The main legal point established is that land situated within municipal limits is presumed to have potential for development, and sale instances are relevant in determining market value for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. The claimant-appellants have filed three appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, the Act) registered as R.F.A. Nos. 331 to 333 of 1987. The State has also filed three appeals registered as R.F.A. Nos.962 to 964 of 1987. In both set of appeals challenge is to the judgment dated 20.11.1986 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar enhancing the compensation to Rs.27,750/- per acre of the acquired land under Section 18 of the Act as against the award of the Collector, Hisar awarding Rs. 18,000/- per acre for Banjar Kadim and Rs.19,800/- per acre for Nehri land.

2. Facts in brief may first be noticed. State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 of the Act on 15.9.1976 expressing the intention to acquire the land for a public purpose although possession had already been obtained on 10.6.1976 because of urgency as postulated in Section 17 of the Act. The first award was announced on 28.8.1978 being Award No.70/3 in respect of the land measuring 5 kanals 7 marlas (3237 yards). The type of the land was Banjar Kadim. The second award No. 117 supplementary in respect of land measuring 1 kanals 13 marlas (998.25 yards), which was also Banjar Kadim was announced on 29.9.1978. The third award No.79 in respect of 5 kanals 7 marlas (3237 yards) was announced on 25.11.1981 and the type of land was Nehri land.. The market value in respect of Banjar Kadim land was assessed at Rs. 18,000/ per acre i.e. Rs.3.70 Paise per square yard and Rs.19,800/- for Nehri land i.e. Rs. 4.10 Paise per square yards. The claimant-appellants feeling aggrieved sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation and relied upon various sale instances including Ex.P7 a sale deed in respect of a part of the acquired land.

3. On the basis of Ex.P7 read with oral statement the learned Additional District Judge has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.27,750/- per acre by treating the entire land as agricultural. It comes to Rs.5.73 Paise per square yard. He has discarded the sale instances Exs.P8 to P10, P12 and P13 on the ground that the land which was subject matter of sale deeds Exs.P8 to P10, P12 and P13 was situated near the Bus Stand which was a very busy locality. It was further held that there was no comparison between those sale deeds and the acquired land as it was situated on the other side of the canal The learned Judge concluded that the acquired land lacked the potential of developing into an urban locality because of its location. Views of the learned Additional District Judge with regard to the market value of the land and the potential of developing the land into urban locality reads as under:-

"I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel on this aspect and I agree with the learned Govt. Pleader that the land did not have the potential of developing into an urban locality because of its location. Site plan Ex.P4 has been placed on record on behalf of the petitioners whose land had been shown at points A.B.C. and D. It is not disputed that by the side of the petitioners land a canal already existed and that the petitioners land was also acquired for more or less similar purpose i.e. B.N.C. feeder. Bus Stand, Hansi has been shown to be at a distance of 1980 feet from the acquired land. In other words, the land of the petitioners is on one corner whereas the Bus Stand is on the other corner. In between, there is all agricultural land. There is no Abadi. On one side, there is H.W.E.B. Officers Colony but that is the only Colony nearby and that also across the canal. Model Town is also located at a distance of 1980 feet across the canal. On the other aide of the canal and the petitioners land one godown and one house has been shown but these are scattered constructions. From these one cannot come to the conclusion that the petitioners land had the potential of developing into an urban locality. In fact the existence of the