh PW-2/A for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. PW-1 Pyare Lal has proved Ext. PW-1/A and Ext. PW-1/B, location plan and site plan, respectively. PW-2 Jugal Kishor, Registration Clerk has brought the original record and he has proved sale deed Ext. about 6 marlas from PW-3 Suram Singh PW-2/A for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/-. PW-1 Pyare Lal has proved Ext. PW-1/A and Ext. PW-1/B, location plan and site plan, respectively. PW-2 Jugal Kishor, Registration Clerk has brought the original record and he has proved sale deed Ext. PW-2/A. Now, as far as statement of PW-5 Shamsher Singh is concerned, it cannot be taken into consideration for the simple reason that PW-5 Shamsher Singh has purchased the land from Gian Chand in the year 2005. 11. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, has also argued that the large chunk of land has been acquired but the learned Addl. District Judge, Una, has taken into consideration exemplar Ext. PW-1/A of small piece of land. The appellant has not placed on record copy of any sale deed in proximity to before and after the notification dated 21.4.1998. It is now well settled that the exemplars of small plots can be taken into consideration but the suitable deductions are required to be made while determining the market price of the land. 12. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal vrs. Collector, Varanasi, reported in (1988) 2 SCC 150 , have held that subsequent transactions which are not proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for purposes of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further, under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value. However, this principle would be applicable to only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. In the instant case, the appellant has not put any suggestion that there was any fluctuation in the prices from the date of preliminary notification and the date of subsequent notification. Their lordships have held as under: “13. The sale transaction at Ext. 24 was an year later. In the instant case, the appellant has not put any suggestion that there was any fluctuation in the prices from the date of preliminary notification and the date of subsequent notification. Their lordships have held as under: “13. The sale transaction at Ext. 24 was an year later. Such subsequent transactions which are not proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for purposes of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value. This Court in State of U. P. v. Maj. Jitender Kumar, (See AIR 1982 SC 876 (877)) observed : "......It is true that the sale deed Ext. 21 upon which the High Court has relied is of a date three years later than the Notification under S. 4 but no material was produced before the Court to suggest that there was any fluctuation in the market rate at Meerut from 1948 onwards till 1951 and if so to what extent. In the absence of any material showing any fluctuation in the market rate the High Court thought it fit to rely upon Ex. 21 under which the Housing Society itself had purchased land in the neighbourhood of the land (in) dispute. On the whole we are not satisfied that any error was committed by the High Court in relying upon the sale deed Ex. 21..." But this principle could be appealed to only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. The burden of establishing this would be squarely on the party relying on such subsequent transaction. In the present case appellant did not endeavour to show that between the date of preliminary notification i.e. 4-7-1959 and the date of Ext. 24 i. e. 18-8-1960 there was no appreciation in the value of land in the area. Therefore, Ext. 24 cannot be relied upon as affording evidence of the market value as on 4- 7-1959. We cannot accept the argument that the price indicated in Ext. 24 i. e. 18-8-1960 there was no appreciation in the value of land in the area. Therefore, Ext. 24 cannot be relied upon as affording evidence of the market value as on 4- 7-1959. We cannot accept the argument that the price indicated in Ext. 24 should be accepted after allowing an appropriate deduction for the possible appreciation of the land values during the period of one year. Apart from other difficulties in this exercise, there is no evidence as to the rate and degree of appreciation in the values of land so that the figure could be jobbed backwards from 14-7-1960 to 4-7-1959.” 13. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. vrs. State of Kerala, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 195 , have held that the compensation should be fair and reasonable and not arbitrary and unreasonable. Their lordships have held that when the courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land the best evidence of the value of the property is the sale of acquired land to which claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands. The underlying principle to fix a fair market value with reference to comparable sale is to reduce the element of speculation. In a comparable sale the features are: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; (2) it should be a bonafide transaction; (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired and (4) it should possess similar advantages. Their lordships have held as under: “10. Therefore, the transaction relating to the acquired land of recent dates or in the neighbourhood lands that possessed of similar potentiality or fertility or other advantageous features are relevant pieces of evidence. When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the land in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands. In proof of the sale transaction, the relationship of the parties to the transaction, the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the date of the sale are to be looked into. In proof of the sale transaction, the relationship of the parties to the transaction, the market conditions, the terms of the sale and the date of the sale are to be looked into. These features would be established by examining either the vendor or vendee and if they are not available, the attesting witnesses who have personal knowledge of the transaction etc. The original sale deed or certified copy thereof should be tendered as evidence. The underlying principles to fix a fair market value with reference to comparable sales is to reduce the element of speculation. In a comparable sales the features are: (1) it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; (2) it should be a bona fide