D.P. Wadhwa, J.

1. These two appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the) against the judgment dated July 31, 196S, of the learned Additional District Judge, on a reference under Section 18 of theagainst two awards, Nos. 1238 and 1369 of the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, respecting acquisition of land of the appellant in village Jogabai. Quite a large track of land was acquired of this village under Notification dated November 13, 1959 under Section 4 of the. The Land Acquisition Collector divided the acquired land in two blocksBlock A and Block B. He fixed market value of the land falling in Block A at Rs. 4,000 per bigha and that falling in Block B at Rs. 2,500 per bigha. The land of the appellant in both the awards falls in Block A. The learned Additional District Judge fixed the Market value of the land in Block A at Rs. 8,000 per bigha. Of course, the appellant was awarded solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of possession of the land till the payment of the said compensation. Dissatisfied even with that the appellant has filed these two appeals now claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per bigha, thus seeking enhancement of Rs. 7,000 per bigha with usual solatium and interest at the statutory rate. These appeals are pending since the year 1968. Then the appellant filed applications on January 16, 1991, under Sections 149 and 153 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In these the appellant mentioned that though originally it had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. yd. but in the reference petition under Section 18 of theit had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000 per bigha stating it to be the market value of the land. In the appeals, however, the appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per bigha only. This was on the basis of the location and potentiality of the acquired land of the appellant vis-a-vis the evidence relied upon by the learned Additional District Judge. Appellant says that in the year 1968 there was no judgment fixing the market value of the land of the village in question or of the adjoining village Bahapur. Then the appellant sets out in the application that in two appeals this Court had fixed the market value of the land in village Bahapur at the rate of Rs. 19,000 per bigha and in another case this Court had held that the market value of the land of the adjoining village was relevant which fact the appellant says was not considered by the learned Additional District Judge. The appellant also points out that in the case of Bagh Singh v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, AIR 1985 SC 1576 [LQ/SC/1985/255] , the Supreme Court has held that when the market value of the lands acquired have been valued at the rates higher than the rates claimed by an appellant, the appellant should be given the opportunity of paying the deficient Court fee so that it can also get enhanced compensation at the same rates as the others. In these circumstances, the appellant says that the market value of the subject land would be over Rs. 20,000 per bigha and it erroneously claimed the compensation only at the rate of Rs. 15,000 per bigha. The appellant, therefore, sought permission to amend the grounds of appeal claiming compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per bigha, enhancement of Rs. 12,000 per bigha on what the Additional District Judge awarded. The Court directed issue of notices to the Union of India in these applications. None appeared for the Union of India and the Court directed that since the main appeal itself was on board the applications will be heard along with the appeal itself. These applications were, however, allowed by subsequent order dated April 16, 1991, as there was no opposition to the same by the respondent Union of India. Court fee on the enhanced amount now claimed has since been paid.

2. Mr. Radhakrishnan, learned Counsel for the Union of India, raised two preliminary objections on the basis of the impugned judgment: (1) that the appellant relied only on five documents (Exts. A-l, A-2, A-3, A-10 and A-l2) and on no other document, and (2) that the appellant had limited its claim of market value of the acquired land at Rs. 9,000 or Rs. 10,000 per bigha and no more. He, therefore, said that the appellant now cannot rely on any other document or take a different stand to contend that the market value of the land would be more than Rs. 10,000 per bigha. It is correct that if reference is made to the impugned judgment what Mr. Radhakrishnan says may appear to be correct from the first reading of the judgment but relying mainly on certain documents and then on that basis saying that in any case the market value should not be less than Rs. 9,000 or Rs. 10,000 per bigha, it cannot be said that the appellant gave up its claim for higher amount. In fact in the grounds of appeal the appellant has clearly stated that it at no stage gave any concession. Under Section 23 of thein determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for, land acquired the Court shall take into consideration, among other things, the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the. It becomes the duty of the Court to fix the market value of the land though the Court can arrive at this conclusion only on the basis of the evidence on record and if that evidence suggests that market value would be more than what even the claimant would say, the Court should nevertheless fix the market value on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not find any force in this preliminary submission of the Union of India and would reject the same.

