GOVINDA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the Land Acquisition Officer, and the Memorandum of cross-objections by the Claimant, are concerned with the question of what is the proper sum to be awarded to the Respondent-Claimant by way of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of 6 acres and 11 guntas of land in Survey No. 87 of Harihar village, which was acquired at the instance of the Harihar Town Municipality for extension of the town. ( 2 ) THE land acquired is Survey No. 87 of Harihar village within the limits of Herihar Town Municipality. The extent of the said land is 9 acres and 9 guntas, of which 1 acre 1/2 gunta is unconverted agricultural land while the rest is converted land. Ext. P5 is the plan of the land acquired. On the South of the said land is the Bangalore-Dharwar road proceeding to davanagere, and the West there is the Harihar Railway Station Road. The Harihar Railway Station is within about a furlong from the land acquired. To the North of the land acquired, there is open ground belonging to the Railways, and beyond the said open ground, there is the Goods-shed road which joins the Harihar Railway Station Road on the West. ( 3 ) THERE are buildings of the Bharat Oil Mills Ltd. (the Claimant), and its godowns in an area of 0-32 guntas; the area actually covered by buildings is shown in Ext. P5. Land of the extent of 1 acre 51/2 guntas fronting the harihar Railway Station Road and Bangalore-Dharwar Road were laid out into 19 sites, as shown in Ext. P5, sometime before the preliminary notification under S. 4 (1) which was published in the Mysore Gazette on 15th October, 1959. Of the said 19 sites, the respondent sold site Nos. 1, 5, 6, 9, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18 in the month of February 1959. The total extent of the said 9 sites is 0-30 guntas and the 10 sites that remained unsold measure 151/2 guntas. ( 4 ) THE notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called the Act, was published on March 2, 1960 and possession of the land ana the buildings thereon was taken on May 13, 1960. On January 15, 1961, a sum of Rs. ( 4 ) THE notification under S. 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, hereinafter called the Act, was published on March 2, 1960 and possession of the land ana the buildings thereon was taken on May 13, 1960. On January 15, 1961, a sum of Rs. 1,83, 828 was paid to the respondent as advance as per conditions of an agreement dt. May 30, 1960. The Land Acquisition Officer made his award on July 9, 1961. By the said Award, he fixed a total sum of Rs. 2. 12,628 plus 15 per cent statutory allowance as compensation for 7 acres and 81/2 guntas of land and the buildings; he made a separate award in respect of the aforesaid 9 sites sold and he deferred the making of the Award in respect of 1 acre and 1/2 gunta of unconverted land on the ground that the compensation amount deposited by the Harihar Town municipality for masting the cost of acquisition fell short of the requisite amount. The aforesaid sum of Rs. 2,12,628 awarded by the Land Acquisition officer was classified into tour items as follows ; ( 5 ) THE reference was registered as LAC. 540/1961 in the Court of the ii Additional District Judge, Shimoga. Before the said Court the respondent claimed compensation at Rs. 9 per square yard for 6 acres 11 gts. of vacant land acquired. It was alleged that the acquired land was close to the Harihar Railway Station and the Bus Stand and it is on the main road, and having regard to its location, the land is suitable for building sites both for residence and business. The Land Acquisition Officer in his objections submitted that the land has been correctly valued at Rs. 2500 an acre on the basis of the value of the neighbouring agricultural land, and that it is not suitable for building sites. He further contended that the claimant, having received payment of Rs. 1,83,828 on January 15, 1961 in pursuance of an agreement, was estopped from claiming enhancement of compensation. ( 6 ) THE claimant examined three witnesses and one of its liquidators. The Land Acquisition Officer examined three witnesses. The parties also filed some documents. He further contended that the claimant, having received payment of Rs. 1,83,828 on January 15, 1961 in pursuance of an agreement, was estopped from claiming enhancement of compensation. ( 6 ) THE claimant examined three witnesses and one of its liquidators. The Land Acquisition Officer examined three witnesses. The parties also filed some documents. On a consideration of the evidence, the Court below came to the conclusion that the vacant lands are suitable for house building sues and the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer made on the basis of the valuation of neighbouring agricultural lands cannot be supported. The plea of estoppel was over-ruled. The Court below awarded compensation at Rs. 7-20 paise a square yard after giving deduction of 25 per cent of the area of the land acquired for roads and drains. On the said basis, the compensation was enhanced to Rs. 1,64,221-20, plus the statutory allowance of 