Prakash Narain, J.
(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of an Additional District Judge, Delhi and the complaint is that the enchancement granted by him for compulsory acquisition of the appellants land is not adequate. The Additional District Judge has fixed the market value at Rs.l2,000.00 per bigha as against the claim of the appellant that the market value was not less than Rs. 25.00 per squard yard.
(2) By a notification dated October 19} 1962 issued under Section 4 of the land acquisition Act. 1894, hereinafter referred to as the Act, 52 bighas 5 bids was of land in the revenue estate of Shadhora Khurd was proposed to be acquired for planned Development of Delhi.. The declaration under Section 6 of, the Act was made on December 21, 1962. The land so notified included the appellant's land in all measuring 24 bighsa 9 biswas. This was comprised in Khasra No. 23, measuring 7 bighas 15 bids was and Khasra No. 30, measuring 16 bighas 14 biswas. The land was entered in the revenue record as garden land. The appellant was the occupancy tenant of that land.
(3) The land Acquisition collector by his award No. 1593, dated June 22, 1963 fixed the market value of the land at Rs. 5700.00 per bigha. He apportioned 14 as share for the occupancy tenant and 2 as share for the land owners. There is no dispute in this appeal regarding apportionment. The only dispute is with regard to the market value.
(4) Dissatisfied with the market value fixed by the land Acquisition Collector the appellant moved an application under section 18 of the Act. That is law the reference came up before the Additional District Judge who, has already noticed, fixed Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha as the market value against the claim of Rs. 25.00 per sq. yard.
(5) Before the Additional District Judge the appellant had made claims for superstructure and well. We are not concerned with that aspect nor has it been pressed in the prescot appeal.
(6) In arriving at the market value the Additional District Judge relied on two documents produced by the appellant himself. These were judgments given by an Additional District Judge, Delhi, in two land acquisition cases in respect of acquisition of adjoining land wherein market value had been assessed by the court Rs. 10,700- per bigha. The notification in those two cases under Section 4 of the Act were issued in 1959. Noticing that there was an upward trend in prices the Additional District Judge had awarded Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha. Another judgment produced by the appellant showing acquisition of land in the same village of which the market value was assessed at Rs. 18,000.00 per bigha was rejected by the Additional District Judge on the ground that from the Aks Shajra produced on record the location of that land, and i:s situation vis-a-vis the land in the present case could not ascertained. Before us it has been submitted that the Additional District Judge erred in not taking into consideration the market value fixed by this judgment and he failed to see all the documents on record.
(7) As aginst this, the respondents' case before us is that the Additional District Judge has correctly fixed the market value and no case is made out for granting any further enhancement.
(8) The two judgments on which the Additional District Judge has relied are Exhibits A. 3 and A. 4 the former was delivered in land acquisition case No. 133 of 1964, Virender Singh v. Union of India. Pertaining to field No. 1 171/ 480.00 21/3/2and481/21andEx:i.bitA.4pertainingto Field No. 1287/11,8/19 in land Acquisition case No. 144 of 1964 Tarn Chand v Union of India.
(9) Land partaining to which judgment Exhibit A.3 was delivered measured 14 bighas 3 bids was and was notified for acquisition for planned Development of Delhi under Section 4 of the Act on November 13, 1959. The land Acquisition Collector awarded Rs. 4500.00 per bigha by his award No. 1556. The claimant in that case had contended that the market value was Rs. 25.00 per sq. yard. The Additional District Judge had fixed the market value at Rs. 10,700.00 per bigha as in November, 1959. Exhibit A.4 is a judgment pertain to acquisition of land bearing Field No. 1287/1178/19 measuring 12 bighas 7 biswas. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on Novemder 13, 1959. there also, the land Acquisition Collector had awarded Rs, 4500.00 per bigha but the Additional District Judge had enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,700.00 per bigha. Lands in both the judgments are adjacent to the land in the prevent case. thereforee, it cannot be said that the Additional District Judge was relying on these two prices of evidence produced by the appellant himself and taking the market value to be Rs 10,700.00 per bigha in 1959 be enhace the compensation to Rs. 12,000.00 per bigha for acquisition in 1962 keeping in view the general trend of rise in land prices. The point which arises for consideration is whether the Additional District Judge was right in completely ignoring the market value assessed in another judgment, adverted to earlier. This other judgment is Exhibit A. 12. It pertains to acquisition of 500 sq. yards of land in Bagh Kare Khan. The market value fixed was Rs. 18.00 per sq yard or Rs. 18,000.00 per bigha in 1957.
(10) The Additional District Judge referred to only the Aks Shajra, Exhibit A. 5 and on the basis of that observed that the location of land covered by Exhibit A. 12 could not be found out. It seems Aks Shajra, Exhibit A. 11, was either not brought to his notice or he missed seeing it. On a comparative study of the Aks Shajra, Exhit A. 5 and Exhibit A. 11, there is no doubt that Bagh Kare Khan was situated in the revenue estate of Shadhora Khurd and was not too far from the land in the present case. Indeed, endorsement on Exhibit A. 11 show that Bagh Kare Khan was between 1' to 2 furlongs from the land in the present case. It was also similarly situated. Indeed, Khasra No, 30 belonging to the appallant was far better situate being on circular road itself, than the land covered by Exhibit A. 12. Both the lands were garden lands. The only distinguishing features between the land covered by Exhibit A. 12 and the present-land are that the present land is .much bigger in area while the land. covered by Exhibit A. 12 is a small plot of 500 sq. yards, the land covered by Exhibit A. 12 was abadi land, though used for agriculture purpose, where as the present land was purely garden land. Be that as it may, Exhibit A. 12 was a relevant piece of evidence and should not have been completely ignored. The position, thereforee, that emerges is that the appellants land which is a large tract of land, is similar to land covered by Exhibit A. 12 which is a very much smaller land and also in the abadi or near the abadi. Keeping this aspect in view the compensation, as determined by the Additional District Judge, will have to be modified.
(11) It is settled law that smaller parcles of land generally fetch higher prices than large tracts of land. In the latter ease if the market value is to be found out on the basis of plotable area. then almost one third or one fourth of the land has to be left for common utility services like roads and public places. This would not have to be done in smaller parcles of land. Heading Exhibits A. 12 it would be obvious that parcles of land were sold at the rate of Rs. 8.50 and Rs. 8.80 per sq. yard whereas smaller parcles of land were sold at Rs. 18.00 per sq. yard. There is also evidence of land being sold at the rate of Rs. 2.50 per sq. yard but all this way back in 1956 and 1957 Exhibit A. 3 and Exhibit A. 4 pertaining to larger parcels of land give a rate of Rs. 10,700.00 per bigha. Applying the principle of deducting one-third or one-fourth from larger parcles of land and keeping in view the general trend of land price rise, even on the basis of Rs. 18.00 per sq. yard that appellent cannot claim more than Rs. 15.00 per sq. yard. thereforee, giving the appellant the benefit of evidence of highest price in the revenue estate of somewhat similar land, we hold that the appellant would be entitled to claim the market value of the land for Rs. 15.000.00 per bigha. We hold accordingly. The appellant who is to get 14 as. Share of the market value fixed by us. He will also he entitled to 15 per cent solatuirn on the enchanted compensation and interest calculated on the enhancement keeping in view that market value is Rs. 15,000.00 per bigha. The appellant will also be entitled to proportionate costs. The appeal is accordingly, partly accepted. The land Acquition Collector should work out the Compensation on the above basis. The interest is to be calculated in accordance with law.