R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the original claimants is for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The notification under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act was published on 27th June 1966 and the land of survey no. 443 admeasuring 2 Acres 33 Gunthas situated within the revenue limits of village Vartej has been acquired which is the subject-matter of compensation proceedings. The Land Acquisition officer awarded compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 21- per sq. yd. and Rs. 200/- for the wells. This was enhanced to Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. by the district Court and nothing is enhanced so far as the two wells are concerned and the compensation of Rs. 200/- is comfirmed, for the two wells. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that, the compensation should have been awarded at the rate of Rs. 6/- per sq. yd. and it is required to be enhanced by Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. in this appeal. It is submitted that for two wells, compensation should be awarded to the tune of Rs. 2. 000/ instead of Rs. 200/ -. ( 3 ) THE comparative sale instances are exhs. 24, 27, 33 and 35. They can be tabulated as follows:- Exh. No. Date plot No. Area sq. yd. Price bate/sq. yd. 24 14-3-66 32 200 1000 Rs. 5/sq. yd. 27 6-5-68 93 300 2000 Rs. 6. 67/sq. yd. 33 15-ll-67 89 300 2000 -do- 35 13-12-63 28 400 2000 Rs. 5/sq. yd. ( 4 ) SECTION 4 notification was published on 26-6-1966. Therefore, the nearest sale instance in point of time is Ex. 24 where a plot of 200 sq. yd. was sold at Rs. 1,000/- i. e. at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. yd. The earlier sale instance of plot no. 28 was in 1963. That was also sold at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. yd. Therefore, there is not much appreciation between 1963 to 1966. After about 14 years of the notification, plot No. 89 was sold on 15-11-1967 at the rate of Rs. 6. 67 per sq. yd. and at the same price, another plot No. 93 was sold in the year 1968 comprising of the same area. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge has taken the sale instance Ex. After about 14 years of the notification, plot No. 89 was sold on 15-11-1967 at the rate of Rs. 6. 67 per sq. yd. and at the same price, another plot No. 93 was sold in the year 1968 comprising of the same area. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge has taken the sale instance Ex. 24 as a comparative sale instance in point of time and Rs. 5. 00 per sq. yd. has been taken as comparative price. These plots were sold by the Panchayat as residential plots. The Panchayat had acquired agricultural lands much earlier and after leaving land for roads and other common amenities, it had divided the remaining land into 151 plots and some of them were being sold from time to time and these are the sale instances relied upon by the claimants. From these sale instances, it is clear that some of these residential plots were sold in the years 1963 and 1966 and the price realised was Rs. 5/- per sq. yd. Therefore, there was no much appreciation in respect of these lands during this period from 1963 to 1966. Section 4 notification was published in june 1966 and, therefore, the sale instance at Ex. 24 can be said to be nearest and comparable in point of time and the learned Judge was justified in relying on that instance for the purpose. The attempt of the appellants to rely on the sale instances of Nov. 1967 and May 1968 showing the rate of Rs. 6. 67 per sq. yd. must fail because they are far remote in point of time by I1/2 and 2 years respectively. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge has made a deduction of 40% from this rate of Rs. 5-00 per sq. yd. and allowed compensation at the rate of Rs. 3-00 per sq. yd. on the ground that this sale instance, though comparable in point of time, was not comparable in other respects, viz. size and nature and potentiality of the land. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that no deduction should have been made or at the most deduction of 25% should have been made and not of 4:0%. It is to be noted that the comparable sale instance at Rs. 5/- per sq. yd. is in respect of a plot of 200 sq. yd. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that no deduction should have been made or at the most deduction of 25% should have been made and not of 4:0%. It is to be noted that the comparable sale instance at Rs. 5/- per sq. yd. is in respect of a plot of 200 sq. yd. Whereas the present acquisition is of 2 Acres 30 gunthas of survey No. 443 belonging to the appellants. The appellant No. 1 has a share of 1 Acre 16 Gunthas. This land of 2 Acres 23 Gunthas comes to 15,673 sq. yd. This land is agricultural and it was not converted into non-agricultural land. It was a large piece of agricultural land. The sale instance is of a developed plot of 200 sq. yds. only where land for roads and other common amenities was left by the Panchayat. When the potentiality of this land is to be considered for similar wells, then deduction has to be made for leaving out the land for roads and other common amenities. The learned judge has relied on the judgment in the case of Fabrics Put. Ltd. v. The Spl. Land acquisition Officer, Kaira, 12 GLR 3. In para 25 of the