Judgment M.P.Verma, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar under the provisions of Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 , hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, against the decision of the Additional District Judge of Arrah passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 277/88 of 1959/1961. 2. The State of Bihar acquired 23.70 acres of land out of plots Nos. 529 and 1262 appertaining to khata No. 1 of village Tenduni which lies close to the police station Bikram Ganj in the district of Shahabad. The acquitsition was made for the purpose of the construction of an Irrigation Research Station. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was first published on 8-3-57 (Ext. 3), but this was dropped on 2-12-57. The matter was pursued again and another notification was published on 3-1-59. The Collectors award indicated that the land was valued at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per acre which works out at about Rs. 93.75 per katha. He also allowed Rs. 860/- for the price of the trees standing on the acquired portion. As the Government took possession of the acquired land at a time when rabbi crops were standing thereon, the award gave compensation at Rs. 810/- for the standing crops. Besides, a solatium at the rate of 15 per cent amounting to Rs. 10.794, and an interest amounting to Rs. 2,506.92 was also granted under the award. Accordingly, the total compensation in respect of the acquired land etc. came to Rs. 86,070.92 paise. As this award was not accepted by the owner of the land (claimant) he got a reference made under Section 18 of the Act to the court of District Judge of Shahabad and the matter was heard and decided by the Additional District Judge. After a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence as well as the other attendant circumstances available in this case, the learned Additional District Judge enhanced the market value in respect of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 800 per katha. He found no justification for enhancing the compensation which was awarded for the frees of standing crop and so he refused to grant any farther sum on those items. 800 per katha. He found no justification for enhancing the compensation which was awarded for the frees of standing crop and so he refused to grant any farther sum on those items. He further directed that the solatium at the rate of 15 per cent shall be paid on the difference of the original valuation as mentioned under the award and the increased valuation as given by him. Being dissatisfied with this order, the State of Bihar has come up in appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. K.P. Verma, learned Counsel appearing for the State, has attacked the compensation allowed by the learned Additional District" Judge on various grounds. There is no cross-objection or appeal by the respondent (claimant) concerning the valuation given for the trees and the standing crops. So, presently we are concerned only with the question as to what should be the fair valuation for the lands acquired. 4. It is clear that Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act lay down the principles for determining the amount of compensation. Section 23 deals with matters to be considered while Section 24 relates to matters to be excluded in determining compensation. The Act, therefore, lays down the rules for guidance in determining compensation both in a positive as well as in a negative manner. The most important provision is the first clause in Section 23 which enjoins that in determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the court shall take into, consideration the market value of the land at the date of publication of notification under Section 4. The points, therefore, emerge out clearly which should be noticed in this sub-clause. The first is that the basis for determining compensation is the market value of the land and secondly that the crucial date for the determination of the market value is the date of publication of notification under Section 4. The expression "market value" has not been defined in the Act and it is also not possible to define the expression nor is it possible to lay down any uniform set of rules for the determination of the market value of the land applicable to all cases. The expression "market value" has not been defined in the Act and it is also not possible to define the expression nor is it possible to lay down any uniform set of rules for the determination of the market value of the land applicable to all cases. In the nature of things, therefore, it must be left to the courts to evolve the principles for the determination of the compensation in different classes of cases having regard to the nature of the property, its situation and other relevant considerations. The leading case on this topic is that of Sri Raja Vyricheria Narayana Gajapatraju Bahadur Garu v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram I.L.R. 1939 Madras 532. The first principle established by this case is that in the case of compulsory acquisition, the compensation must be determined by a reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser The disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchase to buy must alike be disregarded. Neither must be considered as acting under compulsion. Secondly the land is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is being put at the time of which it was acquired but also by reference to the case to which it is reasonably capable of being put, in future. Thirdly, this decision further pointed out that when the land had unusual or unique or potentialities, the valuing officer must ascertain, as best as he can from the materials before him, the price a willing purchaser would pay for the land with these features of potentialities. 5. The principle of awarding compensation is based on the right of the owner to be indemnified by the community for whose benefit he is deprived of the property against his will. The same principles were enunciated in a number of leading causes and a consideration value of ease law has, therefore, been built upon this topic. I may refer to only a few of them. Rajendranath v. Secretary of State I.L.R. 32 Cal. 343; Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 91, State v. Mathura Prasad Singh , Rajah of Vizianagram v. Revenue Divisional Officer A.I.R. 1954 Andhra 12 and Collector of Darrang v. Phani Bhusan Bose A.I.R. 1955 Assam 124. I may refer to only a few of them. Rajendranath v. Secretary of State I.L.R. 32 Cal. 343; Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 91, State v. Mathura Prasad Singh , Rajah of Vizianagram v. Revenue Divisional Officer A.I.R. 1954 Andhra 12 and Collector of Darrang v. Phani Bhusan Bose A.I.R. 1955 Assam 124. In a recent case the Supreme Court, is in the case of the Special Land Acquisiton Officer, Bangalore v. Adinarayana Chetty, has pointed out that the methods of valuation may be (1) opinion if express, (2) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the land acquired or the lands adjacent to those acquire ed and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the land acquired. 6. It is further well known that the valuation of immovable property is not an exact science. It is an enquiry relating to a subject abounding in uncertainties where there is more than ordinary guess work and where it would very unfair to require an exact exposition of reasons for the conclusions arrived at. It has been held repeatedly that in all valuations, judicial or otherwise, there must be room, for interference and inclinations of opinion which being more or less conjectural are difficult to reduce to exact reasoning. In short, the question of fair compensation is not an algebraic problem which would be solved by an abstract formula. The court is however not to award the price on, the basis of its; own idea but has to depend on the evidence which is available in each case concerning the, market value of the land acquired, at the relevant date of the notification under Section 4 of of the Act. 7. As against this background; we have to analyse the evidence of this case. The learned Additional District Judge has discussed the oral evidence of the, witnesses who had been examined on behalf of both the parties. He has declined to rely on the statements of these witnesses and has given good reasons for the same. A.W. 1, Jagarnath Singh, a servant of A. W. 4, and A.W. 4, Kanta Singh, the claimant, have made interested statements and the explanation is obvious. The claimant admitted that he had kept account relating to the produce of the acquired lands. A.W. 1, Jagarnath Singh, a servant of A. W. 4, and A.W. 4, Kanta Singh, the claimant, have made interested statements and the explanation is obvious. The claimant admitted that he had kept account relating to the produce of the acquired lands. Those papers, in my opinion, were the best evidence to show the produce from these lands. But, those papers have been withheld. The value _ of such papers cannot be minimised by the claimant who is a Deputy Magistrate. The claimant never paid any agricultural income tax. The learned Additional District Judge has worked out the figure of produce on taking an average produce of 20 maunds of crops per bigha each year. If the price is at Rs. 15 per maund, then the total price would be Rs. 300/-. Out of this, 33 per cent, i.e. Rs. 100/- should be deducted as cost of cultivation etc. The net profit would then come to Rs. 200 per year per bigha. If the price of the acquired land be fixed at 20 times of this valuation, then the net profit will work out at Rs. 4,000/- per acre or roughly Rs. 200 per katha. If we take the value of the catch crop also into account (O.P.W. 1 stated that catch crop was grown at 21/2 maunds per bigha) then this valuation will increase by Rs. 34/-per katha, i.e. Rs. 234/- per katha in all. A.W. 2, Samukh Singh, did not speak obout the productive capacity or the quality of the acquired land. He did not give any reason as to why he assessed the market value of the land at Rs. 1,000 per katha. A. W. 3, Ram Adhar Singh, is of another village, Parania. He has spoken about the produce which could be gathered from this land, but he lives about one mile away from this village. He has not seen any paper relating to the produce of the land. According to A. W. 4, Bikramganj is a growing commercial township and this village Tenduni is a portion of Bikramganj. Bikramganj market and the railway station are both located in this village. The Arrah Sasaram road and the Nasriganj Dumraon road are to the east and south respectively of the acquired land, though not adjacently. There is a police station, a college and a sub- registration office at Bikranganj. Bikramganj market and the railway station are both located in this village. The Arrah Sasaram road and the Nasriganj Dumraon road are to the east and south respectively of the acquired land, though not adjacently. There is a police station, a college and a sub- registration office at Bikranganj. There is also a cinema house, two patrol pumps and a hospital in this village. The existence of these things is not controverted on behalf of the State, who examined only one witness on their behalf, namely Ezazul Haque, He said that the land produced paddy at the rate of 15 maunds, catch crop at 21/2 maunds per bigha and a portion of the land produced wheat at the rate of 3 maunds per acre. He never found chillies or vegetables having been grown on this land. He further admitted that crops were grown on the acquired land by Government since it took possession and Government has been maintaining accounts of the produce. But, curiously enough, those accounts have not been produced. It is thus clear that the oral evidence adduced in this case is of no assistance. 