VENKATACHALIAH, J. ( 1 ) MFA. 851 of 1974 by the claimant and MFA. 779 of 1974 by the State are directed against the award and decree d/. 24-6-1974 of the Prl Civil Judge, bijapur, in LAC. 14 of 1971 in respect of 3 acres and 16 guntas of land in sy No. 169 of Mahal Bagayat, Bijapur, acquired for a public purpose, namely, for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bijapur, pursuant to the preliminary Notification published in the Gazette d. 23-11-67. ( 2 ) THE claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 5 per sq foot or Rs. 2,17,800 an acre. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,000 an acre. The claimant not haying accepted the award, a reference under S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made to the Civil Court which enhanced the compensation to Rs. 10,000 an acre. The State has challenged the enhancement; while the claimant seeks further enhancement. , ( 3 ) THE claimant relied, in the main, upon tie following documentary evidence in support of his claim: (i) Extsps to P11 pertaining to the auction-sale d. 4-8-1966 of plots nos. 21, 22, 25 and 26 respectively, of an extent of 1200 sq feet each, parceled out in CTS No. 1121, Ward III, Bijapur, for price ranging from rs. 3-75 to Rs. 4-25 per sq feet. . (ii) Extp12 relating to sale d. 10-11-1961 of a plot in CTS No. 1280/3 ward III. Bijapur, at Rs. 1-60 per sq foot. (iii) Extp22 relating to auction d. 17-12-1973 of plots in GTS No. 1134 of Ward III, Bijapur, fetching a price of Rs. 1-60 per sq foot. (iv) Extp7 the certified copy of the judgment in MA. 6/1967 c/w 7/67 of the Dist Court, Bijapur, assessing the market value of 3040 sq yards of lands in CTS No. 1167/a1 of Bijapur Town at Rs. 9-45 per sq-yard for purposes of compensation under Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. (v) Ext P13 the judgment of this Court ,d. 5-1-1966 in RA. No, 158/58 c/w RA. No. 159/58 determining the compensation at Rs. 0-55 per sq foot in respect of land in CTS Nos. 1131 and 1133 of Ward No. III, Bijapur, acquired for the purposes of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, pursuant to the preliminary Notification dt. 25-11-1952, and fvi) Ext P14 being the opinion of the valuer PW. No, 158/58 c/w RA. No. 159/58 determining the compensation at Rs. 0-55 per sq foot in respect of land in CTS Nos. 1131 and 1133 of Ward No. III, Bijapur, acquired for the purposes of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, pursuant to the preliminary Notification dt. 25-11-1952, and fvi) Ext P14 being the opinion of the valuer PW. 2 certifying the market value at Rs. 1-86 per sq foot. ( 4 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer, relied on Extp21 being the statement showing that the auction of leasehold rights in respect of plots in the Agricultural Produce Market Yard, Ward No. III of Bijapur held in the year 1960 fetched a price of 23 paise per sq foot; Extp18 being sale deed dt. 12-10-1964 under which one of the plots auctioned in 1960 was, in turn, sold at a price of Rs. 0-99 per sq foot; and on Extd2 the report of dw. 2 the valuer examined for the Land Acquisition Officer. ( 5 ) SRI T. Krishna Rao, learned Counael for the claimant, contends that the determination of the market value by the Court below is vitiated by a disregard of the documentary evidence on record and of the accepted principles of valuation. According to him, similar lands were valued at Rs. 9-50 a sq yard as far back as the year 1950 in respect of CTS Nos. 1167/a1 under Extp7 and that in respect of similar lands of comparable extent this Court had, in RA. No. 1. 58/1958 c/w 159/1958, fixed the market value as on 23-11-1952 at Rs. 0-50 per sq foot. Sri T. Krishna Rao pointed out that as evidenced by Extsp8 to P11, smaller plots in CTS No. 1121 in the same Ward III of Bijapur Town fetched in the year 1966 prices between rs:3-75 and 4-25 per sq foot; that under sale deed Extp12 dt. 11-10-1961 land in CTS No. 1280 3 fetched a price of Rs. 1-60 per sq foot, and that as indicated by Extp22 plots in CTS No. 1134 fetched, in open auction, a price of Rs. 5 to 7 per sq foot in the year 1973. Relying upon this evidence, he contended that the Court below was in error in determining the market value at a mere Rs. 10,000 an acre, and that the claim in appeal at Rs. 1-50 per sq foot (or Rs. 5 to 7 per sq foot in the year 1973. Relying upon this evidence, he contended that the Court below was in error in determining the market value at a mere Rs. 10,000 an acre, and that the claim in appeal at Rs. 1-50 per sq foot (or Rs. 65,340 an acre) is the barest entitlement of the claimant which stands supported by the evidence on record. ( 6 ) SRI N. Venkatachala, learned Government Advocate, however, contended that in 1960 small plots, situate in the market yard in close vicinity of the land acquired fetched a price of 23 paise per square foot; that even upon re-sale on 12-10-1964 the said plots fetched only 99 paise per square foot and that, that being the evidence of sale of lands in retail, the value of the land acquired, which is a large extent of 3 acres and 16 guntas, requires to be reduced by applying the principles laid down by this Court in the Asst. Commr. and L. A. O. Davangere v. Bharat Oil Mills Ltd. , 1973 (2) Myslj. 