JUDGMENT T. U. Mehta, C. J.—All these first appeals arise out of the common judgment recorded by the District Judge, Mandi in various land reference petitions preferred before him under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The references commonly dealt with by the learned District Judge are 19 in number. It is an admitted fact that all these references were consolidated and some evidence was recorded and eventually they have been disposed of by the learned District Judge by a common judgment/ 2. Facts of the case are that the State Government issued notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire in all 311 bighas and 11 biswas of land situated in the locality knwon as Ropa at Sundernagar town. The acquisition was made for the construction of B. S. L. Hydel Channel and the above referred notification under section 4 was issued on the December, 1965. Ultimately, out of the above referred land of 311 bighas and 11 biswas, only the land measuring 295 bighas and 10 biwaswas actually acquired as per notification issued under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act on 29th December, 1967. It is an admitted fact that these 19 references cover apart of the land so acquired. These 19 references have been preferred by different owners who own different parcels of land. 3. After the said acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation by his award on 8th June, 1972. He made the offer at the flat rate of Rs. 4,000 per bigha for every type of land acquired. 4. Being dissatisfied by this offer of the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants preferred references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In these references the learned District Judge has found that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate. He, therefore, for the reasons given by him in his judgment, determined the basic rate of compensation at Rs. 6,000 per bigha and then ordered adjustments of increase or decrease at a certain percentage having regard to the location of different parcels of land. However, while doing so, he has determined only some general principles and has not given any finding with regard to individual pieces of land owned by different claimants. After determining some general principles he has left the working out of the actual amount of compensation to the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. However, while doing so, he has determined only some general principles and has not given any finding with regard to individual pieces of land owned by different claimants. After determining some general principles he has left the working out of the actual amount of compensation to the Land Acquisition Officer. 5. Being aggrieved by this decision of the learned District Judge the Union of India has preferred these appeals. 6. After hearing the learned Advocates of the parties and after perusing the judgment recorded by the learned District Judge we are of the opinion that all the parties concerned, including the Land Acquisition Officer, and the learned District Judge have missed some basic principles for deciding compensation under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer has offered compensation at a flat rate of Rs. 4,000 per bigha without applying his mind to the respective merits of each plot of land with the result that even though a particular plot of land carried less potentiality or fertility the rate of compensation offered for the same v as at par with another piece of land acquired under the same notification having greater potentiality, value and fertility. The parties, including Government, also do not appear to have properly grasped the principles under which compensation could have been awarded under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. What is done by the parties is to produce certain revenue record evidencing the instances of sale without offering further evidence with regard to all these instances of sale to show the special circumstances under which the sales so instanced came into existence or without offering any evidence to compare the location, the fertility and the potential value of the lands covered by the sale instances with the pieces of lands acquired. Of course, the claimants have examined some witnesses to prove a few of the sale instances on which the reliance has been placed. But this evidence is found to be insufficient and the learned District Judge, against whose judgment these appeals have been preferred, has not appreciated the same although he has made a reference to it. The method adopted by the learned District Judge for determining the amount of compensation is also not the one which could be approved. But this evidence is found to be insufficient and the learned District Judge, against whose judgment these appeals have been preferred, has not appreciated the same although he has made a reference to it. The method adopted by the learned District Judge for determining the amount of compensation is also not the one which could be approved. What he has done is to take 10 instances of sale as disclosed from the revenue record for the period running from December 1963 to December 19b7 and to find out the average rate of price per bigha as disclosed from these sale instances. The learned District Judge has then come to the cor elusion that since the instances of sale which he has so taken into consideration are for small parcels of land, adjustment on that account should be made, and has come to the conclusion that though the average rate as found out by him comes to Rs. 6,720, the rate which could be awarded for the acquired land should be Rs. 6,000 per bigha. After having said this, he has proceeded to deduct or add certain percentage with a view to fix the rate of different parcels of land situated differently. This he has done by observing as under in paragraph 15 of his judgment: "Again the land plots touching the Simla Mandi Highway boundary shall get a premium of 10% above these basic rates for two types of plot holders. Here it may be clarified that if an owner owns a smaller Abadi site or agricultural plot touching the road side followed by other land plot or plots of the same proprietors, the entire area of such plots shall be deemed to be an area having frontage with the road side. Once again the land areas situated immediately adjoining the already built up bazar area, will get 5% premium over the basic rates of Rs. 6,000 i e. Rs. 6,300 and the Jand areas falling so adjoined to the bazar built up area and also having frontage or boundary line on the Simla-Mandi road shall get both the premiums, i.e. 5% in all. These are the market rates fixed for purposes of compensation to be paid to the petitioners in this case by the Land Acquisition Collector. 6,300 and the Jand areas falling so adjoined to the bazar built up area and also having frontage or boundary line on the Simla-Mandi road shall get both the premiums, i.e. 5% in all. These are the market rates fixed for purposes of compensation to be paid to the petitioners in this case by the Land Acquisition Collector. 15% compulsory acquisition charges shall be over and above these above calculated rates, i.e. after allowing premium 5% to 15% as admissible in view of the location". 7. Thus he has merely formulated general principles on which the compensation should be worked out and has granted the relief, without specifying the exact amount of compensation, in the following words; "The petitioners are entitled to enhancement of compensation on their lands acquired at the above rates fixed by me under issue No, 2. The Collector, Land Acquisition shall pay the difference between the rates paid by him already under the award and the rates fixed in this reference case, and the loss of earning as awarded under issue No. 4, petitioners shall be entitled to 6% interest from the date of the award till the payment. The costs to be borne by the parties themselves. The consolidated references are accordingly answered". 8. We find that the method of assessing compensation adopted by the learned District Judge cannot be approved of. It is undoubted true that one of the most approved methods of fixing market value of the acquired land under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act is to find out the instances of sale of the adjacent lands which could stand comparison with the acquired land. But if the compensation is required to be fixed on the basis of such instances of sale then these instances of sale should be found to be the instances of genuine and real sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller. It is, therefore, very much necessary to know what considerations weighed with the willing buyer to pay the price in question and what considerations weighed with the seller to receive that price. Moreover, the quality, location and potentiality of such lands should stand comparison with the acquired land. Therefore, when instances of sale of the comparable lands, are to be relied upon, the Court is bound to consider all these various factors before utilising them for evaluating the acquired land. Moreover, the quality, location and potentiality of such lands should stand comparison with the acquired land. Therefore, when instances of sale of the comparable lands, are to be relied upon, the Court is bound to consider all these various factors before utilising them for evaluating the acquired land. If such material is not found in the record of the case, and compensation is based merely on revenue entries which show-nothing more than the fact that a particular piece of land was sold at a particular price, the record of the case would be devoid of any evidence to show that the instances so relied upon were the instances of genuine sale between a willing buyer and a willing seller, or that the lands sold could stand comparison with the land acquired. 9. It is true that entries from certain revenue record such as Jamabandi carry a presumption to truth. But such entries prove only the factum of sales without any proof of the circumstances under which the transactions in question took place or without any material to enable the court to compare the fertility, location, utility or potentiality of the lands covered by these entries with those of the lands whose market price is required to be assessed. For instance, at serial No. 8 of the table of sale instances given by the learned District Judge in paragraph 12 of his judgment we find that one piece of land measuring one biswa was sold for the price of Rs. 12,000 while the instance of sale found at serial No. 1 shows that another piece of land which measured one bigha and 33 biswas was sold at the meagre price of Rs. 3,000 Sale instance noted in the said table at serial No. 4 shows that six biswas of land was sold only for the price of Rs. 6,000. All these sale instances thus reveal that some special circumstances must be attending to all these different sales. Therefore, unless these special circumstances are taken into account it would not be possible to know the intrinsic value of the land covered by these instances. 