15 per cent. On the enhanced compensation, interest was awarded from the date of taking possession till date of payment at 6 per cent per annum. Against the enhancement of compensation by the Award of the Court below the Land Acquisition Officer has preferred the above appeal, and the claimant has preferred cross-objections claiming further enhancement to the extent of Rs. 41,055-30. ( 7 ) WHEN the appeal came up for hearing on November 22, 1865 before another Bench of this Court it appears to have been urged by the learned government Pleader on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, that 0-22 guntas of land lying to the, North of the godowns referred to as Item-1 in the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer and also in the order of the court below is unfit for building purposes. The Court was of the opinion that the evidence on the question of the suitability of the said land for building sites is quite unsatisfactory and that the interests of justice required that the matter should be remanded for recording findings on the question as to the suitability of the land for building purposes and its market value, after affording opportunities to both sides to adduce evidence. The Court below has submitted its findings on a consideration of the additional evidence adduced by the parties. According to the findings submitted, the said ltem-1 is also suitable for building sites and its market value is Rs. 7 per square yard. The Court below has submitted its findings on a consideration of the additional evidence adduced by the parties. According to the findings submitted, the said ltem-1 is also suitable for building sites and its market value is Rs. 7 per square yard. ( 8 ) ON the return of the findings the appeal was placed before us for hearing. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the Land Acquisition officer urged before us that 22 guntas of land comprising Item-1, is not suitable for building sites, that the respondent is estopped from claiming enhancement of compensation, that the compensation awarded for the land acquired is excessive, and at interest on the enhanced amount, ought to have been awarded only at 5 per cent per annum. Sri Padubidri raghayendra Rao, the learned Counsel for the Respondenti-Claimant, urged that the compensation should have been awarded at Rs. 9 a square yard. The points that arise for determination in the appeal and cross-objections are :i. Whether the Respondent-Claimant is estopped from claiming enhancement of compensation? ii. Whether 0-22 guntas dealt with as Item-1 in the Award of the land Acquisition Officer is not suitable for building sites? iii. What is the proper sum to be awarded to the respondent by way of compensation in respect of 6 acres 11 guntas of land acquired? iv. Whether the respondent is not entitled to interest at 6 per cent on the enhanced amount of compensation?re : POINT No. I. The Government agreed to pay 75 per cent of the estimated compensation amount to the claimant in view of the fact that the final Award by the Land Acquisition Officer and payment of compensation was likely to be delayed. In consideration of the payment of 75 per cent of the estimated compensation amount in advance, the claimant agreied that the said amount may be deducted from the amount of compensation and executed an agreement, Ext. D2 Clauses (4) and (5) of the said agreement which are relevant, read thus :" (4 ). And whereas the final award bv the Land Acquisition officer and pavment of compensation is likely to take some time. Government has agreed at the request of the owner to pav the owner a sum of Rs. 1. 83. D2 Clauses (4) and (5) of the said agreement which are relevant, read thus :" (4 ). And whereas the final award bv the Land Acquisition officer and pavment of compensation is likely to take some time. Government has agreed at the request of the owner to pav the owner a sum of Rs. 1. 83. 828 (Rupees One Lakh Eiehty three thousand eight hundred and twenty eight only) representing 75 perm cent, of the estimated compensation payable to the owners on the owners agreeing to execute a bond in the manner hereinafter appearing. (5 ). Now iherefore in consideration of the sum of Rs. 1,83,828 paid by the Government to the owners (the receipt whereof both) hereby acknowledged, the owners herebv agree with the Government as follows: (i) That the Government shall be entitled to in all respects to deduct the said sum of Rs. 1,83,828 from the amount of the compensation that may become pavable to the owners bv the Land acquisition Officer in respect of the acquisition proceedings of the owners' aforesaid property. " ( 9 ) THE plea of estoppel is based on the agreement Ext. D2. It was not contended by the learned Government Pleader that the claimant, by any declaration, act, or omission intentionally caused or permitted the Government to believe that the sum of Rs. 1,83,828 which was paid in advance represented 75 per cent of the actual amount of compensation pavable and to act on that belief. If the understanding between the parties was that the said sum paid as advance represented 75 per cent