JUDGMENT : B. L. Yadav, J. 1. These three appeals involve similar questions of law and fact, consequently it is convenient to dispose them of by a common judgment. 2. Appeal No. 80 of 1987 shall be the leading case. First Appeal No. 80 of 1987 has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, (for short the Act), on behalf of the State of U. P. through Collector, Bijnor and the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Najibabad, through its Secretary, against the judgment dated 21-10-1986 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Bijnor (in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 1981, Ratatt Behari v. State). First Appeal No. 79 of 1987 has been filed on behalf of the State of U. P. and the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Najibabad, through its Secretary, against the judgment dated 21-10-1986 passed by the IInd Additional 'District Judge, Bijnor (in L. A. Case No. 47 of 1981, Ajai Kumar v. State), whereas First Appeal No. 78 of 1987 has been filed on behalf of the State of U. P. and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, through its Secretary, against Brij Behari (in Land Acquisition Case No. 47 of 1981). All these appeals arose out of judgment dated 21-10-1986. 3. In First Appeal No. 80 of 1987, by notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 2-6-1978, plot no. 90/3 area 16032 sq. yards of village Ibrahimpur Raju, Pargana Najibabad, was sought to be acquired and possession was taken over on 27-7-1978. The Land Acquisition Officer assessed the value of the land on the basis of sale deed dated 23-5-1978 executed by one Jagdish Prasad in favour of Arun Kumar Jain in respect of plot no. 50 of the said village. In First Appeal No. 79 of 1987 an area of 26786 sq. yards in Khasra plot no. 34 belonging to respondent situate in village Sheikhpur Garhi was acquired by the State for construction of residential quarters, Stores-, Section Office of the Irrigation Department. The possession was taken on 17-9-1979. In First Appeal No. 78 of 1987, however, an area of 19 bigha 10 biswa of plot no. 90/2 of the respondent was acquired. In other words an area of 58987 sq. yards was acquired by notification dated 2-6-1978 and possession was taken on 27-7-1978. 4. In First Appeal No. 80 of 1987, the Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor awarded a sum of Rs. 90/2 of the respondent was acquired. In other words an area of 58987 sq. yards was acquired by notification dated 2-6-1978 and possession was taken on 27-7-1978. 4. In First Appeal No. 80 of 1987, the Land Acquisition Officer, Bijnor awarded a sum of Rs. 12887.90 as compensation besides solatium and interest in respect of plot no. 90/3 area 5 bigha 6 biswa. But in reference that amount was enhanced and reference was allowed and a compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. yard was allowed along with solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value and the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking possession of the land acquired from respondent no. 1 and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period till the date of payment of enhanced amount of compensation. In First Appeal No. 79 of 1987 a sum of Rs. 6,23,270 was awarded as compensation in addition to compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and an area of 1751 sq. yard was left by inadvertence in respect of which no compensation was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In respect of that area also the compensation was awarded and 15% solatium on the said amount and the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation was also awarded. In First Appeal No. 78 of 1987 the amount of compensation was enhanced by the judgment dated 23-10-1986 passed by the Ilnd Additional District Judge in respect of plot no. 90/2 area 1 bigha 10 biswa, 37812 sq. yards belonging to respondent was acquired in village Ibrahimpur Raju and the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was also enhanced. Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the appellants urged that the sale deed in respect of plot no. 50 has been relied upon as exempler and it was prior to notification under Section 4 of the Act and the exempler was of small area, hence it could not be relied upon and made the basis for enhancement of compensation in respect of bigger area. Reliance was placed on Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 and Cbimanlal Hargovind Das v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, AIR 1988 SC 1652 . Reliance was placed on Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 and Cbimanlal Hargovind Das v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, AIR 1988 SC 1652 . It was further raged that on the basis of evidence on record the enhancement of compensation in three appeals could not be justified and the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was perfectly justified. 5. SRI R. P. Goel, appearing for respondents on the other hand, urged that normally exemplers in respect of small area need not be relied upon to determine the compensation of bigger area. But that is not the absolute rule and in respect of matters where exempler with small area is available, after making some reasonable guess work the compensation of bigger area can also be determined. He urged that on the whole the entire evidence on record has been considered and the judgment cannot be said to be erroneous. Reliance was placed on State of U. P.,v. Smt. Mohini Goel, 1989 ALJ 1066. 