the effect that the property was in the vicinity of Chandigarh town and the ascertainment of valuation of the property was wholly without reference of the imminent potential of the property for use for nonagricultural purpose. He would contend that the valuation as raised in Ex.A1 itself ought to have been taken as appropriate for determination of the value for the property acquired. It is difficult to take Ex.A1 itself as an appropriate guideline in view of a definite reference to character of property in Ex.A1, which is not agricultural land, to apply the same valuation for a non-agricultural land would be inappropriate but if we must take the potentiality of the land as relevant then the valuation under Ex.R1 and R2 may not themselves be the appropriate guideline for determination of the price. If the valuation as stated in Ex.A1 were to be taken, it would be 2,85,715/-. This ought to be, if at all, to be the outer limit, considering the fact that the transaction was for small piece of land and considering also the fact that it was not an agricultural land, I would make an approximation and take the valuation of the property acquired at 1 lac per acre. In the manner of assessment of compensation, the Reference Court has approached differential valuation of 45,000/- for Chahi land and 35,000/- for Barani land, I will maintain the same differential rate and the determination which I have made shall be taken as 1 lac for Chahi and 77500/- for Barani land. In the manner that I have adopted the valuation, I am alive to the fact that I am making a subjective appraisal but at least I am convinced that the valuation which was made by the Reference Court was certainly not adequate considering the proximity of the property to Chandigarh and the relative potential of the land for industrial and residential use.
