JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —Even though three separate awards were passed by the learned District Judge, however, taking into consideration that the purpose of acquisition was common, i.e., for the purpose of construction of Rohru Barara Road, the appeals were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this judgment. 2. Facts as are common to all these appeals are that a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was issued on 23.5.1996 followed by notification under sections 6 and 7 of the Act that were issued on 8.1.1997. These were further followed under section 9 of the Act to the interested persons, who appeared before the Collector. After considering the claims and evidence produced before him, the market value of the acquired land was assessed vide of Award No.21/85 dated 29.7.1997 as under: Classification of land Rates per biswa 1) Kiar Awal/Doyam Rs. 53, 639-80 2) Bakhal Awal Rs. 22, 528.80 3) Krali Doyam Rs. 11, 800.00 The Collector further allowed compulsory charges @ 30% on the market value so assessed and additional compensation @ 12% alongwith interest was also awarded. 3. The reference in two cases, which now forms the subject matter of RFA No. 438 and 439 of 2006 was answered by a common award dated 4.8.2006, whereas separate award passed in the case of Jagtender Singh, which now form the subject matter of RFA No. 275/2007, yet another award was passed in Reference Petition preferred by Binda Ram and another, which now forms subject matter of RFA No. 214 of 2007. 4. Since the Reference Petition in these cases save and except RFA Nos. 438 and 439 of 2006 have been answered by the Court by passing separate awards, the appeals arising of such awards would have to be answered separately. However, before going into the merits of each of the appeals, it would be necessary to set out certain principles that are required to be borne in mind while determining compensation under Land Acquisition Act. 5. The first and foremost is the price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer subject to transaction being for the land adjacent to the land, proximity to the date and possessing similar advantages. 5. The first and foremost is the price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer subject to transaction being for the land adjacent to the land, proximity to the date and possessing similar advantages. Of course, the other well-known methods of valuation like opinion of experts and yield method. In absence of any evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to take into account the transaction of nearest land around the date of notification under section 4 of the Act by making suitable alliance. There can be no fixed criteria as what would be the suitable addition or subtraction from the value of the land relied upon. 6. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Land Acquisition Officer , (1988) 3 SCC 751 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court summed up the principle as follows: [4] The following factors must be etched on the mental screen : (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Ss. 6 and 9 are irrelevant) . (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under S. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations : (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:- Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size. 1. largeness of area. 2. Proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. 7. Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 eq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction byway of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction byway of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. 7. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court shall not determine the merits of each of the appeal(s) . RFA Nos. 438 and 439 of 2006: 8. Challenge in both these appeals is to the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge whereby it allowed the Reference Petition of the respondents-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- per biswa as compensation 9. The challenge in both these appeals is contained in ground ''d'' of the appeals, which reads thus: d. That while passing impugned award, Ld. Addl. District Judge, on one hand had rejected various sale deeds on the ground that the same are executed for commercial purposes and being very small piece of land therefore, cannot be formed basis for re-determination, but on the other hand relied sale deed Ex. PW-E/E dated 2.12.98 measuring 00-00-88 hectares of the village Gantoli i.e. 2 biswas for an amount of Rs. 29, 000/-. Needless to say in this case section 4 notification was published in the Rajpatra on 20.7.96 whereas sale deed Ex. PW-5/E