6. In First Appeal No. 80 of 1987, sale deed in respect of plot no. 50 Was treated to be exempler by the Spl. Land Acquisition Officer. This plot was sold by one Jagdish Prasad in favour of one Arun Kumar Jain. But the same was situated outside the limit of Nagar-Palika, whereas the land acquired was surrounded by abadi and industrial area and adjacent to the Najibabad Kotdwara Road on one side and on the other side there was road towards the north. The land sought to be acquired was higher in level and the land has all potentialities of abadi site. This fact was also noticed that plot no. 90 in village Ibrahimpur Raju of which the land in question forms part has been included within the municipal limit of Najibabad with effect from 10-7-1973 vide gazette notification Paper 30-C and the limits of the price of land in Najibabad varies from Rs. 45/- to Rs. 200/- per sq. yard. The sale deed executed by one Jameer Ahmad Khan in favour of Sarjeet and Jasveer Singh for a sum of Rst 6000/- in respect of one biswa land situate in village Chhaper was also referred as an exempler. On behalf of respondent no. 45/- to Rs. 200/- per sq. yard. The sale deed executed by one Jameer Ahmad Khan in favour of Sarjeet and Jasveer Singh for a sum of Rst 6000/- in respect of one biswa land situate in village Chhaper was also referred as an exempler. On behalf of respondent no. 3 witnesses were examined as PW 1 Brij Behari, PW 2 Gorda, Lekhpal, PW 3 Jamir Ahmad and PW 4 Satya Prakash Mittal. PW 1 has stated that he was the brother of Ratan Behari, respondent and the land acquired belongs to him, his brother and Ajai Kumar. The land was situate in Municipal limits of Najibabad and was surrounded by abadi in north, south and west and has got potentialities of abadi site. Further there were crushers in the north, factory and cold storage in the east, St. Mary School, shops and market in the south and that the land was situate at Kotdwara Najibabad Road. He further stated that the land acquired was much better than the land of Jameer Ahmad, Ganeshi Lai and Shanti Prasad. PW 2 was the Lekhpal, who fully corroborated the statement of Brij Behari on every point. PW 3 Jameer Ahmad stated that the land was situate in village Chhaper and he sold his land for Rs. 6000/-, whereas the real owner was his wife Smt. Raisa Begam. That land was 829 feet deep than the road. PW 4 Satya Prakash Mittal has also supported the statement of other witnesses. We were taken through their statements by the learned counsel for appellant and also by the respondent. We are satisfied that their statements have correctly been relied upon in determining the potentialities of the land and also in determining the enhancement of compensation payable to respondent. Nothing particular was pointed put by learned counsel, for the appellant so as to disbelieve the statement of these witnesses. It is to be noticed, as stated by the learned II Additional District Judge in his judgment in the last sentence of para 14 (first paper book) that on behalf of present appellants who were respondents there, no evidence was led in rebuttal to the evidence led by respondent (Ratan Behari). 7. It is to be noticed, as stated by the learned II Additional District Judge in his judgment in the last sentence of para 14 (first paper book) that on behalf of present appellants who were respondents there, no evidence was led in rebuttal to the evidence led by respondent (Ratan Behari). 7. In respect of First Appeal No. 79 of 1987, on behalf of respondent PW 1 Budh Singh, father of respondent, PW 2 Shanti Prasad, PW 3 Shyam Lai, PW 4 Ratan Lai and PW 5 Naimuddin were examined, whereas on behalf of appellant one Som Prakash Agarwal, DW 1 was examined. PW 1 Budh Singh stated that the plot adjoining the highway was sought to be sold at the rate of Rs. 150/- per sq. yard, whereas the plots in the middle were sold at the rate of Rs. 125/- per sq. yard and the plots lying in the back side were sold at the rate of Rs. 100/- per sq. yard. He also stated that the land acquired has potential value for abadi site. PW Shanti Prasad stated that the land was closed to the land in dispute and he has sold his land by dividing plots in so many sub-divisions for his beneficial purpose. Ext. 19 to Ext. 27 are the copies of sale deed executed by Shanti Prasad in favour of various persons. These sale deeds were executed between 25-11-76 to 30-3-79 and the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 30/- per sq. yard. There is statement of PW 3 Shyam Lai, PW 4 Ratan Lal and PW 5 Naimuddin which were relied upon, and they were not found to be bona fide purchasers. We have been taken through statement of these witnesses and we are of the view that statement of PW 1,2 and 3 have correctly been relied upon by the learned Addl. Distt, Judge. Whereas statement of DW 1 Som Prakash Agarwal was not relied upon as he had no knowledge as to on which basis the compensation was awarded to petitioner. We have examined the statement of DW 1 and we are of the view that his statement was correctly not relied upon as his statement about adequacy of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is not justified under the circumstances of the case. We have examined the statement of DW 1 and we are of the view that his statement was correctly not relied upon as his statement about adequacy of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is not justified under the circumstances of the case. The potentiality of land for abadi site and other purposes was justified as to the east of the land acquired there was Radio Station and its colony and there was public road towards south of the land in question and after that there was Sahu Jain Degree College. Najibabad Barielly Highway lies towards the west of the land acquired. Consequently the statements of PWs 1 and 2 have correctly been relied upon and that of statement of DW 1 was correctly rejected. 8. In respect of First Appeal No. 78 of 1987 against the judgment dated 21-10-86 in L.A. Case No. 47 of 1981 the compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer on the basis of sale deed dated 23-5-77 executed by Jagdish Prasad in favour of Arun Kumar Jain over plot no. 50 was not justified as that plot was not of even level, rather it was undulating and uneven and that plot remained surrounded by water channel and it was situated at a great distance, whereas the land acquired is adjacent to Kotdwara Najibabad Road and adjoining to the boundary of Nagar Palika, Najibabad. The learned District Judge has correctly appreciated the evidence on record as we were taken through that evidence by the learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence done by the court below. Consequently the enhancement of compensation made by the court below was perfectly justified. Reverting to the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in all the three appeals that the sale 4eed with smaller area could not be made basis to determine the compensation of bigger areas, in principle we agree, but as observed by the Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, AIR 1988 SC 1652 , no hard and fast rule can be laid down in respect of such matters. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Where no sate deed containing bigger areas is available, the sale deed containing smaller area can be made guide with certain modifications keeping in view the surroundings of land and the utility and potentiality of land. In- Chimanlal Hargovinddas's case (Supra), it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as follows : "The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date Of publication of the notification under Section/4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value." Again on page 1657 it was observed as follows j "Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as norm and the maket value, of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition." 9. In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector Varanasi, ) AIR 1988 SO 943, at page 947, para 7, it was observed as follows "It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector Lakhimpur v. B. C Datta, AIR 1971 SC 2015 ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad, (1975) 2 SCR 184 : ( AIR 1974 SC 2247 ) ; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 1 SCR 329 : ( AIR 1977 SC 580 ) ; Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, (1984) 2 SCR 900 : ( AIR 1984 SC 892 ). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The, principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes ; that building lots that could lay out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the. method of a hypothetical lay out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant." 10. In State of U. P. v. Smt. Mohini Goel, (Supra) a Division Bench of this Court (to which one of us, i. e. B. L. Yadav, J. was a member) observed after considering the relevant case law, as follows : "It is accordingly obvious that the sale deeds filed by present defendant appellant to serve as the guideline was in respect of much smaller area than the land actually acquired. Similarly the sale deeds filed by the claimant were also in respect of smaller area. Thus no sale deed was exactly of the date or year when the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued......IN such situation how Section 23 of the Act has to be applied to determine the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The market value is also not to be determined on the basis of negotiations with the person whose land has been acquired. In our considered opinion in such| situation determination of the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act remains a moot question to be determined with making allowance for guess work. In other words, in such matters there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness. In our considered opinion in such| situation determination of the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act remains a moot question to be determined with making allowance for guess work. In other words, in such matters there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness. The determination of market value by the court should not be on mechanical or scientific exactitudes." Under para 9 the following observation is relevant : "IN such a situation we consider it proper that a compromising forum has to be evolved taking into account the exemplers in respect of smaller areas coupled with the surroundings of the land whether the same was undeveloped or semi-developed area or area being close .to industrial area, educational institutions .and other important places. The potentiality of the land has to be taken into account. The court has also to keep in mind as to what a prospective buyer could have paid to a prospective seller in accordance with the price rise which has become a national or international phenomenon. (See Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892 )." In view of the aforesaid discussion of the relevant case laws we are of the view that where a sale deed as an exempler is only in respect of smaller area, nevertheless that can be a guide to determine the value of compensation of a comparatively bigger area" and where no sale deed of bigger area is available, then the exempler of smaller area can be relied upon keeping in view the potentiality of land in abadi site or for other development purposes and also surroundings of the land. What would be payable by a prospective buyer to the prospective seller, has also to be kept in mind. No doubt the provisions require that the price fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large areas of the land. In the present case having perused the impugned judgment we are satisfied that he has correctly determined the compensation payable to respondents. Strictly speaking as the surroundings of the land and potentiality of the land acquired for abadi purposes or for development purpose, as we have discussed earlier even much higher amount of compensation could have been awarded to the respondents. Strictly speaking as the surroundings of the land and potentiality of the land acquired for abadi purposes or for development purpose, as we have discussed earlier even much higher amount of compensation could have been awarded to the respondents. But as no cross-objection has been filed and no such facts have been brought to our notice so as to exercise our jurisdiction under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC, we feel by and large satisfied that the amount of compensation awarded by the Additional District Judge is perfectly correct and the same does not require any interference in any of the appeals. 11. In view of the premises aforesaid, these three appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeals dismissed.