ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. C.A.NO.15015/2017 @ SLP(C) NO.20072/2017 @ D.NO.14074/2017 is taken on board. 3. Permission to file SLP is granted. 4. Applications for deletion of proforma respondents, condonation of delay in filing substitution application, substitution, transposition are allowed. 5. Leave granted. 6. Delay condoned. 7. These are the appeals preferred against a common judgment passed by the High Court. The acquisition had taken place by the issuance of separate notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') on 25.1.2008. The lands are situated in 11 different villages. A table is given below, depicting the area of land acquired and the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, the Reference Court, and the High Court: Sl.No. Village Land measuring in acres LAC AWARD Amount decided by reference court Amount decided by the High Court 1 GURGAON 51.10 Rs.90 Lacs Rs.1,64,75,000 CR Rs.3,05,01,680 CR 2 CHOMA Rs.60 lacs Rs.1,84,00,000 CR Rs.4,78,05,588 CR 3 PAWALA KHUSRUPUR 48.23 Rs.60 lacs Rs.1,41,37,575 CR Rs.4,65,52,331 CR 4 BASAI 18.20 Rs.60 lacs Rs.1,75,00,000 CR Rs.2,50,00,000 CR 5 KHERKI MAJRA DHANKOT 67.07 Rs.60 lacs Rs.1,26,00,000 CR Rs.2,80,00,000 CR 6 DHANVAPUR 34.81 Rs.60 lacs Rs.1,53,00,000 CR Rs.3,00,00,000 CR 7 TEEKAMPUR 15.28 Rs.60 lacs Rs.91,87,000 LACS Rs.1,81,58,768 8 HARSARU 88.54 Rs.50 lacs Rs.50,00,000 LACS Rs.1,20,14,000 9 SIHI 72.19 Rs.60 lacs Rs.1,51,71,800 Rs.5,09,26,672 10 KHERKI DAULA 27.43 Rs.60 lacs Rs.1,02,00,000 Rs.1,92,30,400 11 GARAULI KALAN 18.53 Rs.50 lacs Rs.1,21,18,503 Rs.2,03,71,678 8. The main question urged by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties is that no deduction has been made by the High Court and certain sale deeds have been excluded on the ground that they were for the lesser amount than determined by the Land Acquisition Collector and ratio prescribed by the Collector for the area in question, by virtue of applying the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. It was urged on behalf of the State that the exclusion of sale deeds cannot be said to be proper. Whereas it was contended on behalf of the claimants, who have come up for enhancement of compensation by filing appeals, that the High Court was fully justified in not deducting any land towards the development. The exemplars which have been taken into consideration respectively at Exhibits P.9 and P.16, are for a larger chunk of land, i.e., one acre and 1.6 acres approximately. The exemplars which have been taken into consideration respectively at Exhibits P.9 and P.16, are for a larger chunk of land, i.e., one acre and 1.6 acres approximately. Thus, the High Court is justified in not making any deduction, as a lot of development has taken place around the acquired land, which is situated between Gurgaon (Now Gurugram) and Dwarka township of New Delhi. 9. We are convinced that the land had immense potentiality and development has also taken place in the nearby area. However, at the same time, we are constrained to observe that the High Court could not have discarded the sale deeds for the lesser amount on the ground that they were excluded by operation of Section 25 of the Act. No doubt that the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Collector could not be reduced by Reference Court, in view of the provisions of Section 25 of the Act. However, at the same time, the sale deeds are required to be taken into consideration and thereafter considered decision has to be rendered, proper reasons are to be assigned for not accepting the sale deeds though the Court cannot reduce compensation. It would not mean that sale deeds are to be wholly excluded as to adjudge the value of the land. In these cases, there are certain exemplars, which are of much higher value than the one taken into consideration by the High Court, but they belong to smaller plots. Thus, the sale deeds which have been ignored, so long as they are for very small plots, whereas the valuation was more than 3-4 times as determined by the High Court. The High Court was right in excluding the said sale deeds which were of smaller plots but at the same time, the sale deeds, which are for larger area, are taken into consideration, which appears to reflect the proper valuation of the area in question at the relevant point of time, so as to determine the valuation therefrom. We find the valuation arrived at by the High Court to be acceptable. At the same time, the High Court has erred in not deducting the amount, which was required to be reduced towards the development. 10. We find the valuation arrived at by the High Court to be acceptable. At the same time, the High Court has erred in not deducting the amount, which was required to be reduced towards the development. 10. In our opinion, the deduction of 15% towards development would have been sufficient, which ought to have been made in the instant cases, in the peculiar facts of the case, considering the potentiality of the area in question and the development which has taken place all around. This order not to be treated as a precedent in any other case. Thus, we modify the determination made by the High Court to the above extent only. Let deduction be made accordingly. 11. The appeals of State are allowed to the aforesaid extent and those filed by the owners are dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. Let the amount be paid within four months from today.