187. According to him, if the acquired land is so valued, even the sum of Rs. 10,000 an acre determined by the Court below would be found to be excessive, calling for a downward revision. ( 7 ) THE question that arises for determination in these appeals is as to what is the market value of the acquired land as on 23-11-1967, the date of the preliminary Notification. ( 8 ) THE market value is the price that a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. It is said to be the price which a willing seller would receive from a willing but not too anxious a buyer in an atmosphere of informal and competitive market. The valuation in this context, has been said to be the prediction of an economic event the price outcome of a hypothetical sale expressed in terms of probabilities. The property is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is put at the time at which its value has to be determined; but also by reference to use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or reasonably near future. The property is not to be valued merely by reference to the use to which it is put at the time at which its value has to be determined; but also by reference to use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or reasonably near future. While it is the potentiality of the land and not its realised potentialities that must be taken into consideration, it is to be noted that what is of materiality is the present potentiality for future use and not a future potentiality. In Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. R. D. O. , Vizagdpatam, AIR 1939 PC 98. the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, dealing with the principles of valuation of land with potentialities, a observed:"in the case of land possessing the possibility of being used, for building purposes, the arbitrator would probably have before him evidence of the prices paid in the neighbourhood for land immediately required for such purposes. He would then have to deduct from the value so ascertained such a sum as he would think proper by reason of the degree of possibility that the land might never be so required or might not be so required for a considerable time. "the prices paid for comparable property hi the neighbourhood are the. usual evidence as to the market value. ( 9 ) TURNING to the evidence relied upon by the claimant in the case, it is seen that Extp7 relates to the determination of compensation under the bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, in respect of an extent of 3040 square yards in CTS No. 1167/a1 in Ward No. III of Bijapur Town which was valred at Rs. 1. 05 per square feet or Rs. 9. 45 per square yard in the year 1950 for purposes of quantificatipn of compensation on a certain percentage of this valuation. We have perused the plan Ext. P. 14a, which delineates, in relation to the acquired lands, the relative positions of the lands concerned in Exts. P-7, P-8 to P-11, P-12, P-13, P-18, P-21 and P-22. The plan has been drawn to scale arid gives relevant and useful information about the general lay-out of Ward III of Bijapur Town. Land in Ext. P-7 is a triangular bit almost less than l|5th the size of the acquired lands and has road-facing on three sides. P-7, P-8 to P-11, P-12, P-13, P-18, P-21 and P-22. The plan has been drawn to scale arid gives relevant and useful information about the general lay-out of Ward III of Bijapur Town. Land in Ext. P-7 is a triangular bit almost less than l|5th the size of the acquired lands and has road-facing on three sides. Though, the question whether the road along its north-eastern boundary was also in existence in 1952, to which point of time Ext. P-7 relates, was disputed, there was no dispute, however, that the said plot of land had had the advantage of at least two roads on two of its three sides and that the, land is very much nearer the Adat Bazar square and is situate just opposite the Shahapur-pet residential area. Besides, the valuation under Ext. P-7 was for the purpose of arriving at compensation determinable on a certain percentage of the estimated value of the property. On a perusal of Ext. P-14b and the other evidence bearing on the point, we are unable to hold that C. T. S. No. 1167/a1 concerned in Ext P-7 is similar land. This conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that lands concerned in Ext. P-13, which are urged as comparable lands were valued at 0. 