3. The notification in the present case in both the appeals is same and is dated November 13, 1959. Declaration under Section 6 in R.F.A. 454/68 was made on 21st/22nd May, 1962 and in R.F.A. 455/68 on 26/27th July, 1961. Two awards were also given on different dates but fixing the market value of the acquired land at the same rate. As noted above, only relevant consideration in this case under Section 23 of thewould be the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification under Section 4 of the. Section 24 enumerates the matters which are to be neglected in determining compensation and one of such matters is any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it would be when acquired.

4. The appellant submitted that the learned Additional District Judge did not correctly fix the market value of the land and that he was wrong in not taking into consideration the market value of the land of the adjoining village Bahapur and was again wrong that the transactions for sale of land of village Bahapur, which took place in 1958, were not relevant for the year 1959. Appellant further said that the learned Additional District Judge did not take into account all the relevant circumstances in arriving at the market value of the land particularly the location and the potentiality of the land.

5. We find that the village Bahapur and village Jogabai are contiguous and the transactions relating to sale of land in the village Bahapur would be quite relevant particularly when no similar transaction took place in the village Jogabai where the acquired land situated. It is, however, difficult to accept the contention of the appellant that the acquired land commands a better situation as compared to land subject-matter of transaction in the village Bahapur. It may appear to be so while deciding these appeals after over 30 years of the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, but we cannot cloud our vision considering the todays situation and utility to which the acquired land has been put to. It was submitted before us that on this very land a pioneer medical institution of by-pass heart surgery (Escorts Hospital) and a public school (Don Bosco) have been established, and further that all round developments have taken place. We have to see what was the situation in the year 1959 and did any body think of the use to which the land would ultimately be put and would that be relevant circumstance for fixing the compensation.

6. It is now well settled that market value on the basis of which compensation is payable under Section 23 of themeans 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 possibilites when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. The disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy are relevant considerations. In Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 1560 [LQ/SC/1977/28] , the Court said there was an element of guess work inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land. But that in the very nature of things could not be helped and further that the essential thing was to keep in view the relevant factors prescribed by the. In Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatgiraju v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam, AIR 1939 Privy Council 98 : 1939 (2) All. ER 317; the Court observed that land was to be valued by reference to uses to which it was reasonably capable of being put in future and that it was possibilities of land and not its realised possibilities that must be considered. The Court also laid down principles as to how the increase accruing to value of land owing to its potentialities was to be measured and observed that the value of potentiality must be ascertained on such materials as are available and without indulging in feats of the imagination. The Court said in the case of land possessing the possibility of being used for building purposes there would probably be evidence of the prices paid in the neighbourhood for land immediately required for such purposes. It would be thus seen that prices of the lands sold in the neighbourhood nearabout the time of the notification for acquisition are usually the best evidence to consider the market value of the acquired land. Same principle will apply in considering the potential use of the acquired land. The owner of the land is, thus, entitled in its value to him which would comprise all the advantages, present and future, which the land possesses. As observed in Halsburys Laws of England (Fourth Edition para 258), nevertheless, it is only the present value of these advantages which fall to be considered, and not the advantages as realised in the hands of the acquiring authority, and there must be disregarded any increase in value due to the scheme underlying the acquisition; although if the land is suitable for some purpose that purpose is not excluded merely because the authority Intends to apply the land to it. Then if the owner holds the land subject to certain restrictive covenants, those will have to be taken into consideration as well.

