PARIKH, J. ( 1 ) ALL these appeals under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition act, 1894, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) arise from the judgment and awards dated 29-8-1980 of the learned Judge of the City Civil Court no. 17, Ahmedabad, in Compensation Cases Nos. 1 to 4 of 1979. ( 2 ) SHORT facts of the 4 Reference Cases before the learned City Civil judge were as under : the land under acquisition was of the village Paldi and village shahwadi of City Taluka in the Districts of Ahmedabad. It came to be acquired for the construction of a dam (Right guide Bandh) for the development of water Frontage of river Sabarmati. The notification under sec. 4 of the Act was published on 2/01/1975. Section 6 notification came to be published on 16/10/1975. The Land acquisition Officer after complying with the provisions of the Act, declared his award on 15/03/1978 awarding market rate at Rs. 7/-per sq. mtr. The claimants-appellants challenged the said award by seeking references which were numbered as Compensation Cases as stated above, in the Court of learned City Civil Judge. ( 3 ) ALL the 4 Compensation Cases were heard together. Evidence was adduced before the learned City Civil Judge. The claimants relied upon the various sale instances for the purpose of pressing into service the market value. After consideration of the evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, the learned City Civil Judge awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 3. 00 per sq. mtr. by fixing the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mtr. The claimants have come in appeal against the said judgment and award by filing all these four appeals as stated above. ( 4 ) BEFORE dealing with the questions raised in this appeals, it would be appropriate to set out the particulars of the land under acquisition, the rate at which the compensation was awarded by the Land Acquisition officer and the rate at which the compensation was claimed by the claimants in the reference cases. It may be noted that the claimants so far as the land of Shahwadi is concerned, have not preferred any appeal and the claimants have come in appeal only so far as the land of Paldi is concerned. It may be noted that the claimants so far as the land of Shahwadi is concerned, have not preferred any appeal and the claimants have come in appeal only so far as the land of Paldi is concerned. Compensa Appeal Date of Survey Area of Amount Amount Amount tion Case Mo. publica No. of ihe land claimed awarded claimed no. tion of land under before by L. A in the notifica under acquisi- L. A. Officer Ref. tion acqui- tion Officer before under sition the City sec. 4 of Civil the L. A. Judge act. sq mts. Rs. Rs. Rs. p. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1/1979 1297/8l 2-1-1975 38/2 P 5869,44 50/-per In 50/- per sq. mtr. all sq. mtr. 2/1979 1298/81 -do- 38/4 5915. 00 100/- " cases 60/- " 3/1979 1296/81 -do- 38/1 5924. 00 100/-,, Rs. 7. 00 60/-" per 4/1979 1299/81 -do- 38/3 5888. 82 50/- " sq. mtr. 50/-,, ( 5 ) THE claimants of compensation case No. 1 of 1979 Ramanlal Bhalabhai patel and another have preferred Civil Appeal No. 1297 of 1981, the claimant of compensation case No. 2 of 1979 Dinesh Manekbhai Patel has preferred civil Appeal No. 1298 of 1981, the claimants of compensation case No. 3 of 1979 Manguben widow of Natvarbhai Haribhai Patel and others have preferred Civil Appeal No. 1296 of 1981 and the claimants of compensation case No. 4 of 1979 Mahendra Manilal Patel and another have preferred First appeal No. 1299 of 1981. ( 6 ) THE land under acquisition bearing survey Nos. 38/1, 38/2, 38/3 and 38/4 of village Paldi is admittedly located in the area ear-marked as green-belt. It is also an admitted position that it is included in Town Planning scheme No. 22. It was the case of the claimants that the land under acquisition was in a developed area and a number of societies came into existence in the vicinity of the land under acquisition. It was the case of the claimants that although the land was covered in the green-belt it had full building potentiality. In view of the fact that the land was in Town Planning Scheme no. 22 it would be available for building purposes no sooner the greenbelt was lifted. It was the case of the claimants that although the land was covered in the green-belt it had full building potentiality. In view of the fact that the land was in Town Planning Scheme no. 22 it would be available for building purposes no sooner the greenbelt was lifted. Under such circumstances, the land under acquisition should have been considered from the stand point of the market price of the land located in the neighbourhood of the land under acquisition. The Land acquisition Officer did not consider the building potentiality while evaluating the land in question for the purpose of award of compensation. The claimants, therefore, adduced evidence of various sale instances with regard to the plots/ parcels of land situated in the vicinity of the land under acquisition in the reference cases. Out of the various sale instances which have been hereafter particularised, the learned City Civil Judge referred to the sale instances of the land bearing survey No. 300 and land bearing survey No. 39 part with come approval. The learned City Civil Judge, however, discarded the said sale instances also on the ground that the land under acquisition is situated in the green-belt, by finding that the land under acquisition cannot be said to have any building potentiality on the date of Sec. 4 Notification. The learned City Civil Judge, however, took into consideration the development in the vicinity of the land under acquisition and awaided Rs. 3. 00 per sq. mtr. by way of additional compensation by fixing the market value of the land, at Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mtr. Referring to the Kharaba land, the learned city Civil Judge placed the valuation at Rs. 1000. 