Hemant Gupta, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved against the award passed by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).
2. Vide notification dated 21.10.1982, under Section 4 of the Act, land measuring 10 kanals 6 marlas situated in village Rawason Tehsil Nuh, District Gurgaon was acquired for a public purpose. The Land Acquisition Collector assessed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per acre, whereas the learned District Judge on reference assessed the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per marla or Rs. 48,000/- per acre. The learned District Judge has relied upon the sale deed Ex.P2 for a sum of Rs. 4500/-wherein 5 marlas of land was sold. The appellant has also produced agreement of sale Ex.P1 dated 28.7.1982 in respect of the said sale deed. The learned District Judge has relied upon the sale deed dated 14.2.1983 Ex.P2 but made deduction of 1/3rd for providing common purposes such as streets and another 1/3rd on account of that sale being of a tiny plot.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the deduction of 1/3rd price can be made only once and not twice over as made by the learned District Judge, Gurgaon. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand relied upon Prithvi Raj Taneja (Dead) by Lrs. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., 1977(1) S.C.C. 684 to contend that deduction made is legal and justified.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the records of the case, I find that the deduction made by the learned District Judge is not sustainable.
5. Though the sale deed relied upon by the learned trial court is of a post-notification period but the same was taken into consideration by the learned trial court as the agreement to sell in respect of the said sale deed pertain to the period prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Since the learned trial court has accepted the sale consideration as mentioned in the sale deed Ex.P3 dated 14.2.1983 as a genuine amount of sale consideration, therefore, I find no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority State of W.B. v. Dominion Land and Industries Ltd. Kalidas Chakraborty, (1995)4 Supreme Court Cases 231 and Harpartap Rai Puri v. State of Punjab, 2003(3) Recent Civil Reports (Civil) 249 to contend that an agreement of sale can be taken into consideration for determination the market value of the land.
6. The agreement to sell Ex.P1 has been proved by Amir Chand PW1, the vendee of the sale deed. The appellant has appeared as PW2 and deposed that the land sold adjoins the acquired land. The learned trial Court has found that the sale deed though executed later on, than the date of notification of sale is relevant in view of the unchallenged testimony of the witnesses. However, the grievance of the appellant is that the learned trial Court had made 1/3rd deduction twice i.e. 2/3rd amount of the sale consideration. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that such deduction is not permissible in law.
7. Having found that the sale instance relied upon by the appellant is genuine and reliable but the question is that how much deduction is liable to be made since the sale was of a small area. The deductions are made since the area is undeveloped. Land is required to set apart for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks water etc. Therefore, suitable deductions are made in the facts of each case. The market value of the land is determined in terms of the principles laid down in Section 23 of the Act. The market value is the price payable by a willing buyer to a willing seller. A willing buyer would not offer the same price when a larger extent of land is offered for sale in an open market on a free bargain, either in one lot or different lots, in comparison with small piece or pieces of land. Even if the sale deeds of a small extent of the land are genuine and the acquired land possessed of the same or similar special advantageous features, then reasonable price is required to be determined by giving suitable deduction depending upon the extent of land covered by the sale transaction and the acquired land. For such principles reliance may be made upon Supreme Court judgment in, (1995)4 Supreme Court Cases 136. Therefore, there is no justification to deduct the 1/3rd amount on account of sale being of a small area and then 1/3rd on account of common purpose such as streets etc. In fact, the deductions are required to be made once towards provisions for common service being sale of small plot. Therefore, in the facts of the case, I am satisfied that 1/3rd amount is required to be deducted out of sale consideration of Rs. 900/- per marla. Thus, the market value of the land is assessed at the rate of Rs. 600/- per marla.
8. In view of above, the appeal is allowed with costs. The award of the learned District Judge is modified and the compensation is assessed at the rate of Rs. 600/- permarla. The appellant shall be entitled to enhanced amount of solatium at the rate of 30per cent and interest in terms of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, as awarded aswell.