so relied is dated 2.12.98 i.e. after the publication of the notification of more than one and half year. Further in para 16 of the judgment, the value has been assessed as Rs. 20, 000/- per biswa by relying escalation since 1991 on price of Rs. 14, 500/- per biswas whereas base sale deed relied is dated 2.12.98 which provides Rs. 14, 500/- per biswa. Further in para 16 of the judgment, the value has been assessed as Rs. 20, 000/- per biswa by relying escalation since 1991 on price of Rs. 14, 500/- per biswas whereas base sale deed relied is dated 2.12.98 which provides Rs. 14, 500/- per biswa. Hence, the said findings are erroneous, unreasonable, without any basis that too, abnormally highly market rate have been granted which may give hike of Rs. 3,89, 000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 11, 800/- to the land owners as the acquired land is Ghasni and Banjar Kadeem which is evident from the kind of perusal of the last line of para 6 of the judgment dated 4.8.2006. Hence, the impugned judgment/award had led to abnormal enhancement in the re-determination of the market price of the land from Rs. 11, 800/- per bigha to Rs. 4,00, 000/- per bigha by wrongly relying Ex.PW-5/E of merely 2 biswas of land which has been executed after more than one and half year. Therefore, the liability on the state exchequer had increased to manifolds through this common award. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and that of Ld. LAC below may kindly be upheld." 10. I have gone through the award and find that the aforesaid ground in fact is extraneous to the facts and material that have come on record. 11. The respondents-claimants in support of the claims had led oral as well as documentary evidence. Ex.PW-3/A is the copy of sale deed dated 27.3.1991 in respect of sale of 0-00-85 hectare, i.e. two biswas of land in village Gangtoli for Rs. 30, 000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 15, 000/- per biswa. Ex.PW-5/E is the copy of sale deed dated 2.12.1998 whereby land measuring 0-00-88 hectare land in village Gangtoli was sold for Rs. 29, 000/- per biswa, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 14, 500/- per biswa. Ex.PW-6/A is the copy of sale deed dated 26.4.1991 whereby land measuring 0-00-58 hectare in village Gangtoli was sold for Rs. 22, 000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 15, 000/- per biswa. Ex.PW-5/D is the copy of sale deed dated 8.6.1995 whereby land measuring 32.83 square meters (one biswa) situate in village Gangtoli had been sold for Rs. 40, 000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 40, 000/- per biswa. 22, 000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 15, 000/- per biswa. Ex.PW-5/D is the copy of sale deed dated 8.6.1995 whereby land measuring 32.83 square meters (one biswa) situate in village Gangtoli had been sold for Rs. 40, 000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 40, 000/- per biswa. Ex.PW-5/K is the copy of sale deed dated 25.5.1999 whereby 6 biswas of land situate in Rohru was sold for Rs. 90, 000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 15, 000/- per biswa and Ex.P-1 is the copy of award dated 18.1.1997 passed by the District Judge whereby the market value of land acquired for stadium in Gangtoli Chak in the year 1993 was assessed at Rs. 23, 440/- per biswa. 12. Bansi Lal, one of the claimants, had appeared and testified that the acquired land was Bakhal Awal and situate adjoining to the road, petrol pump, HPPWD and BDO offices were situate nearby the vicinity at a distance of less than KMs from the acquired land. 13. The appellants in support of their claim led oral as well as documentary evidence. Ex.RW-1/A is the copy of award dated 29.7.1997. 14. Adverting to Ex.RW-1/A, it is the award passed by the Collector on 29.7.1997. It would be noticed that the market value of land had been assessed therein on the basis of average alongwith village Barara on the analogy that it was adjoining to the village Gangtoli. However, the Reference Court did not consider the award, as according to it, the market value of the land in Gangtoli Chak was higher to that of Barara. Since the land acquired was in village Gangtoli Chak, therefore, its value was to be assessed in respect of sale in Gangtoli Chak. 15. It is not in dispute that as per the record of the Collector, the market value in Gangtoli Chak in the year 1991 was Rs. 15, 000/- per biswa. As per Ex.PW5/D, the rate worked out to be Rs. 40, 000/- per biswa. However the sale effected vide sale deed Ex.PW-5/B was with respect to only one biswa of land and since the same was for commercial purpose, therefore, it was rightly not made the basis for assessing the rate of compensation. However, since the market value of land in Gangtoli Chak in the year 1991 was admittedly at the rate of Rs. However the sale effected vide sale deed Ex.PW-5/B was with respect to only one biswa of land and since the same was for commercial purpose, therefore, it was rightly not made the basis for assessing the rate of compensation. However, since the market value of land in Gangtoli Chak in the year 1991 was admittedly at the rate of Rs. 15, 000/- per biswa, therefore, no fault can be found with the award made by the Reference Court whereby it assessed the value of the land @ Rs. 20, 000/- per biswa, that too, in the year 1996 that is after five years of the assessed market value of the land in the year 1991. 