JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-petitioners against the judgment dated 25.02.2005 and award prepared on 12.04.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, cum- Special Judge, Hazaribagh, in Land Reference Case No. 6 / 88. By the said impugned judgment and award, learned court below enhanced the compensation from Rs. 1,78,250/- for the total acquired land of the petitioner of area one acre and fifteen decimals to Rs. 8,77,000/- for the said total acquired land. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that, for construction of national highway and construction of a bridge near Ramgarh-Gola connecting NH33 road, an area of 2.24 acres of Raiyati land of different persons pertaining to different plots of land were acquired. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in connection with L.A. case no. 12 of 1985-86 was notified on 26.04.1985. Out of 2.24 acres of total acquired land, one acre and fifteen decimals of land belonged to the original owner Kalu Ram Choudhary. For the acquisition of said one acre and fifteen decimals of land, a total compensation amount of Rs. 1,78,250/- with solatium and interest thereon was paid. Out of the said one acre and fifteen decimals of land of the petitioner, an area of 0.24 decimals of land is tand I land of plot No. 41 /1, Acre 0.84 decimals of land is dhan II land of plot no. 39 part and Acre 0.07 decimals land is dhan II land of plot no. 34 part and all the three plots were under Khata no. 353 of village/police station Ramgarh, then in the district of Hazaribagh. 4. Being dissatisfied with the award, the predecessors in interest of the present appellant-petitioners filed a reference petition dated 7.09.1982 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for referring the matter to a competent court for determination of amount as per market rate and claimed an amount of Rs. 23,00,000/- in total as compensation. It is the case of the petitioners that the land of plot no. 34, Khata no. 353 was developed into the category of class I dhan land. The land of plot no. 39 has been developed into a quality paddy land. No written statement was filed by the State. 5. 23,00,000/- in total as compensation. It is the case of the petitioners that the land of plot no. 34, Khata no. 353 was developed into the category of class I dhan land. The land of plot no. 39 has been developed into a quality paddy land. No written statement was filed by the State. 5. In support of his case, the appellant examined five witnesses and proved the following documents: - Exhibit 1- 1D copies of different sale deeds Exhibit 2- certified copy of the order sheet From the side of the opposite party, one witness has been examined and the opposite party proved the following documents: - Exhibit A- Rate report Exhibit B- Sale figure Exhibit C- Valuation Khatiyan 6. Out of five witnesses examined by the appellant-petitioners, AW1- Ramchandra Sahu, AW2- Awdesh Kumar, AW3- Aditya Mali, AW4- Suresh Kumar Choudhury have proved different sale deeds which have been marked as Exhibit 1 to 1/D. AW5 – Kalu Ram Choudhary, is the original petitioner. AW5 has corroborated the averments made in the petition. O.P.W.1- Ajit Kumar Tiwari, has proved three exhibits marked as Exhibit A,B,C. Both the Exhibits 1 and 1/A are the sale deeds dated 19.03.1982, executed by Suraj Mal Choudhary for an area of four decimal each, having length of 100 feet from north to south and 8 ½ feet width from East to West. The western side of these lands of Exhibits 1 and 1/A is situated by the side of Ranchi-Patna road. The consideration money of these two Exhibits was Rs. 40,000/- for four decimals each which comes out to Rs. 10,000/- per decimal. These two exhibits were proved by AW1 who purchased the lands under these sale deeds. AW1 also stated that he acquired the land for constructing house and after acquisition of the land; he constructed the house on the land. Exhibit 1/B is the sale deed dated 21.02.89 in respect of part of plot no. 39 of an area of 1 ½ decimals for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/-. Exhibit 1/C is the sale deed dated 06.04.84 for an area ¾ decimals of land for consideration of Rs. 24,500/-. Exhibit 1/C was proved by the AW3. The land of exhibit 1/C is bounded in the north by the Ramgarh and Chas road and on the eastern and western and southern sides by houses. 30,000/-. Exhibit 1/C is the sale deed dated 06.04.84 for an area ¾ decimals of land for consideration of Rs. 24,500/-. Exhibit 1/C was proved by the AW3. The land of exhibit 1/C is bounded in the north by the Ramgarh and Chas road and on the eastern and western and southern sides by houses. Exhibit 1/D, which was proved by AW4 was executed on 03.06.1987. 7. Learned court below after considering the evidence in the record, both oral and documentary, held that the land of the plot no. 41 of area Acre 0.24 decimals is situated by the side of the main road having commercial potentiality and the lands of plot nos. 34 and 39 can be class dhan I lands which can be used for both residential as well as agricultural purpose and considering that the sale deed marked as Exhibits 1 and 1/A were for small portions of land of four decimals each and the big chunk of land of the petitioners could not have been sold for the price of the said small patch of land, awarded compensation @ Rs. 10,000/- per decimal for the land of plot no. 41/1 and @ Rs. 7,000/- per decimal in respect of land plot nos. 39 and 34 and held that besides the same, the claimants will also be entitled for solatium and interest thereon as per law. 8. Mr. Manindra Kr. Sinha, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned court below erred by not considering the Exhibit 1/C and value of the land of the sale deed marked as Exhibit 1/C and submitted that learned court below could not appreciate the evidence in the record in its proper perspective and learned court below ought to have awarded compensation @ Rs. 20,000/- per decimal based on materials available in the record. It is further submitted that learned court below failed to take note of the recommendation for compensation of land @ Rs. 11,84,000/- per acre, hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment be set aside and the higher compensation be awarded to the appellant-petitioners. 