55 paise per square feet in 1952, while the land in Ext. P-7, even two years earlier to them was valued at Rs. 1-05 per square foot. This shows that C. T. S. No. 1167/a1 was a plot which was not similar or comparable to the land concerned in Ext. P-13 which latter has been put forward as comparable to the acquired land. Exta. P-8 to P-11 relate to smaller plots of the extent of about 1200 square feet each demarcated on the western side of what is shown in Ext. P14b as the Indi-Road'. Being plots of 1200 square feet each and in a different location they cannot afford analosv of comparable land and similarity of location. For like reasons, Ext. P-12 cannot also furnish the analogy of comparable case. In determining compensation the value fetched for small plots cannot generally be applied to large extents. That apart, by reason of their nature and location, lands concerned in Exts. P-8 to P-ll, and P-12 cannot afford any reliable guidance in the matter of valuation of the lands acquired. Ext. P-12 cannot also furnish the analogy of comparable case. In determining compensation the value fetched for small plots cannot generally be applied to large extents. That apart, by reason of their nature and location, lands concerned in Exts. P-8 to P-ll, and P-12 cannot afford any reliable guidance in the matter of valuation of the lands acquired. Ext. P-22 relates to the year 1973 and excepting as evidence of gradual increase of price in the area, it cannot furnish any basis for the valuation of the lands acquired in the present care. We are therefore of the view that exts. P-7, P-8 to P-11, P-12 and P-22 do not represent comparable cases. Likewise, Exts. P-18 and P-21 dealing with, as they do. cases of lease holds for a term certain with an obligation to pay ground-rent at rates determinable from time to time by the lessor cannot furnish instances representative of the market value. The conditions and restrictions subject to which these leaseholds are granted which are stated to include the liability on the part of the lessee to pay rents at rates determined by the lessor from time to time, place these transactions in a different category altogether, no evidence was let in as to the actual ground-rent. In the absence of these factors, valuati6n of the subject-matter of Exts. P-18 and P-21, with due regard to the lessee's covenants thereunder is not possible. Ext. P-18 and P-21 must therefore he held to be unable to furnish a dependable basis of Valuation so far as the acquired land is concerned. ( 10 ) WHAT remain to be considered are Exts. P-13, P-14 and D. 2. Ext. P-14 is the report of P. W. 2 Ramachandra. . a vainer examined on behalf of the claimant. Ext. D-2 is the report of D. W- 2 Vishwanath, vainer examined for the Land Acquisition Officer. It is an interepsting feature of the evidence in this case that the testimony of the two valuers tendered as expert witnesses are separated by an irreconcilable divergence in the results as to value, and the gulf of mutual incomnrehension is. indeed striking Valuation has ranged from Rs. 6,675 an acre according to D. W. 2, to Rs. 81,102 an acre according to P. W. 2. indeed striking Valuation has ranged from Rs. 6,675 an acre according to D. W. 2, to Rs. 81,102 an acre according to P. W. 2. ( 11 ) THOUGH it may be unfair to require in the matter of valuation an exact exposition of the reasons for the conolusions arrived at, as the process involves inter-play of diverse factors, nonetheless the process being a fact finding exercise as to a logical desideratum it is necessary to expound its logical derivations and it is necessary also that the valuer's opinion must be supported by facts, accuracv of which can be verified by the court. Value of expert evidence depends upon the cogency of the reasons on which it is based. The criteria adopted by the expert must be demonstrable and be susceptible to and admit of verification, ( 12 ) PW. 2, Ramachandra, has a degree in Civil Engineering of the bombay University, and was employed in the Public Works Department of Bombay for 7 years; in 1944 he joined Nagpur Improvement Trust as assistant Engineer and retired in July 1970 as Trust Chief Engineer, and has worked as Lecturer in Town Planning and Valuation for "m. A. (Adm) and Local Self Govt" Classes of Nagpur University for a period of 8 years and is on the list of approved valuers of the Govt of India for over 16 years. It is claimed that he was the Chief Valuer of the Nagpur City improvement Trust for 16 years during which period he is stated to have prepared valuation-statements pertaining to many properties. His cross-examination is not so much directed against his claims as such expert, as against the vulnerabilities of the valuation itself. ( 13 ) IN Ext P14, after petting out the requisite preliminary information pw. 2 has proceeded to value the property on the basis of certain transactions of sale of properties in Ward III, Bijapur Town, including those under extsp7, P8 to P11 and P13 and other transactions and has arrived at the valuation of Rs. 306,930 for the acquired land. In arriving at these results, pw. 2 depended on the pale statistics respecting plots which, as discussed earlier, are not comparable. 