of the actual amount of compensation, the Land Acquisition Officer could have straight-away made an Award on the basis of the agreement between the parties. The agreement states that since the final Award is likely to take some time, Government has agreed to pay the said sum at the request of the owner of the land. In order to successfully found the plea of estoppel, it must be established that there was a representation on the part of the claimant and that the Land Acquisition Officer acted on that representation believing the same to be tries. The pleadings do not disclose what that representation was, and how it was acted upon bv the Land Acquisition officer. In order to successfully found the plea of estoppel, it must be established that there was a representation on the part of the claimant and that the Land Acquisition Officer acted on that representation believing the same to be tries. The pleadings do not disclose what that representation was, and how it was acted upon bv the Land Acquisition officer. There is no substance, in our opinion, in the plea of estoppel and the Court below was right in rejecting the said plea. ( 10 ) THE contention that interest on the compensation amount should be awarded at 5 per cent per annum and not 6 per cent is based on the provisions of Ss. 28 and 34 of the Act as amended by Mysore Act 17 of 1961. The amendment came into force on 24-8-1961. The land in question was acquired before the amendment came into force, and consequently, Ss. 28 and 34 in their unamended form govern the instant case. Under Ss. 28 and 34 as they stood before the amendment, interest has to be awarded on the enhanced amount of compensation at 6 per cent per annum. ( 11 ) THE two reasons urged on behalf of the appellant in support of his contention that 0-22 guntas of land acquired (Item-1) is not suitable for. building purposes are: First, after leaving sufficient land for road in front and conservancy lane on the rear, the width is insufficient for construction of buildings; secondly, high tension electricity transmission wires, are running over the land. Those were the reasons stated by K. Beerappa, vice-President, Harihar Town Municipality, in his evidence as RW. 5. ( 12 ) THIS is what he stated:"the disputed site cannot be used for the construction of any buildings. According to the Town Planning Rules, if sites for buildings are to be sold, there must be space left for a road measuring 25 ft. in width and there must be a conservancy lane measuring about 12 ft. in width. If 37 ft. are deducted from the width of the site, then there will be only 13 ft. left. In such a small site no building can be constructed. Secondly, in view of the high tension wires running over the site, the wall of the building will have to be at least six feet away from the said wire. If 37 ft. are deducted from the width of the site, then there will be only 13 ft. left. In such a small site no building can be constructed. Secondly, in view of the high tension wires running over the site, the wall of the building will have to be at least six feet away from the said wire. Hence, it is not possible at all to construct any buildings on the disputed site. " ( 13 ) THE same reasons were urged before us by the learned Government pleader. The first reason that after leaving adequate space for road and conservancy lane, the width of the land is insufficient for building purposes, would have required examination, if all that the claimant owned was the narrow strip of land to the North of the godown; -but the claimant was the owner of a large block of land measuring about 9 acres comprised in S. No. 87, and the entire survey number was acquired including the godown and the land on which the godown is built. If the Government acquires, for widening a road, a narrow strip measuring 6 ft. x 100 ft. from an abutting compound of a bungalow, will it be open to the Land Acquisition officer to contend that the said narrow strip of land is unsuitable for building purposes and that he would not award compensation on the basis that what is required is portion of a building site? Let us take another case, where a house with its compound in a town is acquired. Is it open to the Land Acquisition Officer to classify that land into several parcels like, (1) land on which the building actually stands, (2) vacant land in front cf the house and (3) vacant land at the rear, and contend that the vacant land at the rear is too small for putting up a building and therefore cannot be valued at the same rate as the land on which the building actually stands? The entire Survey No. 87 except an area of 0-30 guntas sold as sites was owned by the respondent and the entire land and the buildings thereon were acquired. It is not open to the Land Acquisition officer to arbitrarily divide one compact block of land into small parcels and then contend that any parcel, which is his own creation, is too narrow for use as building sites. It is not open to the Land Acquisition officer to arbitrarily divide one compact block of land into small parcels and then contend that any parcel, which is his own creation, is too