ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. A notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the State Gazette on 24-1-1980 acquiring a total extent of 56 acres, 5 kanals and 11 marlas of land for establishment of a grain market. The Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 21-2-1982 determined the market value at Rs 24,000 per acre up to a belting of 22 karams and for rest of the land he determined the market value @ Rs 20,000 per acre. On reference, the Additional District Judge enhanced the market value by his award and decree dated 15-6-1984 at Rs 1,60,000 per acre up to 22 karams at the rate of Rs 1000 per marla and for rest of the land he determined compensation at the rate of Rs 50,000 per acre. However, on further appeal while the High Court confirmed determination of the compensation up to 22 karams at the rate of Rs 1,60,000 per acre, enhanced the market value for the remaining land to Rs 65,000 per acre with the statutory benefits by its judgment and decree dated 15-10-1985. The State did not file appeals. However, still not being satisfied, two of the claimants filed these appeals by special leave.

3. The first question that arises, as strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, is whether belting of 22 karams is illegal or arbitrary. The land abutted the main road Jullundhar to Pathankot, would no doubt command higher potentiality for the purpose of shopping. But to what extent the belting should have been given would be a question of fact. It is also contended that the other lands also equally possessed of the same potential value. The acquisition of land for mandi market itself shows that the land has potential value. The High Court, therefore, should have awarded higher compensation. Thirdly, it was contended that in a subsequent judgment in Gurmeet Singh v. Land Acquisition Collector (Regular First Appeal No. 1848 of 1985 dated 21-8-1989) another Division Bench has granted @ Rs 14,000 per marla and that therefore the appellant should also be paid at the same rate. We find no force in these contentions. It is seen that the Land Acquisition Officer, the District Judge as well as the High Court have consistently taken 22 karams to be the proper area of dimension for belting which should be separately treated from rest of the land. Belting is a settled rule of law to award differential compensation. The land abutting road up to a depth of 22 karams was treated as a unit and compensation was determined separately to the rest of the land. The entire extent of 56 acres of the acquired land cannot be considered to have the same value. For the rest of the land compensation was determined at Rs 65,000 per acre. The courts below, therefore, rightly determined 22 karams to be the belting area for differential treatment from the rest of the lands. It is settled law that the belting is one of the principles on the basis of which market value would be determined. It being the principle, the belting has been rightly determined by the High Court, the Civil Court as well as the Land Acquisition Officer. We find no illegality in determining the belting at 22 karams and thus no further interference is required in the matter. The purpose of acquisition i.e. to establish market and on its account the lands are possessing potential value, is irrelevant by operation of Section 24 of the Act. It is true that the High Court in another case by another Bench has determined the market value @ Rs 14,000 per marla in the judgment referred to above, but we do not find any material as to what has happened to the judgment. Further the basis on which the High Court, in the appeals and other cases, has determined the market value is on appreciating the evidence placed on record. As the State did not file the appeal, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly determined the market value for the rest of the land at Rs 65,000 per acre. Accordingly we do not think that there is any justification warranting