ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, J.
1. Our this judgment will dispose of LPA Nos. 454, of 1992, 63, 717,718, 719,720, 721, 722 15/16, 766,833, 834 and 835 of 1993 together as they relate to same acquisition proceedings.
2. The land in dispute was acquired vide notification dated 18.11.1982. The learned Single Judge, after appreciation of the evidence on the record and taking into consideration the sale deeds Ex. P.3, Ex. P-4 Ex. P-7 and Ex. P.8 as well as the award given by the Court below in RFA No. 541 of 1983 (State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh and Ors.) wherein the land was acquired on 25.5.1981, came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land is at the rate of RS. 1267 per marla with respect to the land situated in Nawanshahar and Rs. 1100/- per marla for the land in village Karyam.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that the sale deeds Ex. P.3, dated 4.12.1981, Ex. E-4 dated 18.11.1994, Ex. P.-7 dated 10.1.1983. and Ex. P.8 dated 24.12.1982 have wrongly been ignored by the Courts below. Though the sale deeds are relating to small plots, the learned Single Judge after applying appropriate cut and taking into consideration the post dated sales rightly came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired land is Rs. 1267 per marla for the land in Nawanshahar, Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 12% increase in the price be given. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant relies on Lal Chand v. State of Punjab and Ors., (1989-2) 96 P.L.R. 555.
4. We find no force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, inasmuch as taking into consideration sale deeds Ex. P-3, Ex. P.4., Ex. P.7 and Ex-P.8 as well as R.F.A. cited, there was no appreciable or even noticeable increase in the prices of land in the locality. Thus, even by applying the usual cut of 1/4th as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant on account of the plots being small, the price would approximately come to Rs. 1267/- per marla. No substantial reason has been pointed out to disturb the finding of the learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that admittedly the entire land acquired is in one block though it is situated in two villages viz. Nawanshahar and Karyam no reason has been given to reduce the market value to Rs. 1100/- per marla in respect of the land in village Karyam. We are of the considered view that a small chunk of 25 acres was acquired as one block for extension of Mandi. This block fall in two revenue estates. Merely because a part of the land acquired falls in another village the same cannot be assessed at a different rate. Thus, the award of the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the market value of the land acquired of the village Karyam would also be Rs. 1267/- per marla.
6. Apart from the above modification of the award we find no force in the appeal and the appeal is disposed of accordingly. The claimants shall be entitled to the statutory benefits under the amended provisions of Sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.