narrow for use as building sites. What he should have done was to value the entire extent of the land and the superstructures of the buildings standing on portions of the land acquired. When the entire land is taken into consideration, the objection that the 22 guntas of land lying to the north of the godown is a narrow strip, is not tenable. ( 14 ) ACCORDING to the evidence of T. S. Jayaram (RW. 4 ). , high tension electrical transmission wires are running at the height of 20 to 25 ft. above the ground level over the land to the North of the godown shown in Ext. P5, and therefore, it was contended that no buildings can be constructed over the land. The District Judge has noted in his Notes of local inspection that the wires are running at a height of 30 to 35 ft. from the ground level and they run East-West. PW. 7 (Chinnappa), an Assistant engineer employed by the Mysore State Electricity Board has stated in his evidence that according to the rules of the Board, the distance between the top-most portion of a building and the live conductor carrying 13200 volts should not be less than 12 ft. and the horizontal distance between such wire and a building should not be less than 6 ft. and that the height of the wires can be increased by fixing a higher pole and further the poles can be shifted and the line can be deviated if the party who wants such deviation pays the costs to the Electricity Board. There is no contra evidence and we see no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW. 7. ( 15 ) THE two reasons urged after remand, were not taken in the objections preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claim statement in the court below. The Award also does not give any such reason for treating item-1 differently from the rest of the land. RW. 7. ( 15 ) THE two reasons urged after remand, were not taken in the objections preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claim statement in the court below. The Award also does not give any such reason for treating item-1 differently from the rest of the land. RW. 1, the Land Acquisition officer, who inspected the land and classified the same into six items and gave his estimate of the market value before the S. 4 (1) notification was issued, has admitted in his cross-examination that buildings can be built on the open space, apparenly referring to Item-1 of the land. In ext. D3, the said Land Acquisition Officer, while recording his observations, has stated with reference to Item-1 thus :" Now as. regards valuation: The Mahazardars have valued open space at Rs. 2500 per acre. But this is not reasonable. An area of 22 guntas which is situated near Railway Station is not allowed to be. built upon as it is very close to the Railway Station. It will have to be kept open for garden or godown yard. As such its valuation may be fixed at 0-25 np. per square yard. The site may be valuable but there is restriction for its use. I therefore estimated its market value at rs. 0-25np. per square yard=rs. 665-50. " ( 16 ) IN his cross-examination RW. 1 stated that he does not remember the basis for writing in Ext. D3 that there was restriction for putting constructions in vacant sites near the Railway Station. The Award (Ext. D4) refers to the report of the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar has not treated Item-1 differently from the rest of the land; he had estimated the value of 6 acres 261/2 guntas at Rs. 3,500 an acre. In the Memorandum of Appeal also, the appellant has not taken any specific ground that there are any reasons for valuing Item-1 differently from rest of the vacant land. In our opinion, there is no merit in the contention urged by the learned Government pleader that Item-1 is not suitable for building purposes. The learned government Pleader did not urge that 5 acres 29 guntas of vacant land referred to as Item-5 by the Court below is not suitable for building sites. In our opinion, the Court below was right in valuing both Items 1 and 5 on the same basis. The learned government Pleader did not urge that 5 acres 29 guntas of vacant land referred to as Item-5 by the Court below is not suitable for building sites. In our opinion, the Court below was right in valuing both Items 1 and 5 on the same basis. ( 17 ) THE Award was made by RW. 2. He has stated in his Award that he accepted the value made by his predecessorin-office in consultation with the sub-Engineer, Tahsildar, Executive Officer of Harihar Town Municipality and the Mahazardars, as the reasonable market value of the area and buildings. His predceessor-in-office referred to is RW. 1. The estimate of the value made by RW. 1 was before the issue of S. 4 (1) Notification. In the objections filed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Court below to the Claimant's statement, it was contended that the land was valued on the basis of the value of the neighbouring agricultural land. This is what he stated in paragraph-4 of the objection statement :" 4. The land is correctly valued at Rs. 2500 per acre on the basis of the value of the neighbouring agricultural land. It is not possible to convert the land