306,930 for the acquired land. In arriving at these results, pw. 2 depended on the pale statistics respecting plots which, as discussed earlier, are not comparable. His assumptions that in the valuation of the acquired land on the basis of the valuation at Extp13, 10 paise per sq foot (or 18 per cent) have to be deducted owing to the comparatively larger extent of the acouired lands and that an increase of 25 paise per sq foot should be allowed owing to the alleged greater prominence of location of the acquired lands are without basis. These errors vitiate the valuation. PW. 2 has also employed the lay out method which, according to his calculations, yielded a valuation of Rs. 2,75,800. Apart from his assumption that as against the gross area of 1,48,100 sq ft comprised in the acquired property, 1,18,100 sq ft would be the net saleable area, the conclusions arrived at by him are based on two other crucial assumptions which are fundamental to the validity of the reasoning underlying the valuation. The first of such assumptions is that the plots, hypothetically laid-out in accordance with this lay-out method, would fetch an average price of rs. 3 per sq foot. The second is that it would be possible to sell these plots within a period of 4 years and- accordingly provision for interest at 6 percent on the mean period of deferment of two years is envisaged in the calculations. PW. 2 however admits that Extsp14 is the first occasion of valuation made in Bijapur Town. The question of 'demand and supply' and the assumption of the probable retail selling price are indeed vital factors that guide valuation on the lay-out method. In our opinion, there is no material which sustains the assumption on the part of PW. 2 that the plots are a good selling proposition. For the assumption that plots would fetch an average price of Rs. 3 per sq foot, support is sought to be drawn mainly on the analogy of the transactions which we have considered as not comparable. In the valuation report Extp14 both these matters are, largely, matters of conjecture unsupported by acceptable data. We consider that the assumptions both as to the plots being good selling propositions and that they would fetch an average price of Rs. 3 per sq foot are unsupportable and constitute infirmities Vitiating Extp14. In the valuation report Extp14 both these matters are, largely, matters of conjecture unsupported by acceptable data. We consider that the assumptions both as to the plots being good selling propositions and that they would fetch an average price of Rs. 3 per sq foot are unsupportable and constitute infirmities Vitiating Extp14. It is here that the stock of credibility of the opinion runs short; and demands on credulity start. ( 14 ) THE opinion as to valuation, Extd2 of DW. 2 the expert on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer is equally unacceptable as it is based upon transactions respecting plots which are not comparable, In his opinion, the acquired lands of 3 acres and 16 guntas were of the net value of rs. 22,624 as on the date of the preliminary notification. That would work out to about Rs. 6,627 an acre. DW. 2 has assumed the relevance of the transaction under Extp13 relating to the valuation of CTS Nos. 1131 and 1133 of Ward III of Bijapur as on 25-11-1952. He has accepted the appreciation in value between 1952 and 1967 by 2j times. The value so arrived at has been scaled down by a process of striking an average on the basis, inter alia, of certain transactions of auction of leasehold rights, which cannot be considered as comparable cases. These infirmities render the report, extd2, not a reliable guide in fixing the market value of the acquired land. ( 15 ) OPINION, of expert is one of the methods of valuation (See Special land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayana Setty, AIR 1959 SC 429 . and Tribeni Devi v. Collector, Ranchi, AIR 1972 SC 1417 . In Nichols on "eminent Domain" referiing to opinion of Experts in Valuation it is stated:"it is accordingly well settled that the value of a piece of real estate, whenever it becomes material in the trial of a cause, may be shewn by the opinions of witnesses who are sufficiently well informed on the subject to be helpful to