JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 52 of the Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, 1990 arises out of the judgment/award dated 31.12.2013 passed by the court of learned District Judge, Rajouri (hereinafter to be referred to as the Reference Court) in file No. 123/Reference titled “Makhan Singh and others vs. Collector, Land Acquisition Northern Railway, Udhampur and another”. 2. The award has been impugned by the appellant on the following grounds : (a) That the Reference Court has relied upon the sale instances, which cannot be accepted as a measure to determine the market price of the acquired land as it is settled law that the value fetched for the small portion of land cannot be made basis for determining the price of large chunk of land. The Reference Court while passing the impugned award, has not considered and applied the settled principle of "Reduction and Deduction" in fixing the just and fair amount of compensation, when big chunk of land is being acquired. (b) That the Reference Court while passing the impugned award has failed to consider the fact that the land under acquisition is an agricultural land and it is settled law that when agricultural land is to be acquired, in view of the permanent restriction regarding user, it has to be valued only as an agricultural land and cannot be valued with reference to sale statistics of other nearby lands which have the potential of being used for urban development. 3. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI, submitted that the Reference Court has wrongly enhanced the amount of compensation by taking into consideration the sale instances in respect of small piece of land for the purpose of determining compensation for the big chunk of the land acquired by the appellants and as such, the award is required to be set aside. 4. Mr. G.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the learned Reference Court has determined the compensation by placing reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, after the respondents led evidence in respect of the unfair compensation paid to the respondents for the land acquired by the appellant. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. 4. Mr. G.S. Thakur, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the learned Reference Court has determined the compensation by placing reliance upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, after the respondents led evidence in respect of the unfair compensation paid to the respondents for the land acquired by the appellant. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. The land measuring 273 Kanals and 12 marlas comprising various survey numbers situated at village, Bakkal, District Reasi was acquired by the respondents under the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Land Acquisition Act, for the purpose of construction of Katra to Qazigund Rail Link Line Project and the final award was announced on 20.09.2005. The Collector fixed the following rate of compensation depending upon the nature of the land : A. Abi.Bagicha /Hail-Barani Rs.40,000/- per kanal B. Warhal Awal/Doem & Land under structures Rs.35,000/- per kanal C. Banjar Qadeem/Jadeed/Arak Rs.20,000/- per kanal D. Gair Mumkin land Rs.10,000/- per kanal 7. The respondents were not satisfied with the rates fixed in the final award, so they filed an application under Section 18 of the Act (supra) before the Collector for referring the case to the Civil Court on the ground that the compensation for the land has not been properly assessed, as the prevailing market value of the land was Rs. 1.25 lakhs per kanal. It was also stated in the application for making reference that the compensation of the land has been assessed in a discriminatory manner, as the land of the applicants was converted into standard Kanal and then the rates of compensation were fixed, whereas in the adjoining villages, Kuri, Batli, Judda and Surukot, the compensation of the land has been assessed on the basis of local kanal, which is equal to 13 marlas. It was also stated that in Panchayat Seer Sundwan and Lam Sura, the compensation of the land was assessed and awarded as per local kanal. After the reference was made in terms of Section 18 of the Act (supra), the appellant was put to notice. The appellant filed their response and without submitting their para-wise reply stated that the Collector Railways has fixed the rate of compensation on the basis of assessment made by the competent authority, so there is no question of enhancement of amount of compensation at this stage. The appellant filed their response and without submitting their para-wise reply stated that the Collector Railways has fixed the rate of compensation on the basis of assessment made by the competent authority, so there is no question of enhancement of amount of compensation at this stage. The Reference Court framed the following issues for its determination : A. What was the prevailing market value of the land at the time of acquisition of the same? B. Whether petitioners have not been paid compensation of fruit trees, watermill including Kotha and are entitled to the compensation of the same? C. Are petitioners entitled to claim compensation in reference to the standard of kanal (20) marlas instead of local kanals, which is equal to 13 marlas? D. Relief 8. The respondents examined Ram Chand, Thakur Das, Devinder Singh, Uttam Singh, Kapoor Singh and Patwari Sham Lal in support of their case. The appellant did not produce any witness in its defence. After hearing the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, the learned Reference Court vide impugned judgment, fixed the market value of the culturable land at Rs.45,500 per local kanal and that of non-culturable land at Rs.25,000 per local kanal. 9. Both the issues raised by the appellant are conflated for the purpose of determining the present controversy. The learned Reference Court while determining the compensation for the culturable and non-culturable land has placed reliance upon the sale exemplars for the year 2003. Respondent Ram Chand in his deposition has stated that he sold the land measuring 4 marlas to Thakur Das for Rs.25,000 by virtue of sale deed dated 07.06.2003. RW Thakur Das has also admitted the same. Likewise, respondent Kapoor Singh stated that he sold 12 marlas of land at village Bakkalto Devinder Singh at the rate of Rs.80,000 per kanal. RW Devinder Singh stated that he purchased 12 marlas of land from Kapoor Singh for a consideration of Rs.48,000, which comes to Rs.80,000 per kanal and in the year 2005, the rate of the said land was about Rs.1,50,000/- per kanal. Both the sale deeds dated 03.06.2003 and 07.06.2003 pertain to same village Bakkal, where the land has been acquired by the appellant. It needs to be mentioned here that the appellant has nowhere disputed that the sale exemplars relied upon by the respondents are not the genuine transactions. Both the sale deeds dated 03.06.2003 and 07.06.2003 pertain to same village Bakkal, where the land has been acquired by the appellant. It needs to be mentioned here that the appellant has nowhere disputed