in the rear portion of the acquired property into building site. Therefore, the contention of the claimants to the contrary is not sustainable in law. " ( 18 ) WHEN a claimant objects to the Award of the Land Acquisitibn Officer and the matter is referred to Court, the party' claiming enhanced compensation is in the position of the plaintiff and must produce evidence to show that the Award is inadequate. If he produces no evidence to show that the Award is inadequate, the Award must stand ; if he succeeds in showing prima facie that the Award is inadequate, then the Land Acquisition officer must support his Award by producing evidence. The respondent-claimant examined PWs. 1, 2 and 3 the purchasers of sites Nos. 14, 12, 18 and 16 under Exs. P1, P2, P3 and P4. The land Acquisition officer (RW. 2) has admitted in his cross-examination that he has accepted the sales effected by the respondent-claimant. His Award (Ext. D4) also states that the value of 10 plots measuring 151/2 guntas i. e. , sites Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15 and 19 in Exhibit P5 was estimated at rs. The land Acquisition officer (RW. 2) has admitted in his cross-examination that he has accepted the sales effected by the respondent-claimant. His Award (Ext. D4) also states that the value of 10 plots measuring 151/2 guntas i. e. , sites Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15 and 19 in Exhibit P5 was estimated at rs. 24,000 on the basis of the pride realised for the sites sold by the respondent-claimant. Though the Land Acquisition Officer relied on the price realsed by the said sales for valuation of 15 guntas of land (Item-3 in the Award), only evidence of sale of 4 sites was adduced before the Court ext. P1 dt. 6-2-1959 is the sale deed conveying site No. 14 to PW. 1 for rs. 4,000. The area of the said site is 605 square yards; the rate works at rs. 6-61 per square yard and not at Rs. 7-20 as assumes by the Court below. Exhibit P2 dated 18-2-1959 is the sale deed conveying site No. 12 to PW. 2 for Rs. 2,000; the rate works at Rs. 12 per square yard. Ext. PS dt. 13-2-1959 is the sale deed conveying site No. 18 for Rs. 4,000; and the rat,e works at Rs. 7-37. Ext. P4 dt. 6-2-1959 is the sale deed in respect of the site No. 16 in favour of PW. 4 for Rs. 4,000; the rate works at Rs. 7-37 per square yard. The average rate, if only the said four sale deeds are taken into consideration, works at Rs. 8-34 per square yard, but it would not be correct to rely on the price fetched by the sale of four sites only when actually 9 sites were sold and the Land Acquisition officer valued 15 guntas of land relating to the remaining 10 sites, at Rs. 24,000, which works at Rs. 1,500 a gunta or at Rs. 12-75 a sq. yd. In the opinion of the Court below, the vacant land is not similarly situated as the land fronting the main roads and converted into sites by the respondent-claimant, and that the parties had not adduced any evidence to show the market value of the land. There was also no evidence adduced as to what area of the land would be available for sale as building sites after laying out roads and drains. There was also no evidence adduced as to what area of the land would be available for sale as building sites after laying out roads and drains. The Court, at the suggestion of the respondent-claimant allowed 25 per cent of the area of the acquired land for roads and drains as was done in Adhiarayana Setty v. Special Land Acquisition officer, AIR 1054 Mys. 71. It awarded compensation at Rs. 7-20 per square yard for 75 per cent of the land viz. , 4 acres 281/2 guntas. The rate of Rs. 7-20 per square yard was fixed on the assumption that the rate under Ext. P1 works at Rs. 7-20 a square yard, and that is the lowest rate fetched under Exts. P1 to P4. As stated earlier the rate under Ext. P1 works at Rs. 6-61 a sq. yd. and not Rs. 7-20 as erroneously assumed by the Court below. ( 19 ) THE learned Government Pleader urged that the land in question does not have the same advantages possessed by the sites fronting the Bangalore-Dharwar road and the Harihar Railway Station Road, and therefore, the Court below was in error in awarding compensation on the basis of the rate fetched under Ext. P1. He argued that while the sites fronting the mean roads are suitable for shop buildings, the sites that may be formed in the land to the rear may be suitable only for residential buildings. Further, he argued that the price realised by sale of small plots is not a criterion for valuation of large areas of land and that besides making adquate allowance for laying out roads and drains, allowance should have been made for the cost of development i. e. cost of laying out roads and drains etc. ,and proper deductions should have been made for the advantage to the owner of getting cash payment and so being saved the trouble and risk of developmeit. He also urged that the sites that may be formed at a distance from the main roads would fetch far lesser price than the sites formed fronting the roads. Sri P. Raghavendra Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that having regard to the location