the jury. This rule is applicable to eminent domain proceedings in the same manner as to other civil actions, and consequently it is established law that the value of a piece of land taken or injured by the exercise of the power of eminent domain may be shown by opinion evidence. This rule is applicable to eminent domain proceedings in the same manner as to other civil actions, and consequently it is established law that the value of a piece of land taken or injured by the exercise of the power of eminent domain may be shown by opinion evidence. A witness whose training and experience have equipped him to assess the value of real property has been considered an expert on such question and his testimony held competent. Opinion evidence, it has been held, is advisory only. " (See nichols on Eminent Domain-1953 Edn Vol 5, pp 129, 155 and 134 ). The opinion of expert is not binding on the Court, The Court is entitled to scrutinise the tenability of the ratiocination. The mere ipse dixit of the valuer will not suffice. The value and acceptability of the opinion depends upon the facts upon which it rests and upon the validity of the process by which the conclusion is reached. Court can refuse to place reliance on an opinion which is unsupported by reasons. (See Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. State of W. B, AIR 1950 SC 488. By these tests both Extsp14 and D2 do not commend themselves for acceptance. ( 16 ) IN this state of the evidence, the Court has necessarily to rely on extp13 concerning lands in CTS Nos. 1131 and 1133 of Ward III of Bijapur. These lands afford seme elements of similarity. It may be that value of these lands as determined in Extp13 at Rs. 0-55 per sq foot (equivalent to rs. 23958 an acre) as on 23-11-1952 was in itself excessive. It was open to the LAO to have placed material before the Court below to show that in. the vear 1952 the market value of lands CTS Nos. 1131 and 1133 was not really as high as Rs. 23,000 and odd an acre. Such an effort on the part of the LAO was indeed imperative if the contention of the learned Govt advocate that it would be inconceivable that as far back as 1952, lands in that part of Bijapur Town could be as valuable as Rs. 23. 000 and odd an acre could admit of examination. Lands CTS. Nos. 1131 and 1133 concerned in Extp13 are situate about 2 furlongs to the north-west of the land under acquisition within the Agricultural Produce Market Area. 23. 000 and odd an acre could admit of examination. Lands CTS. Nos. 1131 and 1133 concerned in Extp13 are situate about 2 furlongs to the north-west of the land under acquisition within the Agricultural Produce Market Area. Subject to certai topographical and natural disadvantages, which are pecuhar to and mark the acquired land, there are elements of comparabinty between the acquired land and the lands concerned in Extp13. in the absence or evidence let in by the LAO to the contrary, we are constramed to proceed on the basis that the lands concerned in Exip13 were of the value or Rs. 23950. an acre in the year 1952. further, there is eviaence on record to show that there has been an upward trend, in prices since 1932 thougn tne extent of the appreciation is estimated dinerentiy. The estimate or P. W. 2 that the appieciation is three tunes has an element of conjecture in it. But, the expert (DW. 2) examined oh the side of the LAO himself states, that the appreciation in value is two to two and a half tunes. We wouid not be in error if we accept the said extent of 2 times as the appreciation of Value over the 15 years separating Extp13 and the notification in the present case it is an accepted proposition that the evidence relating to gradual appleciation in prices in the area under acquisition should be considered in determining the market price of the land, loee AH India Tea and Trading Co. Ltd V. Collector of Dorrang, AIR 1971 SC 1253 . and Magneeram Bangur and Co v. State of WB, 78 CWN 725. Accordingly, the factors that require to be taken in determining the market value ot the acquired land in the present case are : (a) Value of lands in 1952 in the neighbourhood as evidenced by Extp13; (b) Appreciation in value of lands subsequent to 1952, owing both to the development and increase in importance of the area, over the yeaxs as well as to the depreciation of the value of the currency; (c) Deductions that require to be made having regard to the particular topographical, natural ana other disadvantages suffered by tne lands acquired, as compared with lands concerned in Extp1. 