JUDGMENT Naik J.- l. This is an appeal against the order of the Third Additional District Judge, Bhopal, made in a reference under section 18 read with section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The land in suit is Khasra No. 188, area 39.96 acres, situate in mouza Kolwa Kalan. Tahsil Huzoor, district Sehore. It is sought to be acquired by the State Government for the purposes of establishing a factory known as 'The Heavy Electricals (Private) Ltd., sponsored by the Union Government. 3. The notices under sections 4 (1) and 6 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to the acquisition proceedings in question were published in the Stale Gazette on 29-9-1956; and as the issue of simultaneous notifications was challenged by some of the parties, a fresh notification under section 6 (1) of the Act was issued and published in the State Gazette dated 23-8-1958. 4. The award of the Collector dated 27-11-1957 offered to the claimant Rs.2,113. Not satisfied with the award, the claimant (appellant) asked for a reference under section 18 of the Act to it civil Court, which was accordingly made. The reference was answered by the Third Additional District Judge, who by his order, dated 27-3-1959, held that the award of the Collector required no interference except in the matter of interest on the amount awarded, which he determined at 6 per cent per annum from the date on which possession of the land was taken from the claimant to the date of payment or deposit made by the Collector. 5. The reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge for maintaining the award, inter alia, were: (1) That there was no adequate and reliable material for determining the market price of the suit land on the date of publication of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act. (2) That the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer for computing the market price by taking a multiple of 23 and multiplying it with the net income of the suit plot was, under the circumstances, quite proper. 6. The only question on which the reference was made was the amount of compensation payable to the claimant, and the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the amount of compensation has been correctly computed. 7. 6. The only question on which the reference was made was the amount of compensation payable to the claimant, and the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the amount of compensation has been correctly computed. 7. At the outset, we have no hesitation in rejecting the principle employed by the Land Acquisition Officer, which has also been approved by the learned Additional District Judge, as very imperfect and unsatisfactory. What the Land Acquisition Officer did was to select certain sales (about 21) as fairly representative of the market value in the area on the date of the notification under section 4 (1) of the Act and to compute on their basis the avenge market price per acre. This, vide Annexure 4 appended to the award, came to Rs. 181 per acre, with an average rental of Rs. 2-1-0 He then collected cases where the land had been leased out to shikmis and took out an average, from 27 such cases selected by him of the rental and the amount paid by the shikmis. This he worked out at Rs. 10 when the rental paid was Rs. 2-2-0 per acre. From this he calculated the profits of an average acre of land to be Rs. 7-14-0. Taking the average profit to be 'Rs. 7-14-0 per acre when the average sale price was Rs. 181 per acre, he determined the multiple of 23 Rs, 181 Rs. 7-14-0 which, when multiplied with the profits of the suit land, gave its average market price. The aforesaid method employed for computing the average market price has only to be stated to be rejected. No basis is disclosed for treating the sales in Annexure 4 as representative sales of the area. The annexure shows that the sales were from villages other than village Kolwa Kalan. They were from villages Piplani, Gadia, Barkheda Pathani, Khajuri Kalan, Seora Kalan, Narela Shankri, Govindpura, etc ; and it is not disclosed why they were representative sales. The location of the lands vis-a-vis the suit land is not disclosed. We are, therefore, of opinion that an average so calculated cannot furnish any guide for the market value of the suit land. But, then the story does not end here. The Land Acquisition Officer has not even accepted this average. The location of the lands vis-a-vis the suit land is not disclosed. We are, therefore, of opinion that an average so calculated cannot furnish any guide for the market value of the suit land. But, then the story does not end here. The Land Acquisition Officer has not even accepted this average. He has only used it for calculating a multiple with reference to the average letting value of certain other lands, situate in villages other than Kolwa Kalan (16 of them from Barkheda Parhani), and, so far as we can ascertain, quite arbitrarily selected, from which average profit per acre was computed. 8. It is, no doubt, true that the onus is on the claimant to show that the award was calculated on a wrong basis; but, when the basis for computing the market price of the suit land was the ascertainment and application of a 'multiple' which could not be justified on any rational ground the learned Additi0nal District Judge ought to have made an endeavour to calculate it as best as be could and not resorted to the easy course of upholding the award, even though it was unintelligible. Under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the Act, the Collector has to state in his order of reference, if the objection is to the amount of compensation, the grounds on which the amount of compensation was determined; and when the grounds so stated are unsustainable, it is for the Collector to justify his award under that clause. 9. We shall now examine the material on record to determine the market value of the suit land on the date of publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. 