that the sale exemplars relied upon by the respondents are not the genuine transactions. RW Sham Lal-Patwari has stated that that the compensation has been assessed as per the standard kanal, whereas in the village Bakkal there are local kanals. Local kanal is of 13 marlas. He further stated that in the year 2003 rate of one kanal of land was Rs. 1 lakh. In the year 2006, rate of one local kanal of land at village Bakkal was Rs. 1.25 lakhs. From the award, it is evident that the Tehsildar Reasi communicated Rs.40,000 per local kanals market rate for culturable land and Rs.25,000/- per local kanal for non-culturable land i.e. Rs.61,000/- per standard kanal for culturable land and Rs.38,000 per standard kanal for un-culturable land. The collector without any justification and reason opined that the rates communicated by the Tehsildar, Reasi are on the higher side and cannot be made the basis for determining the rate. It is evident from the record that there are no exemplars in respect of the sale of big chunk of land proximate to the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act (supra) and in such circumstances, placing reliance upon the instances of sale of small chunk of land while determining the compensation for big chunk of the land is permissible. 10. In “Trishla Jain v. State of Uttaranchal”, (2011) 6 SCC 47 , the Supreme Court held that the value of small pieces of land can be taken into consideration for determining even the value of the large tract of land but with the condition that while doing so, some deduction is required to be made. 11. In “Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana”, (2015) 2 SCC 160 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : “19. 11. In “Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana”, (2015) 2 SCC 160 , it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under : “19. Sale instances in relation to small pieces of land situated near the acquired land can be considered, subject to (i) reasonable deductions for developmental costs that will be incurred in the future as per the cases referred to supra, and (ii) the evidence that these lands can be compared to the acquired land in terms of its vicinity and the comparable benefits and advantages.” 12. The learned Reference Court by placing reliance upon the two exemplars of the sale of small stretch of land after taking into consideration the 10% increase in view of the difference of 8 months between the dates of the execution of the sale deeds viz-a-viz notification under Section 4 of the Act (supra) dated 24.10.2003 and corrigendum dated 07.02.2004, has determined the market value of the land as per the two sale deeds to be Rs.57,200 and Rs.89,400 respectively per local kanal. This is in accordance of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in “ONGC Ltd Versus Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel”, (2008) 14 SCC 745 . By "Guesstimation", which is permissible as held in judgment (supra), the learned Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.70,000 per local kanal on the date of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. It needs to be noted that when the land is acquired compulsorily, the owner is entitled to highest value of the land. In the present case, the learned Reference Court has not chosen the highest value of the land as the sale deeds were in respect of small pieces of land. Besides the learned Reference Court has also adopted the "principle of reduction and deduction" while determining the market value of the land. The guesstimate of the learned Reference Court in the fixation of market value of the culturable land as Rs.70,000 per kanal cannot be termed as arbitrary, in the present facts and circumstance of the case. 13. In “Viluben Jhalejar vs. State of Gujarat”, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , the Supreme Court has been held as under : “19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. 13. In “Viluben Jhalejar vs. State of Gujarat”, (2005) 4 SCC 789 , the Supreme Court has been held as under : “19. Market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under: Positive factors Negative factors (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-à-vis land under acquisition (vi) some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage” 14. In “Manoj Kumar v. State of Haryana”, (2018) 13 SCC 96 , it has been held as under : 9. The High Court has also erred in law in not deducting the amount towards the development of exemplar sale of 1997. When the large area had been acquired, the two kinds of deductions have to be made, one for development and in case of exemplar transaction is a small area, the reduction is required to be made to arrive at the value of large tract. (Emphasis Added) 15. In “Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer”, (2012) 7 SCC 595 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : “19. (Emphasis Added) 15. In “Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer”, (2012) 7 SCC 595 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : “19. In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana [ (2003) 1 SCC 354 ] the Court held : “7. … It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; maybe the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, maybe in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.” (Emphasis Added) 16. The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated by the Supreme Court in “Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P.”, (2003) 10 SCC 525 , “V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer”, 2003) 12 SCC 642, “H.P. Housing Board vs. Bharat S. Negi”, (2004) 2 SCC 184 and “Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority”, (2004) 10 SCC 745 . 17. The learned Reference Court by applying the "principle of deduction" has determined the market value of the culturable land acquired as Rs.45,500 per local kanal by deducting 35% of the total value on account of development charges, notwithstanding the fact that the land has not been acquired for the residential project. It is evident that the learned Reference Court has applied both the deductions as are required to be made in terms of Manoj Kumar's case (supra), despite the fact that the land was not acquired for any housing or commercial project but for the purpose of Rail Link. The learned Reference Court has determined the market value of non-culturable land as Rs.25,000 per local kanal as compared to market value determined for the culturable land and it cannot be termed as excessive or exorbitant. 18. The learned Reference Court has determined the market value of non-culturable land as Rs.25,000 per local kanal as compared to market value determined for the culturable land and it cannot be termed as excessive or exorbitant. 18. Viewed thus, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation in accordance with settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court. The judgment/award dated 31.12.2013 of the learned Reference Court does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. 19. Record of the Reference Court be sent back forthwith.