B. K. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS group of cross-appeals arises out of the judgment and award passed by the Assistant Judge Mehsana dated 15/07/1977 awarding compensation to the claimants in respect of the acquisition of 31 pieces of agricultural lands of varying sizes situated within the revenue limits of village Saij just adjoining Kalol town in Mehsana district. It is not necessary to set out elaborately the different survey numbers and their respective sizes. Suffice it to say that the sizes of the pieces of land involved in this acquisition are varying in the range between 2 gunthas=202 sq. metres to acres 6-27 gunthas=27013 sq. metres. The entire block of the said pieces of land was acquired for the public purpose of setting up an industrial estate by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. The relevant notification under sec. 4 declaring the intention of the State Government to acquire the said pieces of land was dated 25/11/1964 and was published in the State Government Gazette of 24/12/1964 The relevant sec. 6 notification deciding to acquire the said block of land was dated 29/01/1966 and published in the State Government Gazette of 27/02/1966 It appears that the claimants concerned had made claim for compensation at the rate of Rs. 45. 00 per sq. metre in respect of the land of S. No. 155 while in respect of the rest of the lands the claim was made at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per sq. metre before the Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants as well as the acquiring body viz. the GIDC produced a number of sale instances in support of the claims and rebuttal thereof respectively. We will refer to the relevant sale instances at the appropriate time for purposes of appreciating whether the claims made by the claimants in their appeals before us or the grievances made by the State Government against the award made by the learned Assistant Judge in the appeals preferred by the Government are justified or not. ( 2 ) THE Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at different rates viz. Rs. 6000 to Rs. 12 0 per hectre. In other words he made the award granting compensation at the rates ranging between Rs. 0. 60 and Rs. 1. 20per sq. metre of the lands acquired. ( 2 ) THE Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at different rates viz. Rs. 6000 to Rs. 12 0 per hectre. In other words he made the award granting compensation at the rates ranging between Rs. 0. 60 and Rs. 1. 20per sq. metre of the lands acquired. The claimants being aggrieved by this offer made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer sought for reference under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which reference was granted. It appears that the claimants in their reference applications before the Civil Court claimed compensation at the uniform rate of Rs. 12 per sq. metre instead of Rs. 45 and Rs. 20 per sq. metre as was the case before the Special Land Acqui- sition Officer. The learned Assistant Judge Mehsana before whom these applications reached for hearing on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties oral as well as documentary concluded that the fair market value of the lands under acquisition should be assessed at Rs. 3 and Rs. 4 per sq. metre. The learned Assistant Judge in assessing the fair market value as aforesaid relied basically on the judgment and award made by this Court in First Appeal No. 541 of 1971 and three other companion matters pronounced on 31/03/1975 in the matter of acquisition of land of S. Nos. 151 152 153 and 154 admeasuring acre 1-24 gunthas and 8 anni=9014 1/2 sq. yards and another parcel of land admeasuring 24935. 05 sq. yards situated within the revenue limits of village Saij which were acquired for purposes of widening the State High Way running between Ahmedabad and Abu and for the workshop and the staff quarters of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation under sec. 4 notifications dated 5/03/1966 and 24/08/1967 respectively since in the present acquisition the remaining parts of these very survey numbers have been sought to be acquired by the GIDC. The learned Assistant Judge also found support for his conclusion from the various sale instances pertaining to small pieces of land of different survey numbers situated within the revenue limits of village Saij as well as within the limits of Kalol town evidenced by Exs. 100 101 104 106 102 105 and 152. The learned Assistant Judge also found support for his conclusion from the various sale instances pertaining to small pieces of land of different survey numbers situated within the revenue limits of village Saij as well as within the limits of Kalol town evidenced by Exs. 100 101 104 106 102 105 and 152. The learned Judge made an attempt to ascertain the market value re-assessed by reference to the evidence led by the claimants about the yield from some of the lands under acquisition and also capitali- sing the rental value of the two pieces of land of S. Nos. 150 and 155 as evidenced by Exs. 223 and 224. The learned Assistant Judge has also awarded compensation on account of hedge trees and super- structures standing on some of the pieces of land under acquisition. The learned Assistant Judge awarded solatium at the statutory rate and interest on the amount of compensation as awarded by him at the rate of 4 per cent from the date of possession. It should be noted that the learned Assistant Judge has fixed the market price at Rs. 4 per sq. metre for those pieces of land which had frontage on the Ahmedabad-Abu road (hereinafter described as the State High Way) while he has fixed Rs. 3 per sq. metre for the lands which are situated in the interior. Accordingly