10. The 'market value' is not defined in the Act but the connotation of the expression is now well settled. It has been stated to be the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser neither must be considered as acting under compulsion. The claimant receives for the lands he is compelled to part with under the Act their money equivalent, i.e., that which they are worth to him in money. When a willing purchaser and a willing vendor make a business transaction of sale actuated by business principles, they will necessarily take into account all potentialities of the property. The claimant receives for the lands he is compelled to part with under the Act their money equivalent, i.e., that which they are worth to him in money. When a willing purchaser and a willing vendor make a business transaction of sale actuated by business principles, they will necessarily take into account all potentialities of the property. Its actual particular use by the owner at the time of the bargain shall not be the' final determining consideration governing its price. All reasonable future possibilities for which the land may be used by a prudent owner must be taken into consideration as part of the value to the owner. The probability that the land can be put to a more profitable use, pre sent or future, in the hands of a prudent owner ought not to be disregarded so that if a piece of land is at the time of notification under section 4 (1) of the Act primarily used for agriculture or is even lying fallow that is not conclusive of its value. For, if there is a reasonable probability of its being used as a building site in the near future, this reasonable probability cannot be disregarded. This future potentiality of the land as a building site shall be an element to be taken into consideration in computing its 'market value'. 11. The learned Additional District Judge has not at all taken into consideration this potentiality but has valued the land purely as agricultural land and had, therefore, in our opinion, erred in assessing its 'market value'. 12. The suit land is situate in village Kolwa Kalan (P C. No. 27). It is practically on the Bhopal-Raisen road and is about 2 furlongs away from the Bhopal municipal limits. [see the evidence of Syed Hasan Raza (C.W. 1) and Tufail Ahmed (C.W. 4)]. The land is also known as the 'Pathar of Govindpur'; and, according to Syed Hasan Raza (C.W. 1), 15 acres of it is cultivable and the rest is 'pathar', though valuable rubble and gitti can be got from it. This evidence gets corroboration from the evidence of Laxminarain (S.W. 1), Patwari, who says that from the pathar land of mouza Kolwa Kalan stone can be quarried. This evidence gets corroboration from the evidence of Laxminarain (S.W. 1), Patwari, who says that from the pathar land of mouza Kolwa Kalan stone can be quarried. The location of the land and its nearness to the Bhopal municipal area thus gave it an added value as a potential building site, especially as the town of Bhopal was a growing town. 13. On 28-4-1955, the State sold to the Central India Flour Mills land Sajjad Hasan 24.50 acres of forest land in Mouza Habibganj at Rs. 1,000 per acre [see the evidence of Syed Hasan Raza (C.W.1) and Anwar Mohammad Khan (C.W. 3)]. According to Anwar Mohammad Khan (C.W. 3) this land is also Pathar, and Syed Hasan Raza (C.W. 1) tells us that it is near the suit site and there is no cross-examination of the witness on the point to show that his statement was incorrect. This sale, therefore, gives a reasonably good pointer for the market value of the land. This sale has been rejected on the ground that the learned Additional District Judge had not before him the sale deed in evidence for examining it we do not understand what exactly the learned Judge meant by this criticism. A certified copy of the sale deed in respect of this sale is on record, through it has not bet n formally proved. The fact, however, remains that this sale has been deposed to by two of the witnesses for the claimant and their evidence on the point has not been challenged in cross examination. This sale was also noticed by the Land Acquisition Officer, though he had rejected it. The exact ground of his rejection is, however, not very clear: (see paragraph 14 of the Collector's award). We, therefore, see no reason to reject this sale as of no evidentiary value. 14. The next relevant sale is of 19-9-1956, whereby the Union Government sold to Jain Brothers forest land in village Bhopal, measuring about an acre, for Rs. 4,840. According to Syed Hasan Raza (C.W. 1), this land is also close to the suit land. The Land Acquisition Officer had rejected this sale on the ground that it was a land which was so close to the City of Bhopal as almost to form a part of it and was situated on the City side of the railway line. According to Syed Hasan Raza (C.W. 1), this land is also close to the suit land. The Land Acquisition Officer had rejected this sale on the ground that it was a land which was so close to the City of Bhopal as almost to form a part of it and was situated on the City side of the railway line. It was also said that the suit land was at a considerable distance but of this there is no evidence. On the other hand, the unchallenged testimony of Syed Hasan Raza (C.W.1) on the point shows that it is near the suit land. In our opinion, there is no reason to discard this sale also as of no relevance. 