JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta; CJ. 1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Land Acquisition Judge dated 28.07.2007 in Misc. L.A. (Reference) 13 of 2007 whereby he enhanced the compensation of the land from Rs. 53,420/- to Rs. 84,000/- and awarded interest and also damages of Rs. 10,000/- for the damages caused due to separation of the land. 2. The land acquired is only 14 sataks. The total holding of the land owner was 18 sataks. Once 14 sataks of land is acquired the remaining 4 sataks becomes virtually of no use to the land owner. It is too small a piece of land to be cultivated as an individual field. The Land Acquisition Judge assessed the compensation of the land at Rs. 2,40,000/- per kani on the basis of a sale deed which took place in the year 1992 in which the land value was Rs. 3,20,000/- per kani. According to the appellant-State, since the sale deed was of the year 1992 and the acquisition took place in 2005, this sale deed is not relevant for assessing the value of land. 3. The learned counsel for the State is in fact right when he submits that the sale was too old. However, each case has to be decided on its own merit and in this case, even the SDM while assessing the compensation or the Land Acquisition Collector while making his award under Section 11 has not found any other sale transaction in the area in question. Thus, the only sale transaction in the area was of the year 1992. 4. In my opinion, the compensation is on the lower side because if inflation in the value of the land had been taken into consideration, the valuation would have been much more than Rs. 2,40,000/- per kani. 5. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.