8. On behalf of the State four sale deeds, were filed. They are Exts. A to A/3. Under Ext. A, which is dated 19-3-58 0.61 acres of land out of plot No. 376 was purchased for Rs. 2,000/- and the sale rate per katha works out at about Rs. 94/-. Under Ext. A/1 which is dated 22-11-58, 0.225 acre of land out of plot Nos. 568 and 741 were purchased for Rs. 422 and the valuation works out at Rs. 58/- per katha. The third sale deed is Ext. A/2 dated 29-G-59, which is in respect of 0.415 acre of land out of plots Nos. 1561, 1572 and 1573. The land was purchased for Rs. 1,361, and the valuation works out at the rate of Rs. 102 per katha. The last sale deed Ext. A/3, is dated 12-8-57 under which 0.06 acre of plot No. 438 was purchased for Rs. 100 and the valuation works out at about Rs. 52/- per katha. These sale deeds are of near about the date of the notification, Ext. A/2 is of a date after the notification and the other three sale deeds are of the period between the first and the second notification. Any way, they have been executed by different persons. 100 and the valuation works out at about Rs. 52/- per katha. These sale deeds are of near about the date of the notification, Ext. A/2 is of a date after the notification and the other three sale deeds are of the period between the first and the second notification. Any way, they have been executed by different persons. The learned Additional District Judge has discarded Exts. A, A/2 and A/3 on the ground that according to the cadastral survey-map (Ext, 3), the lands covered by these three sale deeds are located at some distance from the acquired lands. As regards, Ext. A/1, the comment was that it was unsafe to determine the market value of the lands on the basis of this solitary sale deed. Moreover, this sale deed showed a resser valuation than has been awarded by the Collector. In my opinion, the sale deeds filed by the State should not have been discarded altogether from consideration inasmuch as they are in respect of Dhanhar lands and the acquired land also belongs to the same category. The test, as observed by S.K. Das, J. in a case reported in The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan Setty , is the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages. Generally speaking the sale deeds of a post notification date are not given importance because it may be argued that exaggerated value had been mentioned therein in view of the notification in respect of a portion of the same land or the neighbouring lands. Any way Exts. A to A/3 are within reasonable time, are bona fide transaction of sale/purchase and possess more or less similar advantages (at least there is no evidence suggesting otherwise), but are perhaps not in respect of lands adjacent to the lands acquired. They are, however, in respect of lands in the vicinity though not in the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands. So, they should not be discarded from consideration. Of course, one comment can be made that the area of the acquired land being a big tract of land, a willing purchaser may not be called upon in an open market to pay at the same rate as for the smaller areas such as mentioned in Exts. A to A/3. So, they should not be discarded from consideration. Of course, one comment can be made that the area of the acquired land being a big tract of land, a willing purchaser may not be called upon in an open market to pay at the same rate as for the smaller areas such as mentioned in Exts. A to A/3. The State has not acquired 100 feet depth of land which lies abutting the road. The acquiring authority has, with a view to keep within bounds the compensations amount, kept clear of the road side, and, has proceeded to acquire only those lands which lies some what away from the road side. A. Dhanhar land as such may be either on the road side or not on the road side. If it were on the road side, different considerations might arise and its potentiality of being sites for shops or dwelling places was bound to enter in the determination of its market value. It is quite clear that with a view to avoid that contingency those lands, which could be said to be abutting the road, has been left out. 9. Another piece of. evidence which: is? available in this case is the patta kabuliat, Ext. 2 under which these lands were acquired by the claimant. Ext. 2 is dated 6. 