00 per hectare instead of rs. 100/- per hectare awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It may be noted that some portion of the land bearing survey No. 38/1 part is Kharaba land. The learned City Civil Judge also took into consideration the fact that there were confirming parties insofar as the sale transactions of land inter alia land bearing survey No. 39 Part is concerned. 100/- per hectare awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It may be noted that some portion of the land bearing survey No. 38/1 part is Kharaba land. The learned City Civil Judge also took into consideration the fact that there were confirming parties insofar as the sale transactions of land inter alia land bearing survey No. 39 Part is concerned. The main submissions of the learned Advocate for the appellants in these 4 appeals are that merely because the land in question is located in the green-belt, the sale instances which have been cited by the claimants could not have been totally discarded and that the fact that there were confirming parties in so far as some of the sale transactions are concerned, could not have weighed against consideration of the market price of the concernsd sale transactions. ( 7 ) THE questions that arise for our consideration are firstly whether none of the sale instances could be taken for consideration merely on the ground that the land under acquisition was in the green-belt and secondly, depending upon the first question, whether the claimants/appellants are entitled to any additional compensation. ( 8 ) BEFORE commencing the discussion of the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, it should be noted that the land under acquisition was within the Town Planning Scheme No. 22. Surrounded by the parcels of nonagricultural land not in the green-belt, the land under acquisition could hardly be used for agricultural purposes. It appears that for such reason the land under acquisition was sought to be compared with the parcels of land under various sale instances for the purpose of ascertaining market value. The first question, then, arises from the fact that the land under acquisition was in the green-belt when the Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was published. ( 9 ) AS before the learned City Civil Judge, in these appeals also it has been the submission on behalf of the Government that none of the sale instances could be taken up for comparison for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the land under acquisition on account of it being in the green-belt. ( 9 ) AS before the learned City Civil Judge, in these appeals also it has been the submission on behalf of the Government that none of the sale instances could be taken up for comparison for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the land under acquisition on account of it being in the green-belt. ( 10 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the claimants-appellants that it would not be correct to say that the land under acquisition did not have any building potentiality only because it was covered in the green-belt. It was as well in the Town Planning Scheme No. 22. There had been alround development in and around the city of Ahmedabad, particularly in the areas included in various town planning schemes for the city of Ahmedabad. In the development plan dated 1-10-1965 under the provisions of the Bombay town Planning Act, 1954, as it was then in force, green-belt was marked out and imposed. It was to be in force for a period of 10 years from 1- 10-1965. Thus, it would be completing its term on 1-10-1975. The Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act with regard to the land in question was published on 2-1-1975. As the land under acquisition was included in Town Planning scheme No. 22, all the advantages including the advantages arising out of non-agricultural use of the land would accrue to the land no sooner the greenbelt would be lifted. The idea behind imposition of green-belt in a development plan would obviously be to see that there should be development first within the areas surrounded by the green-belt. The reservation by the green belt strikes basically at the user of the land for the time being. Thus such land could not be used for non-agricultural purpose including construction of houses. It would not be merely for that reason correct to discard the development of the surrounding land not in the green-belt. The sale instances of surrounding land would, therefore, be relevant for ascertaining the market value of the land under acquisition. ( 11 ) A judgment of this Court in the case of Kantaben Wd/o. Dahya-bhai maganbhai v. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1979 rendered on 27/12/1990 (reported in 1991 (1) GLR 567 ) by the Division Bench consisting of S. D. Dave and s. M. Soni, JJ. ( 11 ) A judgment of this Court in the case of Kantaben Wd/o. Dahya-bhai maganbhai v. The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, in Civil Appeal No. 1109 of 1979 rendered on 27/12/1990 (reported in 1991 (1) GLR 567 ) by the Division Bench consisting of S. D. Dave and s. M. Soni, JJ. has been cited in support of the submissions made on behalf of the claimant-appellants noted above. Following observations from the judgment have been pressed into service so far as the present appeals are concerned (at page No. 570 para 8 of GLR) :"it is true that when as the land is reserved for Housing Board, then the construction over that land without the permission of the competent authority cannot be carried out and the competent authority in the circumstances of the case and particularly in view of the reservation, will not give permission for carrying out construction. So far as the land reserved in Agricultural Zone is concerned, if permission is sought to carry out construction, the same also may not be given by the competent authority, if that construction is not for the purpose of agricultural use. We do not think that the authority can refuse the permission to construct for the agricultural use. Therefore it cannot be said that the land within the agricultural zone has lost its building potentiality at all It is true that as the land is to put under restriction by putting it in a different zone, the transferability is restricted to certain extent, but is not lost. A land covered under the reservation for Housing board is anticipated to be acquired by the concerned authority for building purpose. This by itself does not mean that the said land cannot be transferred by the owner to a person having knowledge of restrictions under the reservation zone. There is no prohibition to transfer this land. At the most the purchaser may not be entitled to compensation on the basis of his purchase price in case of land being acquired as he very well knew that the land is already under reservation for housing and it is anticipated to be acquired for housing scheme. There is no prohibition to sell the land under agricultural zone. There is no dispute of the fact that any agricultural land can be sold subject to the provisions of Tenancy Act. There is no prohibition to sell the land under agricultural zone. There is no dispute of the fact that any agricultural land can be sold subject to the provisions of Tenancy Act. The land in agricultural zone can be sold by the owner to another person who is eligible to purchase agricultural land under prevailing agrarian laws. Therefore, in our opinion, the land under reservation for housing has more restricted transferability than the land reserved under the agricultural zone. The land reserved under agricultural zone can also be sold to a Co-operative Housing Society and that sale has nothing to do with its price, if in future that land is acquired for any other purpose than the agricultural. Therefore, in our opinion the land covered under agricultural zone, i. e , green belt will stand on a better footing and if not on better footing than at least on equal footing with the land reserved for housing purpose. " apart from the fact that the main question before the Division Bench in the aforesaid case was comparison of the land covered under reservation for Housing Board and the land covered under the reservation by way of imposition of green-belt, there is no absolute prohibition of transfer of land reserved in a green-belt. Gujarat Amendment in Sec. 23 (1) of the Act, therefore, sets at rest the question. The amendment of Sec. 23 sub-sec. (1) as per the Gujarat Amendment Act insofar as it is relevant for this, reads : "in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 23 : (i) xxx xxx xxx (ii) at the end of the clause fifthly the word "and" shall be deleted and after clause sixthly the following shall be added, namely - seventhly, in the case of any land which according to the terms of the tenure on which it is held is not transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the sanction of the State Government or any competent officer, the market-value of similar land held without such restriction. "accordingly Sec. 23 of the Act insofar as the aforesaid added provision is concerned would read as under :"23. Matters to be considered in determining comp-nsation : (I) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration. "accordingly Sec. 23 of the Act insofar as the aforesaid added provision is concerned would read as under :"23. Matters to be considered in determining comp-nsation : (I) In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court shall take into consideration. first, xxx xxx xxx secondly, xxx xxx xxx thirdly, xxx xxx xxx fourthly, xxx xxx xxx fifthly, xxx xxx xxx sixthly, xxx xxx xxx and seventhly, in the case of any land which according to the terms of the tenure on which it is held is not transferable or partible by metes and bounds without the sanction of the State Government or any competent officer, the market value of similar land held without such restriction. "on a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that while determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for the land under acquisition the market value of land without restriction of the nature mentioned in the seventh clause is required to be taken into consideration. What is important to be borne in mind is that in that case the restriction against transferability should not be an absolute restriction. ( 12 ) IT can be seen that the provision takes matter a step further when a particular lard is reserved under a green-belt in a development plan. Such reservation is limited in point of time as stated above and restriction arising out of such reservation is also limited to the extent of its use. It is not pointed out that there is any absolute bar of transferability of such a land at all created. The bar or restriction, if any, relates to the user of the land and the transferability, if at all restricted, also relates to a particular class of transferee. Hence, the market value of a land not in green-belt but similarly situated would have to be taken into consideration as the same would directly fall within the purview of the aforesaid clause. ( 13 ) THE result is that total non-consideration of the sale instances of the land situated in the vicinity of the land under acquisition would not be justified. The error to that extent is apparent so far as the referee Court is concerned. ( 13 ) THE result is that total non-consideration of the sale instances of the land situated in the vicinity of the land under acquisition would not be justified. The error to that extent is apparent so far as the referee Court is concerned. The result is that the sale instances on which the claimants-appellants have placed reliance both before the referee Court as well as before this Court, shall have to be taken into consideration and it shall have to be considered as to which of them is comparable with the land under acquisition. ( 14 ) BEFORE the appreciation of the documentary evidence