16. As regards the award passed by the District Judge Ex.P-1 dated 18.1.1997, the same was rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court on the ground that it pertained to different parcel of land and is for different purpose. 17. It has come on record that the acquired land is situate in Gangtoli Chak adjoining to Municipal area of Rohru, petrol pump, HPPWD office, Poly Technic College, Senior Secondary School, Tourism Hotel, Rest House situate near the acquired land. Obviously, therefore, the land so acquired was having great potential value. 18. At this stage, it is vehemently contended by the learned Advocate General that the acquired land was Ghasani and Banjar Kadim, therefore, the amount of Rs. 20, 000/- per biswa could not have been awarded. However, this contention is apparently without any basis because admittedly even as per the award of the Collector, the acquired land fell in three categories, i.e. Kiar Awal/Doyam, Bakhal Awal and Krali Doyam and this fact has been so acknowledged even in the appeal filed before this Court in para 1 wherein it has been specifically averred as under: "That the applicant/appellant state acquired the land of the respondents/land owners in village Barara, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. for the construction of Rohru Barara Road. For this purpose the notificatioin under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Government of H.P. which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on dated 20.7.1996. The codal formalities under the Land Acquisition Act were also fulfilled and thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector H.P. PWD Rampur Bsr now at Winter Field, Shimla-3. After the approval of the market rate of the acquired land from the H.P. Govt. The codal formalities under the Land Acquisition Act were also fulfilled and thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector H.P. PWD Rampur Bsr now at Winter Field, Shimla-3. After the approval of the market rate of the acquired land from the H.P. Govt. for Kiar Awal is Rs. 53, 640/- per bigha, Kiar Doem Rs. 53, 640/-, Bhakhal Awal Rs. 22, 529 Karali Awal Rs. 11, 800/- announced the award on 9.12.1997. However, feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award of the Land Acquisition Collector respondent/petitioner filed reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act." RFA No. 214/2007 19. Challenge in this appeal is laid to the award passed by the Additional District Judge whereby it allowed the Reference Petition of the claimantsrespondents and awarded a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- per bigha as compensation towards the land and a sum of Rs. 39, 696/- for the trees standing thereupon. 20. The challenge in this appeal is contained in para (d) of the appeal, which reads thus: d. That while passing impugned award, Ld. Addl. District Judge, on one hand had rejected various sale deeds on the ground that the same are executed for commercial purposes and being very small piece of land therefore, cannot be formed basis for re-determination, but on the other hand relied sale deed Ex. PW-E/E dated 2.12.98 measuring 00-00-88 hectares of the village Gantoli i.e. 2 biswas for an amount of Rs. 29, 000/-. Needless to say in this case section 4 notification was published in the Rajpatra on 20.7.96 whereas sale deed Ex. PW-5/E so relied is dated 2.12.98 i.e. after the publication of the notification of more than one and half year. Further in para 16 of the judgment, the value has been assessed as Rs. 20, 000/- per biswa by relying escalation since 1991 on price of Rs. 14, 500/- per biswas whereas base sale deed relied is dated 2.12.98 which provides Rs. 14, 500/- per biswa. Hence, the said findings are erroneous, unreasonable, without any basis that too, abnormally highly market rate have been granted which may give hike of Rs. 3,89, 000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 11, 800/- to the land owners as the acquired land is Ghasni and Banjar Kadeem which is evident from the kind of perusal of the last line of para 6 of the judgment dated 4.8.2006. 