of the land in question, there is no justificaion for making any distinction between the sites fronting the main roads and the sites formed on the land in dispute. Sri P. Raghavendra Rao, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that having regard to the location of the land in question, there is no justificaion for making any distinction between the sites fronting the main roads and the sites formed on the land in dispute. ( 20 ) THE location of the land acquired, has been described at the commencement of our judgment. From Ext. P6, another plan produced in the case it is seen that on the Western side of the Harihar Raiway Station Road, opposite to the land acquired, there are the Municipal Park, Municipal office and Bus Stand. The Harihar Railway Station is very close. From the centre of the town, where there is a circle, the distance is only 1 or 11/2 furlongs, according to RW. 2. Harihar is a growing industrial town; the kirloskars have their industrial establishments in that town as stated by pw. 6. In view of its location, the land in question, it cannot be denied, has potential value as building sites. In ascertaining its value, the possibility of its being used for building purposes would have to be taken into account. As laid down by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Gajapathiraju v. Divisional Officer, AIR. 1939 PC. 98, the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put to at the time at which its value has to be determined, but also by reference to the use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in future'. In the matter of determination of compensation for compulsory acquisition of land, the land Acquisition Officer shall be guided by the provisions contained in ss. 23 and 24 of the Act. The compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor may reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The vendor is to be treated as the vendor willing to sell at the 'market price' to use the words of S. 23 of the Act. In the case of land, its value can be measured by a consideration of the prices that have been obtained in the past for land of similar quality and in similar positions. As stated by Macleod, J. as he then was, in Re: Dhanjibhoy bomanji, 10 Bom. In the case of land, its value can be measured by a consideration of the prices that have been obtained in the past for land of similar quality and in similar positions. As stated by Macleod, J. as he then was, in Re: Dhanjibhoy bomanji, 10 Bom. L. R. 701, there are only two ways in which a large area of land under acquisition can be valued: (1) by determining its value as a whole as it existed at the date of the notification; (2) by ascertaining its then value on the basis of its being laid out for sale in building plots. Where the second method is followed, the Court has to consider the following six questions : (a) The building area (b) The cost of development (c) The value of the building area when laid out for sale (d) The time required for development and disposal (e) The present value of the sale proceeds (f) The deduction to be made for the advantage to the owner, of getting cash payment and so being saved the trouble and risk of development. The fact that the Land Acquisition Officer has valued 151/2 guntas out of the acquired land at Rs. 24,000 and that he has valued the remaining vacant land on the basis oi the value of agricultural land in the neignbourhood is sufficient to held that the Award is arbitrary and it is for the Land acquisition Officer to support the Award. There is no evidence adduced to snow what is the building area that would be available when laid out for sale, the cost of devleopment, tne time required for development and disposal etc. In the Court below, the respondent-claimant submitted that 25 per cent of the area may be required for laying out roads and drains and that the remaining 75 per cent may be available for sale as building sites. Though there is no evidence of the actual building area that may bu available for sale alter laying out roads and drains, we may accept 75 per cent of the land as the available building area when laid out for sale. In Re: Dhanjiblioy Bomanji's case (3), where expert evidence was led, the total area of the land acquired was 21,500 square yards and on the evidence of an expert, the Court found the area available for building plots to be 16,942 square yards. In Re: Dhanjiblioy Bomanji's case (3), where expert evidence was led, the total area of the land acquired was 21,500 square yards and on the evidence of an expert, the Court found the area available for building plots to be 16,942 square yards. In Adinarayana Setty's case (1) referred to above, the former High Court of Mysore allowed 25 per cent of the area for roads and drains. No ground was taken in the Memorandum of appeal nor any grounds urged before us that the building area available after laying out roads-and drains would be less than 4 acres 281/2 guntas in the instant case. ( 21 ) THE Court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,64,221-20, which works at Rs. 5-40 per square yard. The respondent-claimant