he awarded compensation at a higher rate of Rs. 4 per sq. metre for S. Nos. 150 151 152 154 132 to 132/9 while at the rate of Rs. 3 per sq. metre for S. Nos. 49 163 164 131 158 155 157 to 157/4 109 56 1544 and 66/2. The claimants as well as the State Government being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the learned Assistant Judge have come by way of first appeals before us. [after stating the facts the Honble Judge further observed:] ( 3 ) THE learned Advocates appearing for the claimants made a serious grievance that the learned Assistant Judge has not indicated as to why he has assessed the fair market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs. 3 to Rs. 4 per sq. [after stating the facts the Honble Judge further observed:] ( 3 ) THE learned Advocates appearing for the claimants made a serious grievance that the learned Assistant Judge has not indicated as to why he has assessed the fair market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs. 3 to Rs. 4 per sq. metre nor has he adopted any basis for slashing down the market price of the lands which this Court has fixed in First Appeal No. 541 of 1971 for these very pieces of land acquired for widening up the State High Way or for purposes of the workshop of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. In submission of the learned Advocates for the claimants the conclusion of the learned Assistant Judge was more in the nature of ipse dixit than a reasoned conclusion. It was contended by them that there was no valid reason for the learned Assistant Judge to depart from the market price as fixed by this Court in respect of the lands acquired from S. Nos. 151 152 153 and 154 for purposes of widening of the State High Way under sec. 4 notification of 5/03/1966 since the notification by which the present lot of lands is acquired was immediately proximate in point of time i. e. 25/11/1964 and published on 24/12/1964 The time leg was hardly of 13 to 14 months which in no case would have justified the slashing down of the price fixed by this Court in respect of the lands acquired for purposes of widening of the State High Way by about 50% to 60% since the High Court has fixed the market price of the lands acquired from some of the very survey numbers viz. S. Nos. 151 to 154 at Rs. 8 per sq. metre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) AFTER stating the further facts and rival contentions Honble Court further observed:] ( 5 ) WE must admit that the criticism made on behalf of the claimants on the award of the learned Assistant Judge has great force in it. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 4 ) AFTER stating the further facts and rival contentions Honble Court further observed:] ( 5 ) WE must admit that the criticism made on behalf of the claimants on the award of the learned Assistant Judge has great force in it. With respect to the learned Assistant Judge we have not been able to appreciate why he has thought fit to slash down as much as 50% to 60% of the price which this Court has established for the lands of the very survey numbers under acquisition in March 1966 for purposes of widening of the State High Way and in August 1967 for purposes of the workshop and staff quarters of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation. It should be recalled that this Court in First Appeal No. 541 of 1971 and other companion matters had assessed the fair market price of the lands of S. Nos. 152 to 154 at the rate of Rs. 8. 30 ps. per sq. yard which were sought to be acquired for widening of the State High Way under notification of 5/03/1966 and at the rate of Rs. 9 per sq. yard for the purposes of the workshop and staff quarters of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation for the lands of S. Nos. 151 to 153 under the notification of August 1967 We must express our uneasiness about the approach which has commended the learned Assistant Judge for slashing down the price substantially for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the lands under acquisition. Inspite of our best efforts we have not been able to discern any worthwhile basis for slashing down the price as the learned Assistant Judge has done. It cannot be gainsaid that the price established by this Court in First Appeal No. 541 of 1971 and other companion matters vide the decision of the Division Bench consisting of D. P. Desai (as he then was) and N. H. Bhatt JJ dated 31/03/1975 at Rs. 8. 30 ps. for some of the lands from the very survey numbers viz. S. Nos. 151 to 154 for purposes of road widening and for other lands from S. Nos. 151 to 153 for purposes of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation at Rs. 8. 30 ps. for some of the lands from the very survey numbers viz. S. Nos. 151 to 154 for purposes of road widening and for other lands from S. Nos. 151 to 153 for purposes of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation at Rs. 9 must furnish the basis for purposes of assessing the fair market value of the lands under acquisition. As a matter of fact the learned Assistant Judge was right in adopting the price fixed by this Court as aforesaid for purposes of assessing the fair market value for the lands under acquisition. However when he actually came to assess the fair market value with respect he did not adopt any principles so as to justify the price which he ultimately fixed viz. Rs. 3 and Rs. 4 per sq. metre for the interior lands and block of the lands abutting the State High Way respectively. It should be noted that the decision rendered by this Court in the aforesaid First Appeal No. 541 of 1971 and other companion matters has been finally accepted by the acquiring agencies as well as the State Government since