3,89, 000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 11, 800/- to the land owners as the acquired land is Ghasni and Banjar Kadeem which is evident from the kind of perusal of the last line of para 6 of the judgment dated 4.8.2006. Hence, the impugned judgment/award had led to abnormal enhancement in the re-determination of the market price of the land from Rs. 11, 800/- per bigha to Rs. 4,00, 000/- per bigha by wrongly relying Ex.PW-5/E of merely 2 biswas of land which has been executed after more than one and half year. Therefore, the liability on the state exchequer had increased to manifolds through this common award. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and that of Ld. LAC below may kindly be upheld." 21. I have gone through the award and find that the aforesaid ground again to be extraneous to the facts and material that have come on record. 22. The respondents-claimants in support of their claim led oral as well as documentary evidence. Ex.PW-1/D is the copy of sale deed dated 24.2.1985 in respect of sale of 6 biswas of land in Chak Gangtoli sold by PW-3 Fishku Ram for Rs. 33, 000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per biswa. Ex. PW-2/B is copy of one year average for the period 16th June, 1997 to 15th June, 1998 in respect of Mauza Barara and the average value of different kinds of land is as under: Classification of land Rates per bigha Kiar Awal Rs. 40, 402.40 Bakhal Awal Rs. 16, 969.00 Bakhal Doyam Rs. 8,888.60 Gair Majruha Rs. 8,888.60 23. Likewise Ex. PW-2/C is one year average for the period 16th June, 1997 to 15th June, 1998 of Mauza Gangtoli and the average of land is as under: Classification of land Rates per bigha Kiar Awal Rs. 4,53, 098.00 Bakhal Awal Rs. 1,44, 991.20 Karali Awal Rs. 66, 454.20 Karali Doyam Rs. 30, 206.00 Gairmumkin & Banjar Rs. 30, 206.40 24. Binda Ram, one of the respondentsclaimants appeared as PW-1 and deposed that the acquired land was situate adjacent to Mauza Gangtoli and Ex.PW-2/A is the certificate issued to this effect by the Patwari dated 15.2.1999. 25. The appellants in support of their claim led oral as well as documentary evidence. 30, 206.00 Gairmumkin & Banjar Rs. 30, 206.40 24. Binda Ram, one of the respondentsclaimants appeared as PW-1 and deposed that the acquired land was situate adjacent to Mauza Gangtoli and Ex.PW-2/A is the certificate issued to this effect by the Patwari dated 15.2.1999. 25. The appellants in support of their claim led oral as well as documentary evidence. Ex.R-1 is the copy of sale deed dated 3.5.1995 whereby land measuring 0-00-40 hectare in Chak Barara was sold by Surat Ram in favour of Leela Devi for Rs. 1,000/-, i.e. Rs. 1,000/- per biswa. Ex.R-2 is the copy of sale deed dated 3.6.1995 in respect of the sale of land measuring 0-00-83 hectare in Chak Barara sold by Kewal Ram to Prem Chand for Rs. 3,000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,350/- per biswa. 26. Notably, the transactions of sale produced by the appellants relate to Gangtoli whereas the land is situate in Mauza Barara. Gangtoli is situate in proximity of Rohru while Barara is adjacent to Gangtoli. Therefore, the instances of sale of Mauza Gangtoli can be useful in determining the market value but cannot form the basis thereof. 27. The transaction of sale, which is comparable to the land situate in Barara, is Ex. R-2, copy of sale deed dated 3.6.1995 vide which one biswa of land was sold for Rs. 1,350/-, i.e. Rs. 27, 000/- per bigha. After making deduction of 25% because of the smallness of the plot, the market value of Bakhal Doyam works out to Rs. 20, 250/- or say Rs. 20, 000/- per bigha. 28. As regards 13 fruit bearing trees, obviously no exception can be taken to the findings so recorded because the same are entirely based upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India vs. Khajana Ram and others , (1998) 1 ShimLC 479 , whereby the assessment of fruit bearing trees has to be increased four times. In this case, the Collector had awarded the compensation of Rs. 9,924.00/-, which when multiplied by four comes to Rs. 39, 696.00 and this is what precisely has been awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. RFA No. 275/2007 29. Challenge in this appeal is laid to the award passed by the Additional District Judge whereby it allowed the Reference Petition of the claimantsrespondents and enhanced the compensation by awarding a sum of Rs. 39, 696.00 and this is what precisely has been awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. RFA No. 275/2007 29. Challenge in this appeal is laid to the award passed by the Additional District Judge whereby it allowed the Reference Petition of the claimantsrespondents and enhanced the compensation by awarding