Prakash Narain, J.
(1) Land in village Tekhand in the Union Territory of Delhi was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on November 13, 1959. A declaration under Section 6 of the said Act was: made on 22-8-62. The Land Acquisition Collector published his Award No. 1 343 on June 30, 1962. According to the Land Acquisition Collector the land in the village was of several categories, namely, Aabi, Chahi, Rosli, Banjar Jadid, Banjar Kadim and Gairmurnkin. For Aabi and Chahi, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at the Rate of Rs. 2000.00 per bigha, for Rosli and Banjar, Jadid he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500.00 per bigha. For Banjar Kadim land he awarded Rs. 800.00 per bigha and for Gairmurnkin land Rs. 600.00 per bigha.
(2) The appellants' land was also acquired under the aforesaid Award No. 1343. Sham Krishan's land bore Khasra Nos. 112, 113, 114, 716/115, 717/115,718/116,719/116.117,118,119,120, 124 and 128. This measured 52 bighas 4 biswos. The land belonging to Smt. Vidaya Vati which was acquired bore Khasra Nos. 121, 142, 143, 145 and 146. It measured 39 bighas 17 biswas. We are concerned with the lands of Sham Krishan and Vidaya Vati which have been described by the Land Acquisition Collector as Rosli and Chahi land.
(3) The appellants not being satisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Collector claimed a reference under Section 18 of the Act. This reference was answered by the impugned judgment/award of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, who held that the appellants were not entitled to any enhancement of compensation for land. We may notice here that in the reference under Section 18 of the Act the appellants had asked for enhancement of compensation not only in respect of land but also in respect of wells, drains, boundary walls, trees and plants. The claim for enhancement of compensation in respect of land alone was pressed, the other claims were given up. Before the Additional District Judge as well as the Land Acquisition Collector the appellants had claimed that their land had a market value of Rs. 10.00 sq. yard.
(4) Aggrieved by the judgment/award of the Additional District Judge the appellants have appealed to this Court. They have restricted their claim in this appeal to Rs. 3500.00 per bigha.
(5) The Additional District Judge after going through the documentary evidence produced before him, no oral evidence having been adduced, came to the conclusion that the appellants were not entitled to any further enhancement on the basis of the sale-deeds by which the appellants had purchased the land in question. Copies of these sale-deeds were placed on record as Exhibits A. 14 and A. 15. The sale-deeds were executed on April 22, 1959. The appellants had purchased the land in question at an average rate of Rs. 1200.00 per bigha. The rest of the evidence produced by the appellants was rejected on the ground that it was not in respect of comparable land.
(6) In our opinion, the Additional District Judge went wrong in not appreciating that land covered by Award No. 1310 given by the Land Acquisition Collector in respect of land acquired in Village Saidabad was the most relevant piece of evidence. Land covered by this award was adjacent to the land of the appellants and we find on looking at the Aks Shajra, Exhibit R. 7 that it was similarly situate. The land in Village Saidabad was notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Act on the same date as the relevant noti- fication' was issued in the case of appellants' land, i.e. November 13, 1959. The Land Acquisition Collector had by his award No. 1310 granted compensation at various rates block wise, the maximum rate being Rs. 3000.00 per bigha. A copy of this award was placed on the record as Exhibit A. 4. On a reference under Section 18 of the Act the Additional District Judge had increased the compensation from Rs. 3000.00 to Rs. 3500.00 per bigha for Block No. 1 and so on. If that be so, we see no reason why the appellants should also not get Rs. 3500.00 per bigha for their land.
(7) It has been contended that part of the appellants' land was Aabi and Chahi and part of it was Rosli and this distinction should be maintained In our opinion, the distinction has no relevance because the acquisition was for Planned Development of Delhi and the potentiality of the land would be the same whether it was Aabi or Chahi or Rosli. Regarding potentiality we may note that just as land covered by Exhibit A. 4 was subject to Land Reforms Act, so was this land. Furthermore, when the land was purchased by the appellants, as is evident from Exhibit A. 14 and A. 15, it had pits, the land having been, used for purposes of brick-kiln. It was, perhaps, improved thereafter. It is also to be noticed that in the application under Section 18 of the Act claiming a reference, the appellants had specifically pleaded that the Land Acquisition Collector had lost sight of the fact that the area around the land acquired is earmarked as an industrial site in the Interim General Plan and proposed Master Plan of Delhi. To this assertion the reply on behalf of the respondent was that it was irrelevant in assessing the market value. The fact that the appellants' land was shown in the Interim General Plan and the proposed Master Plan was for Delhi as falling in the industrial belt was not disputed. The existence of the land acquired for marshalling yard of the Tughalakabad Railway Station,, adverted to in clause (d) of the grounds in the application under Section 18 of the Act is also not specifically denied in the reply filed on behalf of the respondent before the Additional District Judge. All this goes to show the potentiality of the appellants' land. Its market value, thereforee, cannot be considered less than the land covered by Exhibit A. 4. We, thereforee, accept the appeal, enhance compensation for the entire land to Rs. 35CO.00 per bigha. The appellants will be entitled to the statutory solarium and interest from the date of dispossession till payment. They will also be entitled to costs in this court.