6,000. All these sale instances thus reveal that some special circumstances must be attending to all these different sales. Therefore, unless these special circumstances are taken into account it would not be possible to know the intrinsic value of the land covered by these instances. It is very likely that a smaller piece of land which is sold at a higher price would be containing some structure or some orchard or would be situated in a locality full of future potentialities, while a bigger chunk of land which is sold at a smaller price would be having an odd location having no future potentialities or present fertility. 10. It, therefore, follows that mere proof of factum of sale through instances of sale of other properties cannot supply any dependable evidence for determining the market price of the acquired land. It need not be emphasised flat a sale may be a forced sale or an accommodation sale or even a speculative sale. It may well be a sale wherein the purchaser would have some special reason to pay fancy price or the seller would have some other special reasons to dispose of his property at a throw away price. All these different categories of sales, therefore, cannot furnish dependable evidence of the market price unless the special circumstances attending them are dealt with and taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, bare evidence proving only the factum of sale would be of no use. 11. This particular point has been emphasised by this Court in Chanan Singh and others v. The Collector, reported in 1978 ILR Himachal Series 167, wherein following observations which are pertinent to 1 he facts of these appeals are made: “If the authority determining the market value of the acquired land wants to reply upon sales statistics, then such a reliance can be placed only if the instances of sale are actually proved with reference to the circumstances into which sale transactions in question took place, the location of the land with regard to which the sale transactions have taken place, and the potential value of these lands in comparison with the acquired land. It is only after this, that the sales statistics would be able to provide clue for the correct assessment of market value of the acquired land. It is only after this, that the sales statistics would be able to provide clue for the correct assessment of market value of the acquired land. Mere production of mutation entries without proving the transactions in question would almost invariably be of no help in assessing the value of the acquired land." In the same judgment this Court had made the following observations which also equally apply to the facts of the case under our consideration: "No, there is no evidence to show that the land sold by this instance of sale had no better potential value compared to the acquired land. There is nothing in evidence to show where that land was situated. There is also no evidence to show whether the sale evidenced by this mutation entry £x. P-E. was the sale between a willing buyer and a willing purchaser nor is there any evidence to show that the purchaser of this 3/4th share had paid merely the market value or whether any other consideration weighed with him in agreeing to pay this price. Unless all these factors are clearly brought in the record of the case this instance of sale would be of no help in arriving even at a rough estimate about the value of the acquired land. It need not be over emphasised that a mere production of a mutation entry does not carry the matter any further and the only purpose which it would serve is to burden the record of the court without rendering any assistance of the cause of justice. It should, therefore, be clearly understood that the parties who want the court to come to a particular conclusion about the correct market value of the land should prove the transactions themselves and also should produce the comparative date to show that the acquired land stands practically on the same footing on which the sale instance concerned was standing. None of the parties has made any such effort in this case", 12. We find that this aspect of the matter has been given a very exhaustive treatment by Shelat, J. (as he then was) in a Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in M. S. Maiandnghji v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1969 Guj 270. Relying upon the decision given by Bombay High Court in Dhusabhal Polabhal v. Spl. We find that this aspect of the matter has been given a very exhaustive treatment by Shelat, J. (as he then was) in a Division Bench decision of the Gujarat High Court in M. S. Maiandnghji v. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1969 Guj 270. Relying upon the decision given by Bombay High Court in Dhusabhal Polabhal v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, reported in AIR 1959 Bom 520, the court observed that the test that were to be applied in the determination of compensation could be applied only when purchasers and vendors stepped into the witness box and stated that the price paid for the respective transaction was the normal market value and submitted to cross-examination by the opponent. Speaking about the instances of sale the court observed in that decision as under: "It would, thus, appear clear that even if any document came to be exhibited by the consent of parties, that would only mean dispensing with the proof of execution thereof unless contents are also admitted by the other side. The claimant, who is in the nature of a plaintiff in any such proceedings, is not absolved from his having to establish by proper evidence the contents of any such document. The proof of any such contents of the deed or about the transaction relating to that property, can best the offered by examining the parties to that deed or the transaction or any person who knew about the same or brought about the transaction. The importance of such evidence is all the more in cases of this character were not only one is required to prove any such transaction having taken place in regard to land or property at a particular time and at a particular price, but that before it can serve as a good piece of evidence for determination of the market value of the land under acquisition, it must be further shown that that transaction was between a prudent purchaser and a willing vendor and that the price given by the purchaser was the normal market price prevailing then. A reference to any such entries either from account books or from revenue records or even the sale deeds, or putting mere reliance on them would not avail the party concerned." This decision has been followed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in P. R. Modi v. The Collector, Durg, reported in AIR 1975 MP 57. 