7 Keeping the aforesaid principles in view we proceed to examine the evidence on record. By the time we heard these appeals various judgments of this Court have been given the market value of the acquired land of the village Bahapur but acquired under the same notification as the land in question. It may be noticed that village Bahapur is situated on both sides of the main Mathura Road, a National Highway of great importance. Respecting the land abutting on the main Mathura Road, this Court considered the sale of and to M/s Glaxo Laboratories Ltd, by sale deed dated August 3, 1959 as the most representative sale, to arrive at the market value of the land. Under that sale deed land was sold at the rate of Rs. 19 per sq. yd. Thus, the Court fixed the market value of such a land at the rate of Rs. 19,000 per bigha. The land which was away from the main Mathura Road the market value was fixed at Rs. 16,000 per bigha. If we refer to the Aks Shajra of the village Bahapur and village Jogabai it would be seen that some of the land of the appellant is contiguous to the land of the village Bahapur where compensation has been awarded at the rate of Rs. 16,000 per bigha. The argument is, however, that the acquired land is situated on the Okhla Road leading from the main Mathura Road to Okhla where there is a picnic spot as well. The land abutting on the main Mathura Road is of commercial nature. This cannot be said to be of the acquired land. The highest argument that could be raised was that the acquired land could be best used for building of residential houses away from the din and noise of the main Mathura Road and, therefore, its value could not be less than that of the land on the main Mathura Road and could be even more. The argument of noise and din may appear to be quite appealing today when there is lot of awareness regarding noise pollution. But this was not the condition in the year 1959. It is matter of common knowledge that commercial land commands more price than the land meant for residential purposes. It can also not be said that whole of the acquired land abuts on the Okhla Road. The potential of the land for building residential houses is, however, without any doubt.

