F.S. Gill, J.
(1) This appeal is directed against the judgment of Shri Hans Raj, Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 11.7.1966.
(2) The land in dispute comprising Khasra Nos. 285, 290, 295, 306, 397, 400 and 762/661 is situated in Shahpur- Jat Estate. The shares of KhemChand appellant in the said fields have been described in Section 19 statement. These fields formed a part of the acquired area, which was required for Planned Development of Delhi. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 13.11.1959. The Land Acquisition Collector issued the necessary notices to the persons interested and invited their claims. Claims were filed. After considering the various claims, the Land Acquisition Collector gave his award bearing No. 1243 and divided the whole acquired land into two blocks. For Block A he assessed the compensation at Rs. 4000.00 per Bigha, while for Block B he fixed the sane at Rs. 3000.00 per Bigha.
(3) Khem Chand felt aggrieved from the said award and filed a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the District Judge for the enhancement of the compensation. He has stated that the land in dispute is very close to. the D.LF. Hauz Khas colony and is also near metalled road. He, thereforee, claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per yard alleging that its potential value had not been properly gauged. Enhancement was opposed by Union of India. Both the parties produced their evidence. The learned Additional District Judge enhanced the compensation of field No. 762/661 (falling in Block A) from Rs. 4.000.00 to Rs. 6.000.00 per Bigha but dismissed the claim for enhanceme it qua
(4) Aggrieved from this judgment of the learned Additional District Judge dated 11th July, 1966, Khem Chand preferred the present appeal. He claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 14.000.00 per Bigha. It has been stated that the market value of the land in diste, which is so close to the Hauz Khas Colony and the metalled road, had not been properly determined.
(5) It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the market value * assessed in the impugned judgment does not depict the true price of the land in dispute as was obtaining on 13.11.59 when notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. For enhancement, reliance has been placed on copies of mutations Exhibits at and A2 and copies of the judgments Exhibits A4 and A6.
(6) All the fields in dispute cannot be equated for the purposes of determining the market value. They have to be considered according to their nearness to the developed Hauz Khas colony or proximity to the roads, raasta or the village abadi. The market value of the land in dispute will be determined in the light of all these factors, coupled with the instances produced by the parties.
(7) Khasra Nos. 762/661 and 306. Both these fields abut a raasta and a e also very close to the developed colony of Hauz Khas. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on two instances Exs. A4 and A6, which are of lands near to these fields in dispute and were acquired by the same notification of 18.11.59. Ex A4 is a copy of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 1.4.64 in Land Acquisition Case NO. 980 of 1962 (Chandgi Ram v. Union of India). Ex A5 is a copy of the reference of Chandgi Ram which he had made to the District Judge under section 18/31 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement/apportionment of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The case of Chandgi Ram was consolidated with Land Acquisition Case No. 974 of 1962 (Ravi Brat Bedi v. Union of India). A copy of the judgment of Bedi's case is Ex. A6. The reasoning for enhancement in Chandgi Ram's case is contained in the judgment of Ravi Brat Bedi. Both Exs. A4 and A6 relate to the same Khasra number, namely, 671/324. The compensation for these cases was enhanced from Rs. 4,000.00 to Rs. 14,000.00 per bigha. In fact this enhancement was the actual price paid by the party and this formed the basis for assessing the compensation. Land of Ex. A4 and A6 touches Hauz Khas colony on the side and there is a raasta on the other. It has, thereforee, preferencial situation than the Khasra numbers in dispute, now under consideration. Considering the situation and the evidence produced in the case, we hold that the market value of these fields was Rs. 10,000.00 per Big! a. The compensation of both these fields is thereforee, enhanced to Rs. 10,000.00 per Bigha.
(8) Khasra Nos. 290, 285 and 295. From the copy of the Aks-Shajra Ex. R 6 it is evident that these khasra numbers are not very far off from the developed colony of Hauz Khas or from the raasta. In assessing the market value of these fields the learned counsel for the appellant has again relied on the instances A 4 and A 6, which have been discussed earlier in detail. The land in dispute is not exactly similar to the land of A 4 and A 6, but the price assessed for A 4 and A 6 does give an inkling about the market value as was obtaining at the time of Section 4 notification. Considering these instances and also nearness to the developed colony and the existence of the raasta, we assess the market value of these khasra number at Rs. 9,000.00 per bigha. The compensation is enhanced accordingly from Rs. 3.000.00 to Rs. 9,ooo.00 per Bigha.
(9) Khasra Nos. 400 and 397 Khasra number 400 abuts a raasta, while the other field viz. 397 is very near to the same. Village abadi is also very close to these fields. The learned lower court has assessed the compensation of these khasra numbers at Rs, 3,000.00 per Bigha. Although these fields are quite far away from the developed colony of Hauz Khas but they are near the village abadi and are also on the raasta.
(10) Instance Ex. A I, which is a copy of mutation, is quite helpful in determining the market value of these fields. It shows that Khasra No. 871/518/1 measuring I Bigha was sold by one Biyru to Khannu for Rs. 8400.00 . The sale was effected on 20.4.50. This land was also in Shahpur Jat Estate where the land in dispute is situated. From the Aks-Shajra Ex. R. 6 it will be seen that the land of A I is situated quite far away from the Hauz Khas colony, but near the village abadi. It was chahi land as is evident from the document itself. In the order of the Revenue Officer sanctioning the mutation, it is stated that out of the total consideration of Rs. 8,400.00 the vendor had denied the receipt of a substantial part thereof viz: Rs. 4,000.00 . This sale transaction is relevant in determining the market value of Khasra Nos. 400 and 397 which are near the village abadi.
(11) Exhibit A 2 is also a copy of the mutation which shows that on 3.4.59 land measuring 2 Bigha and 7 bids was comprising Khasra No. 667/324 was sold by one Ganga Ram to M/s D. L. F. In this mutation the price paid by the vendee has not been mentioned. It is only stated that the price has been stated in mutation No. 1458. No copy of this mutation has been produced. This instance is, thereforee, of no consequence in determining the market value of the land in dispute on the appointed date.
(12) In our opinion the market value of Khasra Nos. 400 and 397 has been assessed at low rate. It should have been somewhat higher. In our view Rs. 5,000/ per Bigha was the market value on the date of Section 4 notification. The compensation for both the fields is, thereforee, enhanced from Rs. 3,000.00 to Rs. 5,000.00 per Bigha.
(13) As a result of the above findings, we accept the appeal to the extent as indicated above. The appellant shall also be entitled to the compulsory acquisition charges and interest, apart from proportionate costs.