judgment, the Division bench referred to the Supreme Court decision where a large plot of land was evaluated with reference to the sale instance of a small plot of land by making a deduction to the extent of two-third from the sale price of the small plot of land. The judgment in the case of Bombay improvement Trust v. Mervanji M. Mistri AIR 1923 Bombay 420 was relied and the following quotation was noted. "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 expected 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 valuation arrived at by more detailed calculations, with regard to the cost of develpoment, the area to be deducted for accommodation, the period to be allowed for disposal and the purchasers profit. I do not say that that should be relied upon by itself, but it affords a useful test of valuation arrived at by more detailed calculations, with regard to the cost of develpoment, the area to be deducted for accommodation, the period to be allowed for disposal and the purchasers profit. "the ratio of the Division Bench judgment has been quoted in headnote which reads as follows:-"it is a well recognised principle of valuation of lands not to value large areas of land on the basis of sales of small areas without making suitable deductions from sale price of small plots of land on account of the largeness of the size of the land sought to be evaluated with reference to the said small plots. But neither the valuer nor the Court would be justified in rejecting the sale instance of a small plot as one that is not a comparable sale instance only on the ground of difference in size, and a large plot of land may, in a givan case, justly be valued on the basis of the sale instance of a small plot of land after making suitable deductions and allowances from the sale price of the small plot of land on account of the largeness of the size of the land sought to be avaluated. (Paras 23 and 24 ). It is permissible, in the facts and circumstances of a given case, to evaluate large tracts of land by reference to sale instance of small plot of land (Para 30 ). No hard and fast rule can be laid down with regard to quantum of deduction. It would not be proper to adopt a dogmatic or doctrinaire approach in the matter and while evaluating a large plot of land by reference to the sale instance of a small plot of land, several factors must enter into account and no definite rule can be laid down as to the exact extent of deduction to be made. (Paras 25 and 26 ). " ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar moti Lai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1632 . (Paras 25 and 26 ). " ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vijay Kumar moti Lai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1632 . In that case, the Supreme court had made a deduction of one-third because the acquired land was not fully developed, relying on its earlier judgment in the case of Tribeni Devi v. Collector of Ranchi, 1972 SC 1417 wherein it was observed that "in order to develop that area at least the value of VSI-H of the land will have to be deducted for roads, drainage and other amenities. " ( 7 ) THE learned Cousel for the appellants also relied on the judgment in the case of Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and AIR 1984 SC 892 . In para 13, the Supreme court observed as follows:-"two principles relating to the matter of fixation of compensation relevant for the present purpose may be kept in view. When large tracts are acquired, the transaction in respect of small properties do not offer a proper guideline. Therefore, the valuation in transactions in regard to smaller property is not taken as a real basis for determining the compensation for larger tracts of property (see Prithvi raj Taneja v. State of Punjab, (1977) 1 SCR 329 , ( AIR 1977 SC 580 ). In certain other cases, this Court indicated that for determining the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, a deduction should be given. In Special Land Acquisition officer, Bangalore v. T. Adinarayan setttty (1959) Suppl. (1 SCR 404, ( AIR 1959 SC 429 ), a reduction of 25% was indicated while there are certain other cases where the view is that the reduction should be to the extent of 1/a. Again, in the very scheme for fixation of compensation provided by the Land acquisition Act, there is bound to be some amount of arbitrariness. "ultimately, the Supreme Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1. 50/sq. yd. In para 10 of the judgment, an instance was referred to showing the rate of Rs. 4. 50 per sq. yd. and this was the instance of the year of notification and the property was located not away from the acquired land. "ultimately, the Supreme Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1. 50/sq. yd. In para 10 of the judgment, an instance was referred to showing the rate of Rs. 4. 50 per sq. yd. and this was the instance of the year of notification and the property was located not away from the acquired land. Another instance referred to in the same para was a sale deed of 1960 wherein the rate worked put was Rs. 2. 