transaction; (3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and (4) it should possess similar advantages. These should be established by adduction of material evidence by examining as stated above the parties to the sale or persons having personal knowledge of the sale transactions. The proof also would focus on the fact whether the transactions are genuine and bona fide transactions. As held by this Court in Collector, Rajgarh v. Hari Singh Thakur, (1979) 2 SCR 183 : ( AIR 1979 SC 472 ) that fictitious and unreal transactions of speculative nature brought into existence in quick succession should be rejected. In that case it was found by majority that these sale deeds are brought up sales. In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector. Varanasi (1988) 2 SCR 1025 , that the price at which the property fetches would be by a willing seller to a willing purchaser but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arm's length. The prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities and the bona fide transactions of the sale at time of preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best, evidence of the market value. Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar land is not available. The prices fetched for smaller plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. Smaller plots always would have special features like the urgent need of the buyer, the advantageous situation, the like of the buyer etc. 17. The prices fetched for smaller plots cannot form basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. Smaller plots always would have special features like the urgent need of the buyer, the advantageous situation, the like of the buyer etc. 17. In Narasingh Rao's case, I have dealt with in paragraph 8 thus: "The object of the inquiry is to bring on record the price fetched or capable of fetching, the relative situation of the land acquired and the subject of the sale transaction, their fertility, suitability, nature of the use to which they are put to, income derived or other special distinctive features possessed of by the respective lands either single or some or all relevant to the facts in issue. In this process the courts are not mere umpires but to take intelligent participation and to see whether the counsel on either side are directing towards this goal or the court itself to intervene in this regard. "Therefore, it is the paramount duty of the courts of facts to subject the evidence to close scrutiny, objectively assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper considerations thereof in correct perspective to arrive at reasonable market value. The attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. The neighbourhood lands possessed of similar potentialities or same advantageous features or any advantageous special circumstances available in each case also are to be taken into account. Thus, the object of the assessment of the evidence is to arrive at a fair and reasonable market value of the lands and in that process sometime trench on the border of the guesswork but mechanical assessment has to be eschewed. The Judges are to draw from their experience and the normal human conduct of parties in bona fide and genuine sale transactions is the guiding star in evaluating evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasises solely on the claimants' right to compensation would place heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. 18. The Judges are to draw from their experience and the normal human conduct of parties in bona fide and genuine sale transactions is the guiding star in evaluating evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasises solely on the claimants' right to compensation would place heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. 18. In V. R. Katarki v. State of Karnataka, C. A. No. 4392 of 1986, D/- 22-3-1990, decided by Bench of this Court to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) is a member, the appellant apart from other charges, was imputed with misconduct of fixing in his capacity as Civil Judge at Bagalkot, "higher valuation than was legitimate of the lands." After conducting enquiry he was dismissed from service and when he challenged it, the High Court upheld it on the judicial side. On further appeal., since the appeals against higher valuation were pending in the High Court, without going into that question, while confirming the dismissal laid the rule thus: "We would like to make a special mention of the position that even if that assessment of valuation is modified or affirmed in an appeal as a part of the judicial process, the conduct of the judicial officer drawable from an overall picture of the matter would yet be available to be looked into. In appropriate. cases it may be opened to draw inferences even from judicial acts" of the misconduct. The rule of conduct spurned by this Court squarely put the nail on the official act as a refuge to fix arbitrary and unreasonable market value and the person concerned shall not camouflage the official act to a hidden conduct in the function of fixing arbitrary or unreasonable compensation to the acquired land. Equally it is salutary to note that the claimant has legal and legitimate right to a fair and reasonable compensation to the land he is deprived of by legal process. The claimant has to be recompensated for rehabilitation or to purchase similar lands else where. In some cases for lack of comparable sales it may not be possible to adduce evidence of sale transactions of the neighbouring lands possessed of same or similar quality. The claimant has to be recompensated for rehabilitation or to purchase similar lands else where. In some cases for lack of comparable sales it may not be possible to adduce evidence of sale transactions of the neighbouring lands possessed of same or similar quality. So insistence of adduction of precise or scientific evidence would cause disadvantage to the claimants in not getting the reasonable and proper market value prevailing on the date of' notification under Section 4(l). Therefore it is the paramount duty of the Land Acquisition Judge authority to keep before him always the even scales to adopt pragmatic approach without indulging in facts of imagination" and assess the market value which is reasonably capable to fetch reasonable market value. What is fair and reasonable market value is always a question of fact depending on the nature of the evidence, circumstances and probabilities in each case, The guiding star would be the conduct of a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market condition as on the date of the notification under Sec. 4(1) but not an anxious buyer dealing at arm's length nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value.” 14. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh and others. vrs. Union of India, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 186 , have held that in the absence of any evidence of sale of land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, under certain conditions the post-notification transactions of sales of land can be relied upon in determining the market value of the acquired land. One of the conditions being that it must be shown before the Court by reliable evidence that there was no appreciation of the value of land during the period of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act and the date of transaction of sale which is sought to be relied upon for the purposes of fixing the market value of the acquired land. Their lordships have held as under: “5. Their lordships have held as under: “5. Before we advert to the argument raised on behalf of the appellants, it has to be borne in mind while deciding these appeals, this Court is not required to reappraise the evidences which were considered by the Courts below. But what concerns us is whether correct or legal principles were applied in arriving at the market value of the acquired land in awarding compensation to the claimants. When a land is compulsorily acquired, what is basically required to be done for awarding compensation is to arrive at the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The market value of a piece of land for determining compensation under Section 23 of the Act would be the price at which the vendor and the vendee (buyer and seller) are willing to sell or purchase the land. The consideration in terms of price received for land under bona fide transaction on the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act or few days before or after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act generally shows the market value of the acquired land and the market value of the acquired land has to be assessed in terms of those transactions. The sale of land on or about the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act is stated to be the best piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. Often evidence on transaction of sale of land on or few days before the notification under Section 4 is not available. In the absence of such evidence contemporaneous transactions in respect of lands which had similar advantages and disadvantages would be the good piece of evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land. In case the same is not also available, the other transaction of land having similar advantages nearer to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act would guide in determination of the market value of acquired land. In case the same is not also available, the other transaction of land having similar advantages nearer to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act would guide in determination of the market value of acquired land. In the present case, in the absence of evidence of any transaction or sale of land on the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, the Court would be justified in relying upon the transaction of sale of land having similar advantages nearer to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act which can be taken as a guide for determining the market value of the acquired land and compensation to be awarded to the claimants. Thus the transaction of sale of land after the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act can guide the Court in fixing the market value of the acquired lands under certain conditions. In the case of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 , it was held thus (at p. 948) : "Such subsequent transaction which are not proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for purpose of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value." 15. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A. Natesam Pillai vrs. Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition, Tiruchy, reported in (2010) 9 SCC 118 , have held that small area of land in exemplar though not comparable with acquired land may not be an excellent guide but it is still a better guide than other documents exhibited, and same can be used as a relevant yardstick to assess just and reasonable compensation. Their lordships have held as under: “18. The small area of land measuring 1710 sq. ft. was sold for Rs. 20,000/- as per Ex. A3 dated 15.7.92 which works out to a value of Rs. 11/- per sq. ft. A comparison of the two plots, namely, land in Ex. Their lordships have held as under: “18. The small area of land measuring 1710 sq. ft. was sold for Rs. 20,000/- as per Ex. A3 dated 15.7.92 which works out to a value of Rs. 11/- per sq. ft. A comparison of the two plots, namely, land in Ex. A3 and the acquired land shows that they are not identical. While the land in Ex. A3 may not be an excellent guide it is still a better guide than any other document exhibited on record. The same could be used as a relevant yardstick to assess the just and reasonable compensation in the present case.” 16. Similarly, their lordships have held that sale deed which is dated post-notification is generally ignored, however, evidence is led to show that there was no increase in price despite such acquisition. Their lordships have held as under: “11. It is important to note that Ex. A1 and Ex. A4 are sale deeds executed subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4(1) and for this reason, the High Court held these to be irrelevant for the purpose of determining compensation. The first clause of Section 23 of the Act clearly provides that the amount of compensation awarded for the land acquired is required to be determined on the basis of market value of the land at the time of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, it is the duty of both of the Land Acquisition Officer as also of the Court to determine the actual compensation payable for the land acquired by referring to evidence regarding fair and just compensation near about the proximate date or on the date itself of the publication of the notification under Section 4. 12. At times, in order to prove the actual, fair and just compensation for the land acquired, sale deeds of the adjacent land or nearabout adjacent land are produced to indicate the trend of the value of the land within the near vicinity of the acquired land. Such sale deeds are taken notice of generally when they are prior in point of time to the date of notification, and any sale deed which is post notification dated is generally ignored, unless evidence is led to show that there was no increase in price despite such acquisition. 14. Such sale deeds are taken notice of generally when they are prior in point of time to the date of notification, and any sale deed which is post notification dated is generally ignored, unless evidence is led to show that there was no increase in price despite such acquisition. 14. As a result of such acquisition, the market value of the adjacent land would generally, and in most cases, go up and therefore, such post notification transaction may not be a sound criterion to determine and assess the value of the acquired land. In the present case, the appellant has also not adduced any evidence to show that the market value of adjacent land has not increased in the interregnum. The Reference Court and the High Court were justified in rejecting these sale deeds from consideration. We must, therefore, keep the aforesaid two sale deeds outside our consideration while assessing and determining the just and fair compensation for the acquired land. Ex. A2 is also a sale deed but the same also is not a safe guide as the price for the land covered therein was later on increased to make it in parity with the government prescribed rate.” 17. Thus the learned Addl. District Judge, Una has taken into consideration the sale deed Ext. PW-2/A dated 22.7.1998. The notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 21.4.1998 and is within the period of proximately 3 months. 18. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rishi Pal Singh and others vrs. Meerut Development Authority and another, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 205 , have held that exemplars of small plots can be taken into consideration specially when other relevant or material evidence not available, provided adequate discount given in that behalf. Their lordships have held as under : “5. On merits the learned counsel submits with reference to the impugned judgment of the High Court that only two reasons have been given by the High Court for setting aside the order of the Reference Court and remanding the case back to it. First reason is that exemplars relied upon by the Reference Court are of small plots of land whereas the acquisition is of a large tracts of land i.e. about 180 acres. First reason is that exemplars relied upon by the Reference Court are of small plots of land whereas the acquisition is of a large tracts of land i.e. about 180 acres. The second reason given in the impugned judgment for remand is that exemplars filed by the acquiring authority i.e. appellants before us, were not considered by the Reference Court. The learned counsel for the appellants has taken us through the judgment of the Reference Court to show that both the reasons given by the High Court in its impugned order are factually incorrect. With respect to the first reason, that is, exemplars of small plots have been taken into consideration by the Reference Court, in the first instance our attention was invited to some judgments of this Court to urge that there is no absolute bar to exemplars of small plots being considered provided adequate discount is given in this behalf. Thus there is no bar in law to exemplars of small plots being considered. In an appropriate case, specially when other relevant or material evidence is not available, such exemplars can be considered after making adequate discount. This is a case in which appropriate exemplars are not available. The Reference Court has made adequate discount for taking the exemplars of smaller plots into consideration. It appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to this part of the judgment of the Reference Court which has resulted in the High court completely overlooking the relevant discussion in the judgment of the Reference Court.” 19. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Trishala Jain and another vrs. State of Uttaranchal and another, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 47 , have held that the value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land but with a rider that the court while taking such instances into consideration has to make some deduction keeping in view other attendant circumstances and facts of that particular case. Their lordships have held as under: “44. Their lordships have held as under: “44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction. Similarly the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilisation, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principles each case would have to be considered on its own merits. 81. It is not in dispute before us that sale instance at serial No. 108 falls in the Revenue Estate of the same Village and as recorded by the Reference Court, in LA Case No. 121 of 1994, it is situated at a distance of 1= furlong from the acquired land. The acquired land belonging to the claimants forms part of Khasra No.39/2 while, in the same Reveue Estate, the sale instance at serial No. 108 is part of Khasra No. 410. Thus a sale deed related to a land in such proximity of time and distance cannot be said to be incomparable sale instance, i.e. it has to be taken as a comparable sale instance. Though it relates to the sale of a smaller plot of land but is certainly bigger than the land sold by the claimants between themselves. Its location and potential, if not identical in absolute terms, is certainly comparable for the purposes of determining market value of the land in question. 82. It is a well established principle that the value of sale of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land but with a rider that the Court while taking such instances into consideration has to make some deduction keeping in view other attendant circumstances and facts of that particular case. We have already held that keeping in view the surrounding developed areas and location and potential of the land it will meet the ends of justice if 10% deduction is made from the estimated market value of the acquired land.” 20. We have already held that keeping in view the surrounding developed areas and location and potential of the land it will meet the ends of justice if 10% deduction is made from the estimated market value of the acquired land.” 20. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bilkis and others vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2011) 12 SCC 646 , have held that the following factors are required to be considered for determining compensation: (i) Conversion of acquired land into non-agricultural land; (ii) Potential for which land was reasonably capable of being used; (iii) Existence of some structures; (iv) Proximity to highway. In the present case also, the land is situated on the either side of the road. It is in close proximity to town. It is of great potential for development. The potentiality of the land has to be taken into consideration for determining compensation. 21. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Sarangapani vrs. Special Tahsildar Karur Dindigul Broadguage Line, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 177 , have held that in absence of any other exemplars, small pieces of land can be taken into consideration after applying appropriate deduction. Their lordships have held as under: “19. Equally erroneous is the approach adopted by the High Court in fixing market value of the remaining land. Although, the appellants' argument that the Reference Court should not have segregated land covered by the trees for the purpose of fixing market value of the remaining land may not be acceptable because once market value of the trees was separately fixed, there could be no justification for clubbing the two types of land for the purpose of fixing market value, the High Court committed serious error by ignoring the two sale instances - Ext. A4 and A5 and, at the same time, applying 1/3 rd cut. It is true that the two sale instances related to a small parcel of land but, in the absence of any other exemplar, such sale instance could be relied upon for the purpose of fixing market value of the acquired land, on which trees had not been planted, after applying an appropriate cut. By Ext.A4 dated 8.9.1982, 21 cents land was sold for a sum of Rs.41,500/-. The same piece of land was sold vide Ext. By Ext.A4 dated 8.9.1982, 21 cents land was sold for a sum of Rs.41,500/-. The same piece of land was sold vide Ext. A5 dated 6.7.1983 at the same price, i.e. Rs.41,500/-. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 30.5.1984. If the rule of escalation in the land price evolved by this Court is applied, then a minimum increase of 10% is to be added to the price specified in Ext. A5. Thus, as on the date of Section 4(1) notification, the approximate value of 21 cents land would be Rs.45,550/-. This would be equivalent to approximately Rs.2,169/- per cent and Rs.2,27,750/- per acre. Though, the respondent did not produce any evidence to show the amount, which was likely to be spent on making the land useful for the purpose of laying Broad Gauge Line, if 1/3rd cut applied by the High Court is considered reasonable in view of the principles laid down by this Court in Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 , which were reiterated in Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. (2003) 10 SCC 525 , V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority (2004) 10 SCC 745 , market value of the acquired land will be about Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. 20. We also agree with Shri Nageswara Rao that the appellants should be given the benefit of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sunder v. Union of India (supra). It appears that attention of the High Court was not drawn to that judgment else it would have, in all probability, extended the benefit of that judgment to the appellants. 21. In the result, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgments are set aside and the award passed by the Reference Court is restored with modification that the appellants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount with effect from 11.3.1985, i.e. the date on which possession of land was taken by the Railway Department. They shall also be entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India (supra). They shall also be entitled to interest on solatium and additional amount in terms of the judgment in Sunder v. Union of India (supra). The respondent is directed to pay the balance amount of compensation and interest to the legal representatives of the landowners within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this judgment.” 22. Their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Digamber and others vrs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 406 , have reiterated that the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors: (i) Existing geographical situation of the land. (ii) Existing use of the land. (iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area. (iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land. 23. The land is situated near Una town. Una town is fastly developing town. The land is also situated on Una-Takka road, Jhalera Takka road and Dangehra Takka road. The appellants have not led any evidence except by producing DW-1, Joginder Singh, who has proved the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, dated 18.9.2000. There is no record of comparable sales available on record other than document Ext. PW-2/A. According to the sale deed Ext. PW-2/A, the rate of one kanal also comes to Rs. 33,340/- for abbi kind of land. The acquired land is connected with the metalled roads. The learned Addl. District Judge, has rightly reduced the rate of land 33340 per kanal to Rs. 25,000/-. The land acquired is for the construction of the railway track and thus the same was to be assessed irrespective of its classification. According to the revenue record, the land of the claimants is other than the classified as 'banjar kadim’ or 'birani avval’, as per the revenue record. The market value assessed by the learned Addl. District Judge at the uniform rate of Rs. 25,000/- is legal. The claimants have rightly been held entitled to other statutory benefits, as per law. 24. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, that the excess amount has been awarded contrary to Ext. RW-1/A to RW-1/K prepared by the government agency. The market value has been assessed on the basis of the sale deed Ext. The claimants have rightly been held entitled to other statutory benefits, as per law. 24. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, that the excess amount has been awarded contrary to Ext. RW-1/A to RW-1/K prepared by the government agency. The market value has been assessed on the basis of the sale deed Ext. PW-1/A, which was in close proximity to the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 21.4.1998. 25. Accordingly, there is no merit in these RFAs and the same are dismissed.