8. Ext. A-l is a sale deed of the date 7/5/1958 of land measuring 9 bighas in village Bahapur. This land comprised in Khasra Nos. 17, 18, 23 along with a 12 feet wide passage in Khasra Nos. 16 and 17 was sold to Ishwar Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per bigha. This land is situated behind Khasra No. 15 which abuts on the main Mathura Road. Ext. A-3 is another sale deed dated 30/4/1958 for sale of half share of land in Khasra No.15 measuring 3 bighas 16 biswas of village Bahapur to M/s. Ishwar Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. at the rate of Rs. 18,000 per bigha. This land is ideally situated on the main Mathura Road. The other half share in this land was sold by a separate sale deed dated 2/5/1958 (Ext. A-2) to the same very society at the rate of Rs. 15,126 per bigha. It was submitted before us that the rate was less because the share in this land had to be sold per force by a widow. We examined the sale deed. The vendor does not appear to be a widow. Now in Ext. A-3 it is mentioned that the land is developed but in Ext. A-2 it is said that the land is undeveloped Ext. A-4 is sale deed dated 2/5/1960 for sale of 1008 sq. yds. of land out of 2 bighas 11 biswas in Khasra No. 443/132 in village Okhla at the rate of Rs. 7,000. This land is bounded on two sides by built houses and on two sides vacant land of the vendor. Ext. A-7 is a sale deed dated 13/8/1956 giving perpetual leasehold rights in plot of land measuring 4000 sq. yds. in Khasra No. 224 in village Bahapur with lease money fixed at Rs. 270.75 per bigha. The sale is to M/s. Band Box Ltd. The leasehold rights have been granted to M/s. Band Box Ltd. and the land is situated on the main Mathura Road. Then this very land was sold to M/s. Band Box Ltd. by sale deed dated 17/3/1960, for Rs. 40,000. It was mentioned that out of this amount a sum of Rs. 11,835 was payable to acquire the rights of Marusis, the rate being thus Rs. 10,000 per sq. yd. The perpetual lease deed and sale deed were both executed by the appellant before us who owned this land. Ext. A-6 is sale deed dated 29/5/1958 where again the sale is by the appellant selling 14570 sq. yds. of land in Khasra Nos. 246, 247, 248 and 251 in village Bahapur at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per sq. yd. subject, however, to the rights of the Marusis. This land is again situated on the main Mathura Road. Then there are two judgments one dated 6/1/1964 and the other dated 1/2/1965, by Mr. Hans Raj Additional District Judge, given on a reference under Section 18 of thethe land having been acquired under the same very notification as in the present case. In the judgment dated 6/1/1964 there is a reference to sale of 800 sq yds of land in Khasra Nos. 31 and 33m village Jogabai for Rs. 8,000 by sale deed dated 2/9/1957. The Court, however, went into the history of the sale and found that the purchase price was paid not in cash but by certain displaced persons claim value of which was 10 annas in a rupee. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, on this basis fixed the price of the acquired land at Rs. 6,250 per bigha in village Jogabai. In the judgment dated 1/2/1965 there is a reference to two sale deeds. One is dated 10/4/1958 for sale of 13 biahas 14 biswas of land in Khasra Nos. 19, 22, 24, 37 and 39 in village Bahapur at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per bigha. Second sale deed is dated 29/5/1958 for sale of 2 bighas 16 biswas of land in Khasra No. 1500 in village Bahapur at the rate of Rs. 11,610 per bigha which land is situated on the main Mathura Road. All these sale deeds do not provide any help to us to say that the market value of the acquired land would be Rs. 20,000 per bigha as now being claimed by the appellant. As noted above, reference has been made to various decisions of this Court in appeal where this Court has fixed market value of the land in village Bahapur and that abutting on the main Mathura Road at Rs. 19,000 per bigha and the other at Rs. 16,000 per Bigha. This we find appears to be the consistent stand of this Court. If the value of the land which is commercial in nature or which could be put to commercial use on the main Mathura Road is Rs. 19,000 per bigha, the price of the acquired land even if situated on the Okhla Road cannot be the same. It may also be noted that the land which was purchased by Ishwar Nagar Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. was apparently for the purpose of building of houses and various sale deeds respecting those deals have been brought on record and which have been referred to above. Compensation regarding those lands have been enhanced to Rs. 16,000 per bigha. Those lands are situated in more proximity with the National Highway. In the acquired land there was no building activity at the time of the notification under Section 4 of thethough the had potential for that purpose. We also find that the learned Additional District Judge was quite right in his observation that when a whole big chunk of land is sold its market value would be somewhat less than when land is sold in small chunks. It was submitted before us that villages Bahapur and Jogabai described as different were in fact one village with two different names. That does not appear to be wholly correct. The village Bahapur abuts on both side of main Mathura Road, a National Highway and on one side of the where the boundary of this village ends the land of the Jogabai becomes contiguous to that of village Bahapur. That has to be there in any case when line of one village ends and that of other starts. We find, however substance in the argument of the appellant that market value of the land in village Bahapur should be a safe guide to arrive at market value of the acquired land in the adjoining village Jogabai. The learned Additional District Judge was not correct when he said that sale deeds of the year 1958 cannot provide a safe guide in arriving at the value of the land for the year 1959. It is a matter of common knowledge that value of the land normally appreciates. In this view of the matter we have thought that Rs. 15,000 per bigha would be the fair market value of the acquired land at the relevant time. In arriving at this figure we have taken into consideration all the relevant circumstance. We find ourselves unable to agree with the appellant that when compensation has been awarded respecting lands in village Bahapur, which do not abut on the main road, at the rate of Rs. 16,000 per bigha rate should also be applicable to the land of village Jogabai. If we accept this argument then the land of other village which is contiguous to that of Jogabai should also get compensation at this very rate irrespective of distance from the main road. Then, as noted above by the learned Additional District Judge, when a big chunk of and is sold its price is necessarily some what lower than the price of the land sold in small pieces. We have also taken into account the fact that a portion of the acquired land abuts on the Okhla Road, but then that road ends at the Picnic Spot, Okhla, and does not go beyond any further. It is not a National Highway. Thus, taking into account all the relevant circumstances we fix the market value of the acquired land at Rs.15,000 per bigha, thus, enhancing the same by Rs. 7,000 per bigha. Following the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Another v. Prithpal Singh and others (AIR 1989 SC 1933 [LQ/SC/1989/332] ), we direct that the appellant will be entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% on the market value as provided in Section 23(2) of theand interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of possession of the land till the payment of the enhanced compensation as per Section 28 of the. Appellant will be entitled to proportionate costs limited to Court fee only.