a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- per bigha for Bakhal Doyam and Karali, Rs. 30, 000/- per bigha for Bakhal Awal land and Rs. 50, 000/- per bigha for Bagicha Bakhal Awal land. 30. The challenge in this appeal is contained in para (d) of the appeal, which reads thus: d. That while passing impugned award, Ld. Addl. District Judge, on one hand had rejected various sale deeds on the ground that the same are executed for commercial purposes and being very small piece of land therefore, cannot be formed basis for re-determination, but on the other hand relied sale deed Ex. PW-E/E dated 2.12.98 measuring 00-00-88 hectares of the village Gantoli i.e. 2 biswas for an amount of Rs. 29, 000/-. Needless to say in this case section 4 notification was published in the Rajpatra on 20.7.96 whereas sale deed Ex. PW-5/E so relied is dated 2.12.98 i.e. after the publication of the notification of more than one and half year. Further in para 16 of the judgment, the value has been assessed as Rs. 20, 000/- per biswa by relying escalation since 1991 on price of Rs. 14, 500/- per biswas whereas base sale deed relied is dated 2.12.98 which provides Rs. 14, 500/- per biswa. Hence, the said findings are erroneous, unreasonable, without any basis that too, abnormally highly market rate have been granted which may give hike of Rs. 3,89, 000/- per bigha instead of Rs. 11, 800/- to the land owners as the acquired land is Ghasni and Banjar Kadeem which is evident from the kind of perusal of the last line of para 6 of the judgment dated 4.8.2006. Hence, the impugned judgment/award had led to abnormal enhancement in the re-determination of the market price of the land from Rs. 11, 800/- per bigha to Rs. 4,00, 000/- per bigha by wrongly relying Ex.PW-5/E of merely 2 biswas of land which has been executed after more than one and half year. Therefore, the liability on the state exchequer had increased to manifolds through this common award. 11, 800/- per bigha to Rs. 4,00, 000/- per bigha by wrongly relying Ex.PW-5/E of merely 2 biswas of land which has been executed after more than one and half year. Therefore, the liability on the state exchequer had increased to manifolds through this common award. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and that of Ld. LAC below may kindly be upheld." 31. I have gone through the award and find that the aforesaid ground again to be extraneous to the facts and material that have come on record. 32. The respondents in support of their claim led oral as well as documentary evidence. Ex.PW-2/A is the copy of sale deed dated 14.2.1985 in respect of sale of 6 biswas of land in Chak Gangtoli for Rs. 33, 000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per biswa. Ex.A-1 is the average for the period 16th June, 1997 to 15th June, 1998. The rates per biswa in respect of Kiar Awal land is Rs. 2,020.12, Bakhal Awal Rs. 848.45, Bakhal Doyam and Gair Majruha are Rs. 444.43. Ex.A2 is average of Mauza Gangtoli for the period 16th June, 1997 to 15th June, 1998 and the rates of the land are as under: Kiar Awal Rs. 22654.90 Bakhal Awal Rs. 7249.56 Karali Awal Rs. 3322.71 Gairmumkin & Banjar Rs.1510.32 per biswa 33. One of the claimants Jagtender Singh has appeared as a witness and has deposed that the market value of the land for construction of Rohru-Barara road was about Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,000/- per biswa and Gangtoli Chak is situate adjacent to Barara Chak. In his cross-examination, he has stated that there was no other road in their village and the road passed through Gangtoli. 34. The appellants in support of their claim led oral as well as documentary evidence. Ex.R-1 is site map in respect of the acquired land prepared by PW-3 Shishu Pal, who was Junior Engineer, Sub Division, Rohru. As per this site map, the acquired land was 5 KMs from Rohru. Ex. R-2 is the copy of sale deed dated 3.6.1995 whereby 0-00-40 hectares land in Chak Barara was sold for Rs. 1,000/-, i.e. Rs. 1,000/- per biswa. Ex.R-3 is the copy of sale deed dated 3.6.1995 in respect of the sale of 0-00-83 hectare in Chak Barara for Rs. 3,000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,350/- per biswa. 35. Ex. R-2 is the copy of sale deed dated 3.6.1995 whereby 0-00-40 hectares land in Chak Barara was sold for Rs. 1,000/-, i.e. Rs. 1,000/- per biswa. Ex.R-3 is the copy of sale deed dated 3.6.1995 in respect of the sale of 0-00-83 hectare in Chak Barara for Rs. 3,000/-, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,350/- per biswa. 35. Notably, the transactions of sale produced by the appellants relate to Gangtoli whereas the land is situate in Mauza Barara. Gangtoli is situate in proximity of Rohru while Barara is adjacent to Gangtoli. Therefore, the instances of sale of Mauza Gangtoli can be useful in determining the market value but cannot form the basis thereof. 