no appeals we are told have been preferred to the Supreme Court from the said judgment and award. In that view of the matter therefore so far as the price of the lands in the area is concerned it has been established and to that extent we do not think that the learned Assistant Judge was in any way in error on the matter of principle or authority in adopting this price as the basis for purposes of assessing the fair market value of the lands in question. It should be noted that some of the lands under the present acquisition are of S Nos. 150/1/ p. 152 and 154. The lands with which this Court was concerned in First Appeal No. 541 of 1971 and other companion matters were of S. Nos. 151 152 153 and 154. It is no doubt true that the fair market value which has been fixed by this Court in the aforesaid appeals was with reference to the acquisition made vide notifications dated 5/03/1966 and 24/08/1967 It is also true that under the first acquisition i. e. 5/03/1966 the land which was acquired was admeasuring Acre 1 Gunthas and 08 Annis=9014 1/2 sq. yards. yards. The price fixed for the lands under the second acquisition was with reference to the price that might be realised on 24/08/1967 and it was in respect of the land admeasuring 24935. 05 sq. yards. We are therefore of the opinion that we should take the price as fixed by this Court for the lands of S. Nos. 150 to 154 admeasuring 9014 sq. yards sought to be acquired under the notification of March 1966 as the basis for purposes of arriving at the fair market value of the lands under acquisition. The price which this Court has fixed was Rs. 8. 30 paise per sq. yard which will work out at Rs. 9. 96 paise per sq. metre (1 sq. metre=1. 20 sq. yard and 1 sq. yard=0. 84 sq. metre ). This price is established for the lands in the area as in March 1966 We are concerned with the ascertainment of the fair market price as on 24/12/1964 that is the fag-end of the year. The period intervening between the price which is to be ascertained and the price which has been already ascertained by this Court is about 12 months. What should be the appropriate deduction on account of this time-leg is to be estimated. Fortunately by the very decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 541 of 1971 and other companion matters where the Division Bench was concerned with the second acquisition of the part of these very lands of S. Nos. 151 to 153 acquired for the purposes of the Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation on 24/08/1967 the price which has been assessed by this Court for the acquisition of the said lands was Rs. 9 per sq. yard which would work out at Rs. 10. 80 paise per sq. metre. In other words the rise in the price in the corresponding period between March 1966 and August 1967 is about Rs. 0. 85 paise which is equivalent to 9% to 91/2%. We have therefore thought fit to estimate that the corresponding rise also in the course of the period from December 196 4/03/1966 would be also about 10%. In other words from the basic price of Rs. 9. 96 ps. per sq. 0. 85 paise which is equivalent to 9% to 91/2%. We have therefore thought fit to estimate that the corresponding rise also in the course of the period from December 196 4/03/1966 would be also about 10%. In other words from the basic price of Rs. 9. 96 ps. per sq. metre we should give a deducation of 10 on account of this time-leg between the notice for acquisition and the acquisition with which this Court was concerned in First Appeal No. 541 of 1971 and other companion matters. This will establish the market price as in December 1964 The price would be therefore Rs. 9 per sq. metre We must also remind ourselves that the price which has been assessed by this Court in the first acquisition of 5/03/1966 was in respect of the parcel of land admeasuring about 9014 sq. yards. In the present appeals we are concerned with the acquisition of a very big chunk of land which is as much as 4 17 0 sq. metres. We have therefore to consider as to what should be the appropriate deduction on this count of the size of the land. ( 6 ) THOUGH it is well recognized principle of valuation of lands not to value large area of land on the basis of the sales of small area without making suitable deductions from the sale price of small plots of land on account of largeness of size of the laud sought to be evaluated it is permissible on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case to evaluate large track of land by reference to sale instances of small plots of land. It is not possible to lay down a straight jacket formula as to what should be the quantum of deduction on the count of difference in size since in that case it would amount to adopting doctrinaire approach ill the matter (see: FABRICS PVT. LTD. V. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KAIRA (1971) 12 G. L. R. 319 ). We have therefore to address ourselves to the relevant aspect of the matter in order to determine what should be the deduction on the count of size. LTD. V. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER KAIRA (1971) 12 G. L. R. 319 ). We have therefore to address ourselves to the relevant aspect of the matter in order to determine what should be the deduction on the count of size. The Division Bench of this Court speaking through P. D. Desai J. (as he then was) in Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. s case (supra) indicated what should be the relevant considerations in determining the percentage of deduction for purposes of evaluating large plots of land with reference to the small plots of land. In paragraph 26 at page 322 the following obser- vations are instructive. "26 that can be said is that ordinarily the greater the disparity between the size of the plot under acquisition and that of the plot of which sale instance is available the large will be the. deduction that will have to be made. Similarly the higher prices of land in the locality in which the lands are situate the deduction that will have to be made from the sale price of small plot of land will necessarily have to be greater because much larger investment would have to be made in such a case for the purchase of a big plot of land. . . . . . These are but a few illustrations and are not intended to be an exhaustive enumeration of circum- stances in which sizable deductions may have to be made from the purchase price of small plots of land. Furthermore the application of this principle would itself also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. If the larger plot is situated in the vicinity of a town and has a long frontage making it easily divisi- ble into small building plots then necessarily the deduction for difference in size would be less than that which may have to be made in the case of the large plot of land situated away from the town. Again if the large plot of land is situated in a locality where there is brisk industrial development and there is a demand for large tracks of land for setting up big industrial units the deduction required to be made on account of the largeness of the size would be necessarily less. . Again if the large plot of land is situated in a locality where there is brisk industrial development and there is a demand for large tracks of land for setting up big industrial units the deduction required to be made on account of the largeness of the size would be necessarily less. . " ( 7 ) THE Division Bench quoted with approval the observations from the decision of the Bombay High Court in BOMBAY IMPROVEMENT TRUST V. MERVANJI MANEKJI MISTRJI A. I. R. 1923 BOM. 420. The observations are pertinent on the question under consideration. The said observations read as under:"a very simple method of valuing land wholesale from retail prices is to take anything between one half and one third according to circumstances of the expec- ted gross valuation as the wholesale price. I do not say that that should be relied upon by itself but it affords a useful test of valuations arrived at by more detailed calculations with regard to the cost of development the area to be deduced for accommodation the period to be allowed for disposal and the purcha- sers profit. ( 8 ) IN view of the above settled legal position we have to address ourselves as to what should be the appropriate deduction which we should give from the price which is established for the lands under acquisition as in December 1964 The price which have been established is Rs. 9 per sq. metre. This price as can be seen is worked out on basis of the price of the land admeasuring about 9000 sq. yards acquired under the notification of 5/03/1966 The lauds with which we are concerned admeasure about 4 17 0 sq. metres. In other words the price which we have to assess is for a parcel of land which is about 40 to 46 times larger than the land with reference to which this price has been established. Another Division Bench of this Court in PATEL SHANABHAI LALLUBHAI V. ADDL. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AHMEDABAD (FIRST APPEAL NO. 423 OF 1960 decided by Miyabhoy and Mehta JJ. on 13/11/1961 made a deduction of 331/2% while evaluating a plot of land 70 times larger in area than the plot the sale instance of which was relied upon before it. Another Division Bench of this Court in PATEL SHANABHAI LALLUBHAI V. ADDL. SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AHMEDABAD (FIRST APPEAL NO. 423 OF 1960 decided by Miyabhoy and Mehta JJ. on 13/11/1961 made a deduction of 331/2% while evaluating a plot of land 70 times larger in area than the plot the sale instance of which was relied upon before it. In Mervanjis case (supra) the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had indicated that in cases of determination of the market price of large plots of land with reference to retailed sales the Court should generally make deductions between 33% to 50%. There are two factors which we must bear in mind also before we determine about the appropriate deduction which we should make from the basic price established in respect of the lands under acquisition as in December 1964 The lands are situated in the vicinity of Kalol town and just adjoining the southern outer periphery of the municipal limits of Kalol town. Secondly they are situated in a locality where there is brisk industrial development since last two decades and there is a great demand for large plots of land for setting up industrial units in the locality. We must also bear in mind that the lands under acquisition have a large frontage running just parallel the State High Way immediately after leaving the southern town limits of Kalol. We are therefore of the opinion that having regard to all these circum- stances namely the vicinity to the developing industrial town of Kalol the demand for large plots of land in the locality and a wide frontage it would be just and fair if we direct that there should be a deduction of about 33% which will work out at Rs. 3 leaving the net price of Rs. 6 per sq. metre as the fair market value of the lands under acquisition. We are therefore of the opinion that the learned Assistant Judge was not justified in granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 3 and Rs. 4 per sq. metre. The claimants in our opinion are entitled to claim compensation at the higher rate than awarded for the different pieces of lands sought to be acquired under the present acquisition. [rest of the Judgment is not material for the reports ] order accordingly. .