The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of market value of acquired land for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, considering the potentiality of the land and the relevance of small plot sale transactions in valuing large areas of land.

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THESE appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 4. 1. 1989 of High Court of Punjab and haryana at Chandigarh, by which 17 appeals preferred by claimant-appellants (landowners) against the common judgment and award of the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra, dated 31. 8. 1985 had been decided. The claimant-appellants had sought enhancement of the amount of compensation for acquisition of their land.

( 2 ) A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was issued for acquisition of 89 acres and 3 marlas of land for construction of a cooperative sugar mill. The land was situate as one compact unit in four villages viz. Kankar Shahbad, Chhapra, Jandheri and Jhambara and belonged to 17 families. In response to the notice issued by the Collector under section 9 of the Act, landowners filed objections claiming compensation for their land which had been acquired. The Land acquisition Collector, after holding an enquiry, gave an award on 14. 7. 1983 under Section 11 of the Act. The Collector gave award on the basis of quality of land, for which purpose he divided the acquired land in seven categories and the market value was assessed at rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- per acre for different types of lands. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Collector, the appellants herein (landowners) sought reference to the Court under Section 18 of the act. The learned Additional District Judge awarded compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 43,000/- per acre by placing reliance on Ex. R-6 and r-7, two instances of sale deeds of village Chhapra. After taking average of these sale transactions, an addition of 25% was made for fixing the market value of the land. Against the award made by the learned Additional District Judge, the claimant-appellants (landowners) preferred 17 appeals before the High Court. The High court after appraisal of evidence on record held that the market value of the land acquired was Rs. 1,20,000/- per acre. It further held that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of small pieces of land and, therefore, a deduction of 33% had to be made and accordingly the market value of the land was assessed at Rs. 80,000/- per acre. Besides the market value, the appellants were also held entitled to statutory sums under Section 23 (1-A), 23 (2) and 28 of the Act. The state of Haryana had also filed appeals against the award of the additional District Judge, but the same were dismissed.

( 3 ) THE appeals in this Court have only been filed by the landowners and the State of Haryana has not filed any appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the High Court. We have heard Shri M. L. Varma, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate for the Shahabad cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. , for whose benefit the land has been acquired.

( 4 ) IN order to determine the compensation which the tenure-holders are entitled to get for their land which has been acquired, the main question to be considered is what is the market value of the land. Section 23 (1) of the Act lays down what the Court has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays down what the Court shall not take into consideration and have to be neglected. The main object of the enquiry before the Court is to determine the market value of the land acquired. The expression 'market value' has been subject-matter of consideration by this Court in several cases. The market value is the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when led out in most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the