3; and (d) Deductions that may have to be allowed by reason of the degree of the possibility of the acquired land not being required for the potential purposes for a considerable time in the future. The combined eftect of the factors (a; ana (b) supra, expresses itself in this way: The value of Ks. 23,958 an acre in iyo2 as furmsned by Ext p13 is to be multiplied by 2 times bringing the figure to Rs. 59,895 an acre. From this figure, the requisite deductions, taking into account the factors (c) ana (. d) supra will have to be made. ( 17 ) IN assessing the effect of factor (c), we have to take into account the circumstance that, compared to the lands in Extp13, the acquired land suffers "from certain natural and topographical disadvantages. In assessing the effect of factor (d) we have to take into account the possibility of tne acquired land, in comparison with the lands in Extp13, not being able to reause its potentialities in the sama measure or in the same degree as the lands under Extp13. It is in evidence that the land acquired adjoins a drain running North to South all along its eastern margin and lands across the road to the South of the acquired land are admittedly marshy. Tne acquired land is below road level by several feet and even according to pw. 2 the fall is by about 5 feet. The surface level is not uniform and the land dips eastward. The picture of the acquired land projected by the evidence on record is one of undeveloped, damp and uneven stretch. This factor undoubtedly affects the value of the land. No two lands are or could be identical. Differences small or great exist in various conditions including the degree of their potentialities. This factor will have to be assessed independently of the considerations as to the need for the present acquisition. What precise allowance should be made for these differences may not admit of predictions with precision. Allowance will have to be made on a general consideration of all circumstances. ( 18 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the area was notified as market area in the year 1947 and that lands concerned in Extpis have come to be developed, there is no evidence of any development whatsoever of the acquired land. Allowance will have to be made on a general consideration of all circumstances. ( 18 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the area was notified as market area in the year 1947 and that lands concerned in Extpis have come to be developed, there is no evidence of any development whatsoever of the acquired land. There is no evidence at all whether there were or have been willing, let alone anxious, purchasers for this land. The question of potentialities for commercial use inhering in the land, will have to be evaluated along with the question of the degree of possibility that land may not be so required for the potential purpose for a considerable time. That the land has remained wholly undeveloped and has not realised its potentialities to any measure requires to be taken into account. Lands concerned in Ext p13 were found eligible and were preferred for the commercial purposes of the Agricultural Produce Market almost 15 years earlier. Even with all the activity of the Agricultural Produce Market in the area, the claimants have for over 15 years not been able to turn to account the potentialities of the acquired land. PW. 2 is also of the view that there has not been much of industrial growth in the area. ( 19 ) EACH of the above factors compels a due and requisite deduction from the sum of Rs. 59,855 an acre. The deduction made by PW. 2 in respect of acquired lands from the value in Extp13 on a different criterion was about 18 per cent. But. we think that taking into account. the cumulative effect of all facts and circumstances, we will not be in error in making a deduction of 25 per cent or about Rs. 15,000 an acre in the said valuation of rs. 59,895. That brings the value of the acquired lands to about Rs. 45,000 an acre. ( 20 ) IN the result, MFA. 851/74 is allowed in part and the compensation is enhanced from rs. 10,000 to Rs. 45,000 an acre, on which the claimant will be entitled to the usual solatium at 15 per cent and interest on the enhanced compensation amount at 5 per cent per annum from the date of taking cf possession to the date of payment. From this will be deducted such sums as have been already paid to the claimant and. 45,000 an acre, on which the claimant will be entitled to the usual solatium at 15 per cent and interest on the enhanced compensation amount at 5 per cent per annum from the date of taking cf possession to the date of payment. From this will be deducted such sums as have been already paid to the claimant and. counter-interest thereon at 5 per cent per annum. The award and decree of the Court below are modified accordingly. Appellant in MFA. 851/74 is entitled to his costs proportionate to his success in the appeal. ( 21 ) IN view of the above, MFA. 779 of 1974 does not survive and is dismissed with costs. --- *** --- .