JUDGMENT
Harjit Singh Bedi, J.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 9.7.1984 whereby the Regular First Appeal of the present appellants and the cross-objections filed by the State of Punjab were dismissed. The facts-
234 Kanals 9 marlas of land lying within the Municipal Limits Pathankot were proposed to be acquired vide notification dated 4th October, 1978 Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the ‘Act’). The Land Acquisition Collector determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 330/- per marla, but on a reference made Under Section 18 of the Act, it was enhanced to Rs. 700/- per marla. For arriving at this figure, the Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, relied on two sale instances Exhibits A-6 and R. 5 which determined the rate at Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 400/- per marla, respectively, and taking the mean of these two figures the compensation was enhanced as stated. Dis-satisfied with the award of the reference Court the first appeal by the landowners and cross-objections by the respondent-State were filed in this Court and the learned single Judge vide the judgment impugned, dismissed the appeal as also the cross objections holding that the sale instances, above referred, were pertinent to the resolution of the dispute as the land referred therein was very near to the acquired land. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge the present appeal has been filed by the landowners.
2. Mr. M.L. Sarin, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants, has urged that Exhibit R-6 was a mutation and in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as State of Punjab v. Pohu, (1986-1) 89 P.L.R. 109 (F.B.) could not be taken into account as evidence and in the absence of any other sale instance, Exhibit A-6 which showed the value of the land at Rs. 1000/- per marla was the only relevant piece of evidence left on the record.
3. We have heard the learned counsel on this aspect and find that the argument as stated may be correct but nevertheless the prayer for compensation at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per marla is not warranted. It is to be noted that Exhibit A-6 pertained to an acquisition of only 7 marlas of land, whereas the land under acquisition in the present proceedings was over 284 kanals. In this view of the matter some cut would have to be imposed on the amount of Rs. 1000/- per marla as depicted in Exhibit A-6. However, keeping in view the fact that Exhibit A-6 pertained to a sale made on 14th January, 1974 whereas notification Under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 4th October, 1978, some enhancement is called for in favour of the appellants. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the compensation be enhanced to Rs. 800/- from Rs. 700/- per marla.
4. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the benefit of enhanced solatium and interest are not available to the claimants in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Anr. v. Raghubir Singh, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933 but as the matter with regard to the additional amount determinable Under Section 23(1A) of the Act is still before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this aspect is left open and remains un-decided. We, therefore, while allowing the appeal direct that the compensation would be paid to the appellants at the rate of Rs. 800/- per marla but no amount towards enhanced solatium and interest would be pay-able whereas the mater with regard to the payment of additional amount is left open as per the submission of the learned counsel. The appellants will also have proportionate costs of the appeal.