15. The third sale is dated 8-12-1956 of 9.15 acres of land in village Govindpura for a consideration of Rs. 20,000 by one Mst. Bhagwatibai. The land is Pathari but, according to Laxminarayan (C.W. 2), the purchaser, it is about 1-2 furlong from the Municipal limits or Bhopal and situate on the Bhopal-Raisen road. The land was purchased as a building sit. This sale has been discarded on the ground that it was speculative and effected after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of section 4 of the Act. We do not agree that it could be discarded for the aforesaid reasons. No doubt the material date for determining the market value of the suit land is the date of publication of the notification under sub section (1) of section 4 of the Act, which has to be ascertained with as close a degree of approximation as possible with reference to sales of similar or similar]y situated lands in the neighbourhood. It is not always possible to get evidence of such sales on the date of publication of the notification it self. Consequently, a sale about that time is taken into account. Sales of dates much earlier or sales of dates much later than the material date will not be very relevant; and even as regards sales of nearest date available, allowances may have to be made for such factors as may have influenced the considerations paid for those sales. Consequently, a sale about that time is taken into account. Sales of dates much earlier or sales of dates much later than the material date will not be very relevant; and even as regards sales of nearest date available, allowances may have to be made for such factors as may have influenced the considerations paid for those sales. There is no law which prohibits the taking into consideration of 'post-notification' sales, though it may be that they shall have to be very carefully scrutinized to ascertain whether and, if so, how far the particular purpose for which the acquisition was being made had influenced their consideration, or whether they were brought about with the object of supporting the suit claim. Of these. there is no evidence in this case; and consequently, in our opinion the sale of 8-12-1956 referred to in this paragraph would also furnish an adequately reasonable date for determining the market value of the suit land on the relevant date. 16. In Assistant Development Officer. Trombay vs. Tazaballi, AIR 1933 Bom. 361 at p.363, it was observed as follows: "I may mention also section 24, Land Acquisition Act in which it is provided that the Court shall not take into consideration inter alia any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired or any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to acquired from the use to which the lant acquired will be put. Nevertheless, I doubt if anything can be found in these authorities which would justify the conclusion that post notification transactions must necessarily be ignored altogether. All transactions must be relevant which can fairly be said to afford a fair criterion of the value of the property as at the date of the notification'. If any considerable interval has elapsed the Court will naturally attach little or no value to subsequent sales, just as transactions long prior to the notification will usually be discarded." 17. The aforesaid sales are all the sales referred to in evidence. If any considerable interval has elapsed the Court will naturally attach little or no value to subsequent sales, just as transactions long prior to the notification will usually be discarded." 17. The aforesaid sales are all the sales referred to in evidence. The abstract of sales in Annexure 4 relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer in his award is not of much value as in the first place, those sales are not proved to be of similarly situated lands; secondly, the reason why the sales therein abstracted were considered to be representative sales has not been disclosed; and thirdly, they did not relate to lands which had their potential value as building sites such as the suit land had because of its being close to the municipal limits of a growing town. The evidence of Laxminarain (S.W. 1), Patwari, that lands in village Kolwa Kalan were sold at Rs. 50-80 per acre is also not of such value as it is very vague and general, and was discarded as useless even by the learned Additional District Judge. 18. We are, therefore, left with three sales of more or less similarly situated lands and of more or less recent dates. Of these, two are for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 per acre; while one is for a consideration of Rs. 4,840 per acre. No doubt, One of these sales, wherein land on the Bhopal-Raisen road was sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 per acre for building purposes. is a post-notification sale. But, we do not think that sale was influenced by the purpose for which the acquisition in question was being made. It may be that the consideration of Rs.4,840 per acre paid by 'Jain Brothers' to the Union Government may be due to the fact that that land was 'so close to the city as almost to fm a part of it'; but it cannot on that account be discarded altogether. There is no evidence to show that it was a fancy price paid by the purchaser to satisfy his whim, nor that that sale was influence by any compulsion on his part. The price paid for that sale can, therefore, be taken into consideration for whatever it was worth. 19. The claimant has claimed in this appeal an enhancement of the amount awarded by Rs. The price paid for that sale can, therefore, be taken into consideration for whatever it was worth. 19. The claimant has claimed in this appeal an enhancement of the amount awarded by Rs. 10,000, i.e., he prays that he be allowed compensation for the suit land at the rate of Rs 300 per acre approximately. As this would, on any reasonable computation, be less than the market value of the suit land per acre considering that the land has its potential value as a building site and is close to the municipal limits of the City of Bhopal which is a growing town, we need not enter into a detailed discussion to calculate the exact compensation claimable by the claimant in this case, as the claim in appeal is confined to Rs.17,113 only which the claimant-appellant would in any case be entitled to. 20 We, therefore, allow the appeal. The order of the learned Additional District Judge upholding the award is hereby set aside and the award of compensation to the appellant-claimants enhanced by Rs. 10,000 with costs. He shall now be entitled to Rs. 12,113 as compensation for the compulsory acquisition of his 39.96 acres of land at Mouza Kolwa Kalan.