a few Marlas. More specifically, he argued that Ex. P3 was not reliable since it measured only 1 Kanal and 10.5 Marlas, making it significantly smaller in comparison to the acquired land. Similarly, with respect to Ex. P76, which was also heavily relied upon by the Appellants, he asserted that it ought to be discarded, not only because it was subsequent to the Section 4 1 AIR 1975 SC 1670. 2 (2011) 7 SCC 714. 13 | Pagenotification but also since the land therein was purchased for a commercial purpose by a private company for warehousing, and thus would not accurately reflect the market value of the acquired land. 12. Instead, Mr. Bannerjee urged that the sale instances placed on record by the Respondents should be relied upon despite having been recorded post the Section 4 notification, as they lend proper guidance for estimating the market value of the acquired land on the crucial date of 11.02.2021. Lastly, he asserted that even if the Court were to consider the sale instance of a