Judgment:
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. The present set of appeals (LPA Nos. 421, 778 and 779 of 1985) are directed against the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the compensation granted by the District Judge, Kurukshetra on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the 'Act') has been reduced.
2. In pursuance of a notification published under Section 4 of the Act on April 18, 1975, 142 kanals 10 marlas of land situated within the revenue estate of village Dera Khera, district Kurukshetra, was acquired by the State Government for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector found that as the land was situated very close to the city of Kurukshetra it was to be treated as being sub urban and accordingly made an award determining the value at varying rates between Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 18,000/- per acre. In a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Court treated the entire land at par for purposes of evaluation and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Appeals were taken to the High Court by the State of Haryana as also by the claimants. While dismissing the appeals of the claimants the state appeals were allowed, the learned Single Judge holding that though the rate of compensation at Rs. 40,000/- per acre Was justified, yet a cut of 25 per cent was liable to be imposed on this amount as the compensation had been determined on the basis of a sale of only 12 marlas of land and also due to the fact that in case this land was to be urbanised some area would have been left out for purposes of roads etc. The compensation was accordingly reduced to Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Aggrieved thereby the claimants have come up before us by way of the present appeals.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Munishwar Puri, learned counsel for the appellant that although he did not seriously challenge ' the rate of compensation determined by the reference Court as also by this Court, yet the cut of 25 per cent was wholly unjustified as the land was situated very close to the outer limits of Kurukshetra. He has also urged that the benefits of the amended provisions of the Act with regard to enhanced solatium and interest was in any case liable to be given to the appellants.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find no merit in the appeals. Exhibit PW4/A relied upon by the Reference Court and the learned single Judge was a sale pertaining to 12 marlas of land made on 15th March, 1974 made out the compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, but as this sale pertained to a very small area whereas the land acquired was more than 142 kanals, some areas had to be utilized for purposes of roads and other public utilities in case the land was to be urbanised and, as such, the finding of the learned Single Judge that a cut of 25 per cent was required to be imposed, does not warrant any interference. We, however, find merit in the stand of the appellants that the benefits of enhanced solatium and interest envisaged by the amendment Act is to be made available to the appellants. We, therefore, while dismissing these appeals direct that aforesaid benefits be given to the appellants. No costs.