10.47 and for this settlement a Nazrana of Rs. 38,368/12/- was paid. This document recites that the settlement was to be affective from 1944, i.e. three years before the execution. Secondly, the settle had been serving the settlor with much honesty and thus inducing the latter to take a kindly attitude towards the former. There are a few important considerations as to why this patta should not be made a basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. Firstly, the date of acquisition and the date of patta are removed by nearly 12 years or more; the interval has been, and, it is not disputed, a period of rise in land value. Secondly, the Nazrana does not, on the recital of the document, itself, represent the true market value of the land, as personal considerations entered and, therefore, if at all, it gives a concessional rate. Thirdly, the premium paid or received is merely an inducement for grant of a lease, it cannot have much relevancy in determining the market value or sale rate of the land. Thirdly, the premium paid or received is merely an inducement for grant of a lease, it cannot have much relevancy in determining the market value or sale rate of the land. It was, therefore, quite fair on the part of both the parties not to place any reliance on this patta in this connection. 10. On behalf of the claimant 15 sale deeds were filed and they are Ext. 1 series. Except Exts. 1/1i, 1/j and 1/k, the other sale deeds have been executed by the claimant himself in respect of portions of the acquired land as well as some other land. Exts. 1/e to 1/n were executed by the claimant after the relevant notification. They are dated 9-7-57, 17-11-60 and 16-1-61 respectively. They are in respect of narrow strips of road side land for which fancy price, it appears, has been paid. The last one cannot perhaps be said to be within reasonable time of the relevant notification under Section 4. In any case, all of these are in respect of road side land situated more advantageously than the land acquired, Exts. 1 to 1/h, which are of the year 1958 appertain to the period subsequent to the first notification. Exts. 1 to 1/f are dated 20-3-58, Ext. 1/g is dated 16-8-58 and Ext. 1/h is dated 14r8-58. The valuation of the land according to Exts. 1/a to 1/h, except Ext. I/e, works out at the rate of Rs. 952 per katha. According to Ext. 1, the valuation was at the rate of Rs. 1,190 per katha and according to Ext. 1/e, the valuation was at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per katha. In my opinion, these sale deeds cannot form a safe criterion for assessing the market value of the acquired land, because they were executed by the claimant himself after the notification. They are in respect of very small portions of plot No. 1262 abutting on the road side and quite suitable for shop or residential purposes. It was argued on behalf of the State that the possibility of the claimant himself putting exaggerated price in these sale deeds cannot be altogether ruled out. I can only say that these sale deeds may be taken to indicate the trend in the increase of the market value of these lands in between the first and the second notifications. 10. I can only say that these sale deeds may be taken to indicate the trend in the increase of the market value of these lands in between the first and the second notifications. 10. Then remains the three other sale deeds, to which some importance must be attached. They are Exts. 1/i, to 1/k. Ext. 1/i, dated 19-10-57, has been exe cuted by three outsiders, Chand f rika Rai, Daroga Rai and Duban Rai, who sold 5 dhurs of land of plot No. 1262 for Rs. 275, i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per katha Similarly, under Ext. 1/j, l5 dhurs of land were sold of that very plot on 5-11-56 for Rs. 760/-i.e. at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per katha. Under Ext. 1/k, which is dated 28-9-56, 15 dhurs of land were sold out of plot No. 1268 for Rs. 750/- which also works out at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per katha. But, it may be noted that the small areas transferred by them were abutting the chant of the road and railway line. How ever, in the circumstances of this case, I think an average valuation should be taken as can be gathered from the sale deeds, Exts. A, A/1 and A/3, filed by the State and the three sale deeds of the respondents, namely, Exts. 1/i to 1/k. If a mean is struck out of these six sale deeds, the valuation would come to a, little more than Rs. 460/- per katha. So, in consideration of the fact that the acquired land is dhanhar land not abutting the road side but lying in a village which is growing into a commercial township, I find it fair and just to assess the valuation, i.e. the market value of the land at Rs. 3,475/-per katha. This also includes its potential value. After all, Bikramganj is not a town like Patna Ranchi, Bhagalpur or Gaya. At best it is an important village which is gradually growing into a township. On this valuation, the claimant shall get 15 per cent as solatium for compulsory acquisition, besides interest at 6 per cent from the date of delivery of possession to the Government till the date of payment or deposit. 11. As there is no dispute regarding the valuation given for the trees and the standing crops, the same is left undisturbed. 12. 11. As there is no dispute regarding the valuation given for the trees and the standing crops, the same is left undisturbed. 12. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part, as indicated above. But, in the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. 13. If the claimant respondent has withdrawn any amount in excess of this valuation, he shall deposit the same to the credit of the Government within a period of three months from today, otherwise the State shall be entitled to take legal steps and may claim interest also at the rate which they have paid to the claimant. A.B.N.Sinha, J. 14 I agree.