13. In view of the fact that the evidence offered by both the parties seriously lacks in showing the circumstances under which the sale transactions, which have been accepted for comparison, have taken place, we find that it would be in the interest of justice to remand all these matters back to the court of the learned District Judge with directions to him to give proper opportunity to both the parties to lead proper evidence with regard to the market price of the acquired lands in accordance with the settled principles on the subject. If the parties want to rely upon the instances of sale of adjacent lands, such instances of sale would be helpful to the court only after they bring evidence not only to show the circumstances under which these sales were made, but also the facts from which a comparison of fertility, location, utility and potentiality of the lands covered by the sales instances, can be made with those of the acquired pieces of land. 14. Shri Sud, who appeared on behalf of some of the claimants, contended that future potentiality of the acquired lands should also be taken into account. There cannot be any dispute about this proposition, but if the compensation is based on instances of sale of the adjacent and comparable lands, then such sale instances would obviously be covering the value on account of future potentiality of the land. Therefore, if compensation is based purely on sale instances there would be no justification for adding any further amount on account of future potentiality. However, if compensation is not based on sale instances but is calculated on the intrinsic value of land, then all the different factors, including future potentiality for development, should be taken into account. Therefore, if compensation is based purely on sale instances there would be no justification for adding any further amount on account of future potentiality. However, if compensation is not based on sale instances but is calculated on the intrinsic value of land, then all the different factors, including future potentiality for development, should be taken into account. This particular position is explained by the Gujurat High Court in the above referred case of M.S. Madansinghji (supra) wherein it is observed that while considering the market value of the land under acquisition on the basis of certain instances of sale relied upon by the claimant, such considerations about the potentiality of any such land for building purposes may not arise for the simple reason that such potentiality is already 1aken into account in the instances of sale which are relied upon. We approve of this view of the High Court of Gujarat. 15. In view of the above position, all the learned Advocates of the parties agree that they have no objection if these matters are remanded back, as already stated above, to the lower court. We, therefore, accept these appeals, set aside the order passed by the learned District Judge in all these references and remand these references back to the learned District Judge with direction to allow the parties to adduce fresh evidence as regards the market price with a view to determine compensation under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the matters have become sufficiently old, it is directed that the leaned District Judge shall give precedence to these references and shall dispose of these references by conducting them day to-day without giving unnecessary adjournments to any of the parties, For this purpose the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 13th July, 1979 on which day the learned District Judge shall fix date/dates of hearing on which both the parties shall be asked to keep their evidence ready. All the references shall thereafter be tried from day-to-day and disposed of according to law. 16. Some of the claimants in these matters are stated to have already received the excess compensation awarded by the learned District Judge. This excess compensation shall net be recovered from them till the learned District Judge disposes of the references which are remanded back to him. 16. Some of the claimants in these matters are stated to have already received the excess compensation awarded by the learned District Judge. This excess compensation shall net be recovered from them till the learned District Judge disposes of the references which are remanded back to him. If, however, as a result of the fresh decision of the learned District Judge any amount is found recoverable from, these claimants, they shall be bound to deposit such excess amount in court together with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date from which they have received the amount. It is on this condition that the recovery of the excess compensation received by them is stayed. 17. So far as the cost of these appeals is concerned, it is ordered that each party shall bear his own cost. Appeal accepted. -