JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - Cmp(M) No.1681 of 2017 in RFA No.302 of 2018 & CMP(M) No.1128 of 2017 in RFA No.303 of 2018 For the reasons set out in the applications, delay of in filing the appeals, which in my considered view, has sufficiently been explained, is condoned. Applications stand disposed of. RFA No.12/2018, 14 to 22, 24 to 28, 34, 302 & 303/2018 In these appeals, so filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the acquirer as also the claimants lay challenge to the award dated 26.09.2016, passed by learned District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P., in Land Reference Petition No.0100010/2011, titled as Gopal Chand & others vs. State of H.P. through Principal Secretary (PWD) to the Govt. of H.P., Shimla & others, alongwith other connected matters. Both claim the findings returned by the Reference Court to be perverse. Claimants seek enhancement of the awarded amount, claiming market value of the acquired land to be @ Rs. 2,00,000/- per biswa ( i.e. Rs. 40,00,000/- per bigha), whereas, according to the State, the Collector Land Acquisition, correctly determined the market value @ Rs. 4,40,000/- per bigha, irrespective of its category and classification. In terms of the impugned award market value of the acquired land stands re-determined @ Rs. 67,000/- per biswa (i.e. Rs. 13,40,000/- per bigha). 2. It is not in dispute that for a public purpose, namely, construction of Brow-Randal Marg, land situate in revenue village Phati Poshna, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P., was acquired by the State. The proceedings initiated under Section 4 of the Act, were published in the official gazette on 02.12.2006. The Collector Land Acquisition passed his Award No.4/2010 dated 26.07.2010, in terms whereof, market value of the acquired land came to be assessed at a flat rate of Rs. 4,40,000/- per bigha. The total extent of land acquired, subject matter of the present appeals is 14-07 bighas (1 Bigha= 20 biswas; 1 bigha=900 yards; 14-07 bigha=12,915 yards). 3. Aggrieved thereof, claimants filed land reference petition(s) under Section 18 of the Act, seeking redetermination of the market value of the acquired land, which stands decided in terms of impugned award dated 26.09.2016, in terms whereof, market value of the acquired land stands re-determined @ Rs. 33,333/- per biswa (i.e. Rs. 3. Aggrieved thereof, claimants filed land reference petition(s) under Section 18 of the Act, seeking redetermination of the market value of the acquired land, which stands decided in terms of impugned award dated 26.09.2016, in terms whereof, market value of the acquired land stands re-determined @ Rs. 33,333/- per biswa (i.e. Rs. 6,66,660/- per bigha), on uniform basis, irrespective of classification and category of land. 4. On first brush the enhancement seems to be disproportionately high. But it is not so. There is cogent material on record establishing justification for such increase. The total land acquired is also not huge. Individually each owner gets a small share. 5. It is not in dispute that the claimants filed different set of reference petitions, which were clubbed together and evidence led in Reference Petition No.10-R/4 of 2011, titled as Gopal Chand & others vs. State of H.P. & others. 6. What weighed with the Reference Court in enhancing the compensation was the sale deed dated 14.09.2006 (Ex.PW.7/A) whereby 4 biswas of land situate in village Poshna stood sold @ Rs. 50,000/- per biswa. Since the exemplar sale deed was of a small parcel of land, principle of deduction to the extent of 33% was applied and the market value re-determined @ Rs. 33,333/- per biswa (Rs. 6,66,660/- per bigha). 7. The claimants state that the Reference Court erred in ignoring exemplar sale deed dated 24.10.2005 (Ex.PW.7/B). Noticeably, in the reasoning assigned in para-29 of the impugned award, Reference Court rejected the said sale transaction only for the reason that it was executed more than one year prior to the issuance of notification. Well, this cannot be a reason to reject the said exemplar sale deed. Be that as it may, fact of the matter being, that even in terms of this sale transaction, land was sold @ Rs. 50,000/- per biswa. But however, admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that there was any increase of the prices in the land since the execution of the said sale deed. As such, reliance thereupon is of no consequence. 8. Claimants also seek re-determination of the market value of the acquired land on the strength of the circle rate so fixed by the revenue authorities. As such, reliance thereupon is of no consequence. 8. Claimants also seek re-determination of the market value of the acquired land on the strength of the circle rate so fixed by the revenue authorities. Even this contention needs to be rejected in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Government of (NCT of Delhi) and Others vs. Ajay Kumar and Others , (2014) 13 SCC 734 ; and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun through its Secretary vs. Bipin Kumar and another , (2004) 2 SCC 283 . 9. What is the real market value of the acquired land, is well settled. The Apex Court has clearly held it to be that which a willing vendor and willing vendee are ready to receive and pay. 10. The market value of a property for the purposes of Section 23 of the Act is the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and, indeed the best evidences of market value. { Mehta Ravindrarai Ajitrai (Deceased) through his Heirs and LRs. and Others v. State of Gujarat , (1989) 4 SCC 250 , Nelson Fernandes and Others. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, South Goa and Others. , (2007) 9 SCC 447 }. 11. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner, excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, user to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like, water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether near about Town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration. ( Atma Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and another , (2008) 2 SCC 568 ). 12. In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by LRs. and Others. , (2005) 12 SCC 1, the Apex Court held that the best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidence admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in the absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value. 13. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, Bhopal , (1989) 2 SCC 329 , the Apex Court has held that while determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. 14. One notices that claimants examined as many as nineteen witnesses, but then, testimonies of these witnesses do not in any manner establish the market value to be higher than that of sale transaction (Ex.PW.7/A). 15. Hence, this Court finds no reason, sufficient enough to enhance the market value of the acquired land than what stands re-determined by the Reference Court. 16. Coming to the contention raised on behalf of the State, one notices that two witnesses were examined on their behalf, namely, Prem Lal (RW.1) and Rajesh Sharma (RW.2). But then, from their testimonies it cannot be inferred that the evidence led by the claimants was false, incorrect or not reflective of true market value. In fact, they admit that the acquired land falls in Phati Poshna and the same Panchayat. But then, from their testimonies it cannot be inferred that the evidence led by the claimants was false, incorrect or not reflective of true market value. In fact, they admit that the acquired land falls in Phati Poshna and the same Panchayat. The same was connected by road and there are shops and offices. Hence, submission made of the State having led evidence establishing correct market value only merits rejection. It cannot be said that findings returned by the Reference Court are perverse, erroneous, illegal or that the material placed on record by the parties has not been construed and appreciated fully, in its correct perspective or that the Reference Court erred in correctly understanding, appreciating and/or applying the provisions of law. 17. As such, amount of compensation, re-determined by the Reference Court, fixing the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 33,333/- per biswa (Rs. 6,66,660/- per bigha), cannot be said to be on the higher side or not to have been borne out on the basis of material, which is cogent, reliable and admissible. 18. No other point is urged. 19. Under these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award, for the findings returned by the Reference Court cannot be said to be perverse, illegal, erroneous or not based on the correct and complete appreciation of facts or law. As such, present appeals filed by the State as also the claimants stand dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.