has claimed ,enhancement of Rs. 41,055; the total amount of compensation claimed for six acres eleven guntas of land is Rs. 2,05,004-25, which works at Rs. 6-75 per square yard. In square yards, the area of the land is 30,371 square yds. The building area available for sale as sites after making allowance of 25 per cent of the area for roads and drains may be estimated at 22,778 square yards. For 151/2 guntas in the land acquired, the Land Acquisition officer has paid and the respondent-claimant has accepted a sum of rs. 24,000, which works at Rs. 12-75 a square yard. PW. 1 who is the purchaser under Ext. P1 has stated in his chief examination that the sites of the same dimension in the rear portion may cost Rs. 200 less. His purchase was for Rs. 4,000 of a site of 605 square yards. According to the said witness, the difference in the value would be 0-30 paise per square yard. He was not cross-examined on the said evidence. The evidence of pw. 1 remains uncontroverted. Therefore, apart from the evidence of pw. 1, there is no evidence to support the contention of the learned government Pleader that the sites when formed on the land now in dispute, would be less valuable than the lands fronting the Bangalore-Dharwar road and the Harihar Railway Station Road. The evidence of pw. 1 remains uncontroverted. Therefore, apart from the evidence of pw. 1, there is no evidence to support the contention of the learned government Pleader that the sites when formed on the land now in dispute, would be less valuable than the lands fronting the Bangalore-Dharwar road and the Harihar Railway Station Road. ( 22 ) WHEN a proper lay-out scheme is implemented forming roads parallel to the Harihar Station Road, the sites formed on the land in question would, in our opinion, have all the advantages of the sites fronting the poona-Bangaldre Road and the Harihar Station Road. For the computation of the expected value by the sale of the available building area of formation of sites, the proper criterion would be the market value of the unsold sites as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and the rate awarded as stated earlier works at Rs. 12-75 a square yard. It would not be right to rely solely on Ext. P2 as was done by the Court below, when as many as 9 sites were sold, but only 4 sale deeds were produced. The non-production of all the sale deeds, however, is not material since the lands Acquisition Officer, on the basis of the sale of the sites by the respondent-claimant has valued a square yard of land fronting the two roads mentioned above at Rs. 12-75 a square yard. On the said valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is reasonable to value the available building area, at Rs. 12 a square yard. On the said basis, the prospective purchaser of the land is expected to realise Rs. 2,73,336. But any prospective buyer will not pay as much as Rs. 2,73,336 because, he will necessarity take into consideraion the cost of development of the land in laying out roads, drains etc. , the time required for development and disposal, initial capital investment he has to make and the interest on the said investment; he will also take into account a reasonable margin of profit for the trouble and risk he takes. As stated earlier, there is no evidence of the estimated cost of the development or the time required for development and disposal. In Bombay Improvement Trust v. Mervanji Manekji maistry, AIR 1926 Bom. 420, Macleod, CJ. As stated earlier, there is no evidence of the estimated cost of the development or the time required for development and disposal. In Bombay Improvement Trust v. Mervanji Manekji maistry, AIR 1926 Bom. 420, Macleod, CJ. has stated a very simple method of valuation of land wholesale from retail prices and that method is to take anything between one-half and one-third, according to circumstances, of the expected gross valuation, as the wholesale price. According to the learned chief Justice, such a method affords a useful test of valuation arrived at by more detailed calculations. In the instant case, while we are able to arrive at the expected gross amount which a hypothetical purchaser may realise by sale of the land as building sites, there is absence of evidence with regard to the cost of development etc. In the absence of such evidence, we propose to discount one-third of the expected gross realisation towards the cost of development etc. , to arrive at the market value. Accordingly, in our judgment, the market value of 6 acres and 11 guntas of land on the date of S. 4 (1) notification, was Rs. 1,82,224 and in modification of the Award made by the Court below, we award Rs. 1,82,224 plus the statutory allowance of 15 per cent together with interest at 6 per cent per annum on the enhanced amount from 13-5-1960 till the date of payment of such excess into Court. ( 23 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the appeal by the Land acquisition Officer fails and is dismissed with costs, and the Memorandum of cross-objections by the respondent-claimant is allowed to the extent of Rs. 18,002-80 with proportionate costs. --- *** --- .