25 per sq. yd. for the land which was about half a furlong away from the acquired land. ( 8 ) IN the case of Bai Mani widow of shah Mangaldas Gokuldas v. Slate of gujarat and Anr. 25 (2) GLR 1229, similar question was considered and the following observations were made. "there 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 on Dec. 1964. The lands are situated in the southern outer periphery of the municipal limits of Kalol town. Secondly, they are situated in a locality where there is a brisk industrial develpoment 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 Highway immediately after leaving the southern town limits of Kalol. We are, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to all these circumstances, 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. mt. as the fair market value of the lands under acquisition. " (Para 10) in that case, the land was just adjoining the municipal limits of Kalol. In the present case, the land is not in the vicinity of municipality, but it is in the Gram panchayat. It is not within the limits of village Vartej, but is away from the village site and sorrounded by agricultural land. " (Para 10) in that case, the land was just adjoining the municipal limits of Kalol. In the present case, the land is not in the vicinity of municipality, but it is in the Gram panchayat. It is not within the limits of village Vartej, but is away from the village site and sorrounded by agricultural land. It is true that at certain places, there are some residential plots. There is a brisk industrial develpoment or non-agricultural development whereas in the case before the Division Bench, there was brisk industrial development and the land was adjoining to the municipal limits and there was great demand for land for setting up industrial units. Even in that case, the deduction was made at 33% as compared to the price of the small land in relation to the large piece of land acquired. In view of the facts of the present case where there is no brisk industrial development, residential houses or sites, the potentiality of this large piece of land cannot be said to be such that deduction of 40% can be said to be excessive. As seen from the deposition of Government witnesses, Deputy Town planning Officer and Talati, there was no demand for residential sites or any non-agricultural use. The Deputy Town planning Officer has deposed that out of 151 plots made by Vartej Gram panchayat, only 20 plots were sold between 1963 to 1966 and even on the date of his deposition, in the year 1977, some plots had remained unsold. Talati has in his deposition stated that even on the date of his deposition, 9 plots had remained unsold with the Panchayat and out of 139 plots which have been sold, there is no construction on 21 plots till that date. He has also stated that during 1963 to 1966, no agricultural land has been converted into N. A. use except these 151 plots. This shows that there was no chance of converting this land into N. A. land. The land is situated opposite the police station and it is acquired for police quarters. From this, it cannot be said that the land had such great potentiality which would require lesser deduction than that of 40%. The deduction made is fair and reasonable and the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. is adquate. The land is situated opposite the police station and it is acquired for police quarters. From this, it cannot be said that the land had such great potentiality which would require lesser deduction than that of 40%. The deduction made is fair and reasonable and the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 3/- per sq. yd. is adquate. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that there were two wells in the land for which compensation of only Rs. 200/- has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and comfirmed by the District Judge. In para 28 of the judgment of the District court, it is found that one is pakka well and another is a kutcha well. It is said to be 35 cubit deep and 5 cubit in diameter. It was stated that the first well had cost rs. 10. 000/- and another Rs. 15. 000/ -. But this was not believed in absence of any supporting evidence. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 200/- awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was not held to be inadquate. In our opinion, this compensation of Rs. 200/- is ridiculously low and it is no compensation at all. Once it is accepted that one is a pakka well and having regard to the dimensions of the two wells, the compensation should have been much much higher. The claimants claimed Rs. 2. 070/- for the two wells and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs. 200/ -. Therefore, this compensation is required to be enhanced to the level as claimed by the appellants. The appellants have claimed Rs. 1,879/- more in addition to Rs. 200/- and that deserves to be granted without any hesitation. Therefore the appeal is partly allowed to that extent. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation for the two wells is increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 2,070/-, i. e. additional of Rs. 1,870/- and on this amount, the appellants will also be entitled to solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 4 from the date of possession till the date of payment of such amount to the appellants. The respondents are directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within a period of three months. Award to be drawn accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .