Even after 24 years of elevation of learned counsel for the respondent, respondent did not engage any other counsel. Notices issued to the respondent to engage another counsel returned un-served. Accordingly, only arguments of learned counsel for the appellant were heard.

2. This appeal is directed against judgment, award and decree dated 26. 05. 1979 given by V A. D. J. , Saharanpur in L. A. Case No. 56 of 1973. It appears that 25 claimants, whose lands had been acquired under Land Acquisition Act being dissatisfied with the award of S. L. A. O. , applied for making reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, references were made. It appears that all the references were registered as one case, i. e. L. A. Case No. 56 of 1973. This appeal is confined to the claim of the respondent Mohd. Ashik Khan.

3. A large area of land of about 33 bighas (81279 squire yards) was acquired. Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was issued/published on 20. 11. 1968. Land was situate in village Pathan Pura, Saharanpur appurtenant to main Saharanpur-Delhi Road. Land was acquired for construction of residence for various categories of Government Servants at Saharanpur.

4. Special Land Acquisition Officer for determining the market value of the land placed reliance upon sale deed dated 03. 11. 1968 in respect of 344 squire yards of land for Rs. 2500/-, situate in aresidential colony called Vinay Nagar. The rate comes to about Rs. 7. 62/- per squire yard. Copy of this sale deed was filed before reference court also. S. L. A. O. divided the acquired land into two belts. In the belt adjacent to the road, 40 % deduction from the aforesaid rate of Rs. 7. 62/- per squired yard was made and in the other belt, 50% deduction was made. Through the impugned judgment, award and decree, learned A. D. J. awarded uniform rate of Rs. 6. 70/- per squire yard.

5. As far as awarding uniform rate is concerned, no fault can be found in view of the following authorities:-

1. AIR 1996 SC 3140 "ram Piari v. Land Acquisition Collector, Solan"

2. AIR 1997 SC 3889 "karan Singh v. Union of India"

3. AIR 1997 SC 2664 "meharban v. State of U. P. "

4. AIR 1998 SC 781 "land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor v. L. Kamalamma"

5. AIR 1998 SC 1028 "u. P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam"

6. AIR 1999 SC 317 "kanwar Singh v. Union of India"

7. AIR 2002 SC 1105 "kashiben Bhikabai v. Special Land Acquisition Officer"

8. AIR 2006 SC 447 "union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh"

6. However, the principle adopted for determining the market value by the learned A. D. J. cannot be approved. Copies of about 15 sale deeds had been filed before the learned A. D. J. , however learned A. D. J. placed reliance upon a sale deed dated 30. 12. 1968, i. e. executed after 40 days of notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act. The learned A. D. J. placed reliance upon AIR 1933 Bombay 361 to hold that post Section 4 notification, sale deed could also be relied upon. Through the said sale deed, an area of more than 11000 squire yards land was sold @ Rs. 6. 70/- per squire yard.

7. The Supreme Court AIR 1997 SC 3889 "karan Singh v. Union of India" has held that only in rare cases sale deed executed after notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act can be relied upon. One of such situations, where such sale deed can be relied upon, is where no sale deed of the land in the area in question during last three years from notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act is available.

8. The S. L. A. O. had applied the deduction percentage of 40-50. When exemplar is of small area in comparison to the total area, some deduction is necessary. However, percentage of deduction varies from 10% to 50%. (vide 2007 AIR SCW 7835 "atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana," AIR 2007 SC 740 "deputy Direction of Land Acquisition Vs. Malla Atchinaidu", AIR 2005 SC 355 "ahad Brothers, M/s. v. State of M. P. ", AIR 2004 SC 1031 "l. A. O. , Kamma