9. Mr. V.K. Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and award and submitted that keeping in view the evidence and material in the record, learned court below has rightly held that the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,77,000/-. 9. Mr. V.K. Prakash, the learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and award and submitted that keeping in view the evidence and material in the record, learned court below has rightly held that the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 8,77,000/-. He further submitted that Exhibit 1/C being a sale deed in respect of a small patch of land of less than one decimal in area, certainly in view of the settled principle of law, that the price of such small patch of land cannot be the price for a big chunk of land hence cannot be the sole basis for awarding compensation for a big chunk of land of one acre and fifteen decimals. It is also submitted by him that the learned court below has rightly determined the compensation, hence this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 10. Having heard rival submissions made at the bar and after going through the evidence in record, the only point for determination in this appeal is “Whether appellant-petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation, over and above the amount awarded by the learned court below? So far as the contention of the appellant regarding Exhibit 1/C is concerned, certainly the same is for a small area of 3/4 decimals of land. The said small patch of land is situated by the side of Ramgarh-Chas road and it is inside a well-developed locality because three of its side is bounded by houses. Keeping in view the peculiar nature of land and its commercial importance, certainly the rate of such small patch of land cannot be accepted to be the price of a big chunk of 1.15 acres of land acquired from the appellant-petitioners. So far as Exhibit 1/B and 1/D are concerned, both of these deeds were executed after the publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act and it is a settled principle of law that such sale deeds executed after the publication of notice is of not much importance for consideration of market value of the land on the date of publication of notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, the value of the land, the sale transaction of which was made after about little less than four years after the notification was at Rs. Further, the value of the land, the sale transaction of which was made after about little less than four years after the notification was at Rs. 15,000/- per decimal which was much less than the value of the land for which the sale deed, marked as Exhibit 1/C was executed. 11. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding non-consideration of the evidence in the record in its proper perspective is concerned, learned counsel for the appellants could not show any specific evidence which was not considered by learned court below and so far as consideration of the non- consideration of recommendation of the enquiry authority and the land acquisition officer is concerned, certainly the same is not binding upon the learned court below and the learned court below is free to form an independent opinion on the basis of the materials available in the record. 12. So far as Exhibit 1/D is concerned, the said sale deed is in respect of the land together with house with clay tiled room. The said house and land sold was situated at Ramgarh cantonment but there is absolutely no evidence in the record as to area of the same in terms of the decimals as the same has not been mentioned in the said sale deed. Certainly in the absence of any evidence regarding the area of the said land sold or the separate value of the house situated thereon or the detail description of the said house is not sufficient to assess its value, the Exhibit 1/D is not of much help to the case of the appellant-petitioners. 13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made above, I find that there is no illegality committed by learned court below in awarding the compensation and in holding that the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/- per decimal for plot no. 41 / 1 and Rs. 7,000/- per decimal in respect of lands of plot nos. 39 and 34 besides solatium and interest thereon as per law. Accordingly, the judgment dated 25.02.2005 and award prepared on 12.04.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, cum- Special Judge, Hazaribagh, in Land Reference Case No. 6 / 88 is confirmed and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. 14. 39 and 34 besides solatium and interest thereon as per law. Accordingly, the judgment dated 25.02.2005 and award prepared on 12.04.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge, cum- Special Judge, Hazaribagh, in Land Reference Case No. 6 / 88 is confirmed and this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but, in the circumstances, without costs. 14. Let the lower court records be sent back to the court below along with a copy of the judgment forthwith.