36. The acquired land is Bakhal Doyam, Bakhal Awal, Bakhal Karali and Bagicha Bakhal Awal. The Collector has not assessed the market value of this category of land, i.e. Bagicha Bakhal Awal. Therefore, the Reference Court is right in holding that in such circumstances the market value of the land as assessed by the Collector cannot be said to be adequate. Therefore, the Court is left with no other option but to fall back on the instance of sale. The transaction of sale which is comparable with the acquired land situate in Barara is Ex.R-3, which is copy of sale deed dated 3.6.1995 of Kewal Ram in favour oif Prem Chand vide which one biswa of land was sold for Rs. 1,350/-, i.e. Rs. 27, 000/- per bigha. After making deduction of 25% because of the smallness of the plot, the market value of Bakhal Doyam works out to Rs. 20, 250/- or say Rs. 20, 000/- per bigha. There can be no denial of the fact that Bakhal Awal and Bagicha Bakhal Awal are of better quality for which Reference Court has awarded Rs. 30, 000/- and Rs. 50, 000/- respectively. 37. At this stage, if the award passed by the Collector is adverted to, it would be noticed that he awarded Rs. 11, 800/- for Bakhal Doyam and near the double amount for Bakhal Awal at Rs. 22, 528/- and virtually five times the rates for Kiar Awal/Doyam. Thus, what can be concluded is that the value of Bakhal Awal was twice that of Bakhal Doyam while value of Kiar Awal/Doyam was virtually five times that of Bakhal Doyam. In case the value of Bakhal Doyam is said to be at Rs. 22, 528/- and virtually five times the rates for Kiar Awal/Doyam. Thus, what can be concluded is that the value of Bakhal Awal was twice that of Bakhal Doyam while value of Kiar Awal/Doyam was virtually five times that of Bakhal Doyam. In case the value of Bakhal Doyam is said to be at Rs. 20, 000/- then as per the ratio and proportion of the award of the Collector, the Bakhal Awal would value something like 40, 000/- per bigha, whereas the value of Kiar Awal/Doyam would amount to Rs. 1,00, 000/-. 38. However, as observed earlier, learned Additional District Judge has only awarded a sum of Rs. 30, 000/- per bigha for Bakhal Awal and Rs. 50, 000/- for Bagicha Bakhal Awal, which in no manner can be said to be excessive. 39. As regards 37 fruit bearing trees, obviously no exception can be taken to the findings so recorded because the same are entirely based upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India vs. Khajana Ram and others , (1998) 1 ShimLC 479 , whereby the assessment of fruit bearing trees has to be increased four times. In this case, the Collector had awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,228/-, which when multiplied by four comes to Rs. 16, 912 and this is what precisely has been awarded by the learned Additional District Judge. 40. As regards the contention of the appellants that the acquired land was Ghasani and Banjar Kadim, therefore, the amount of Rs. 20, 000/- per bigha for Bakhal Doyam and Karali, Rs. 30, 000/- per bigha for Bakhal Awal land and Rs. 50, 000/- per bigha for Bagicha Bakhal Awal land could not have been awarded. However, this contention is apparently without any basis because admittedly even as per the award of the Collector, the acquired land fell in three categories, i.e. Kiar Awal/Doyam, Bakhal Awal and Krali Doyam and this fact has been so acknowledged even in the appeal filed before this Court in para 1 wherein it has been specifically averred as under: "That the applicant/appellant state acquired the land of the respondents/land owners in village Barara, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. for the construction of Rohru Brara Road. For this purpose the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Government of H.P. which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on dated 20.7.1996. For this purpose the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued by the Government of H.P. which was published in H.P. Rajpatra on dated 20.7.1996. The codal formalities under the Land Acquisition Act were also fulfilled and thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector H.P. PWD Rampur Bsr now at Winter Field, Shimla-3. After the approval of the market rate of the acquired land from the H.P. Govt. for Kiar Awal is Rs. 53, 640/- per bigha, Kiar Doem Rs. 53, 640/-, Bhakhal Awal Rs. 22, 529 Karali Awal Rs. 11, 800/- announced the award on 9.12.1997. However, feeling dissatisfied with the aforesaid award of the Land Acquisition Collector respondent/petitioner filed reference petition under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act." 41. In view of above discussion, I find no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.