N.K Sodhi, J. — This Regular First Appeal had been filed by one Partap Singh (now dead) for the enhancement of compensation awarded to him by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon as per his award dated September 26, 1984 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. By a notification published on December 10, 1976 under section 4 of the Act, the State of Haryana, acquired a large chunk of land in village Sukhrali and son other villages for the development and utilisation of land as residential area for sector 17 in the Urban Estate of Gurgaon. This area included the holding of appellant claimant meaning 10 kanals in village Sukhrali, Tehsil & District Gurgaon. After taking into consideration the situation, the potential value and the rates supplied by the Collector of the District, the Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation for the acquired land at a uniform rate of 20,000/- per acre. The land owners were also allowed statutory solatium at the rate of 15 per cent as compulsory acquisition charges besides interest. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector, the land owners claimants including the appellant herein sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant claimed that the market value of his land was not less than 60 per se yard and that the compensation awarded to him by the Collector was highly inadequate. The Haryana State, on the other hand, contended that keeping in view all the relevant factors the market price of the acquired land could not be more than what was allowed by the Collector. From the pleading of the parties, the learned Additional Distt. Judge framed the following issues:—

(1) What was the market value of the area under acquisition at the time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894? OPP.

(2) Whether the claimant is also entitled to enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded in respect of trees? If so, to what effect? OPP.

(3) Relief

3. The claimant-appellant produced on record certified copies of the sale deeds Exhibits P-1 to P-7 and on the basis of various instances of sales it was urged on his behalf that the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was not less than Rs. 60/- per sq. yard.

4. In the case of other land owners whose land had also been acquired by the same notification and who had also sought references which were disposed of the by the Additional District Judge by his award dated August 25, 1982, an uniform rate of Rs. 10/- per sq. yard was fixed as market price by the court for the acquired land, he land owners did not feel satisfied with this award an filed Regular First Appeals in this Court, one of which was RFA No. 1571 of 1982. All these appeals were allowed with costs and the market value of the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq. yard. A certified copy of the order passed by this Court in RFA No. 1571 of 1982 was placed on the record of the present case as Exhibit P-15.

5. The learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon after considering the entire evidence on the record including the judgment Exhibit P-15 fixed the market price of the land of the appellant at the rate of Rs. 19/- per sq. yard as per his award dated September 26, 1984. It is this award which has been impugned in the present appeal.

6. I have heard counsel for the parities at length, Mr. V.K Jain, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that in view of the sale deed Exhibits P-1 to P-7 the value of the land ought to be fixed at a higher rate and that the Additional District Judge erred in not accepting the rate as depicted by these instances of sale. There is no merit in this contention. The value of the land acquired through the same notification has been determined by this Court in Exhibit P-15 at Rs. 19/- per sq. yard and therefore, the court below, in my opinion, had no option but to fix the same rate which he had done. In view of the judgment of this Court in RFA No. 1571 of 1982 determining the market price of the land acquired through the same notification in which sale deeds Exhibits P-1 to P-7 had been considered, the award of the Additional District Judge following that judgment has to be upheld. The matter being squarely covered by the decision of this court in Exhibit P-15, there is no substance in this appeal. However, the claimants would be entitled to enhanced solatiuma t the rate of 30% as provided under sub Section (2) of Section 23 as amended by Act No. 68 of 1984. They would also be entitled to interest in terms of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Act. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.

Order accordingly