15. With great respect, I am unable to subscribe to this reasoning. In the first place, the acquisition was not of a small plot of 2310 square meters, but, rather, the acquisition was in respect of a strip of land acquired for road widening which may have totally admeasured 2310 square meters. In fact, AW1 admitted this position and it was never the case even of the Respondents that the acquisition was in respect of a small plot of 2310 square meters. Therefore, there was no basis for any enhancement. Secondly, though, in the facts of the present case, the postnotification sale deed could have been taken into consideration, the decrease, in this case, had to be substantial. This is because the sale deed was almost 3 years post the publication of Section 4 notification. The rate reflected in the sale deed was 73/- per square meter. Therefore, even ₹ going by the reasoning of the Reference Court about a reduction of 10% per annum, a reduction of 30% would bring the rate to 48.67 or ₹ thereabouts. Besides, as noted earlier, this is not a case of some plot of 2310 square meters which would have a ready buyer or could be used for some industrial or residential purposes, but rather, this is a case of acquisition of a large strip of land along the highway for the purpose of widening of the highway. No doubt, such a strip of land cannot be regarded as valueless, having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gopal Bahurao Gaudo (supra), but, certainly, there was no warrant for enhancing the compensation from 20/- per square ₹