and oral evidence concerning the sale instances is taken up for consideration, it would be appropriate to deal with the subnuasion made on behalf of the claimants-appellants with regard to non-consideration of the share of the confirming parties in the sale consideration appearing in the concerned sale instances. The learned City Civil Judge took the view that the price which the confirming parties or the intervening confirming parties would take, could not be included in the value of the land as the same would represent the profits of such intervening or confirming parties. The reason why such a price could not be taken into consideration, proceeded the learned City Civil judge, would be that such a price would show a definite trend of profiteering wherein some persons would only take agreement to purchase in tneir favour from the original owners without any intention to purchase the land comprised in the agreement to sell simply with a view to earn profit within a short time. Making submission against this view of the learned City Civil Judge, the learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Parikh for the claimants-appellants submitted for our consideration an unreported decision of this Court in Civil Appeals nos. 934 to 941 and 943 to 950 of 1978 with Civil Appeals Nos. 634 to 666 and 668 of 1979 in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition officer v. Rameshchandra Govindlal Patel and Ors. , rendered by the Division bench consisting of A. P. Ravani and M. B. Shah, JJ. on 21-8-1989. 934 to 941 and 943 to 950 of 1978 with Civil Appeals Nos. 634 to 666 and 668 of 1979 in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition officer v. Rameshchandra Govindlal Patel and Ors. , rendered by the Division bench consisting of A. P. Ravani and M. B. Shah, JJ. on 21-8-1989. ( 15 ) IN the context of the sale instances for the consideration by the Court in those cases, it was held, disagreeing with the reason given by the trial Court to the effect that the profit earned by intervening confirming party was in the nature of a booty, that there was nothing to show that the total price under a sale instance could not be considered and that the profit earned by the intervening confirming party was in any way illegal. It was held that there was no law which prohibited a person from agreeing to purchase the land by getting an agreement to sell executed in his favour and thereafter, again transferring his rights of purchasing the lands to other person. Following observations from the judgment have been read before us :"there is no law which prohibits that person cannot agree to purchase the land by getting an agreement to sell executed in his favour and thereafter he cannot transfer his rights of purchasing the land to the other person. Suppose some persons forsee a probability of increased development in a particular area and if they agree to purchase the land in that locality by agreeing to pay prevailing price of the land, say only for transferring it, then also it cannot be said that the transaction is not genuine one or in any way illegal. Thereafter, if he transfers his right to purchase the land by getting some higher price to the willing purchaser by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the profit earned by him is a booty, or that the transaction was a speculative one or bogus. It is established law that if there is a bona fide transaction between the willing purchaser and the willing vendor and if the agreement to sell is a genuine one, then it can be considered as good and relevant piece of evidence for fixing market value of the land under acquisition. The agreement to sell land is a bilateral contract enforceable in law. The agreement to sell land is a bilateral contract enforceable in law. The person who has agreed to purchase the land is required to pay the price in respect of that land agreed by him. Merely because he transfers his right to purchase the land in favour of the third person, it cannot be held that the transaction in his favour was not genuine one and profit earned by him is a booty. There is no law which prescribe that such type of profit earned by a person is illegal or that price received by him is in contravention of any law which fixes the market value of the land. " ( 16 ) TO the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench, we would also like to add that it would be a question of fact to be decided on evidence by the Court dealing with the reference cases as to whether particular transaction is a genuine transaction or a bogus transaction. The question of including or excluding price attributable to the confirming party would arise only when question of comparison of such a sale instance arises. On principle without there being any evidence on the record of the case to show that the transaction is bogus, fraudulent or speculative, the amount attributable to the confirming parties cannot be bifurcated and then deducted from the sale consideration. Question is one of consideration of a particular sale instance keeping in mind the principle, if the same is accepted for comparison with the land under acquisition. ( 17 ) AS stated above, in all these 4 appeals the question is one of comparison of the land under the acquisition with the comparison of parcels of land for which the sale instances have been pressed into service. In order to facilitate comparison, a xerox copy of a plan published by the Ahmedabad Municipal corporation is placed on the record of these appeals. The same is annexed with Civil Application No. 1346 of 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 1296 of 1981. By order dated 19-3-1991 passed by this Court, the said xerox copy of the plan has been taken on the record. The same is hereinafter referred to as the plan. For the purpose of appreciating the evidence on various survey nos. The same is annexed with Civil Application No. 1346 of 1991 in Civil Appeal No. 1296 of 1981. By order dated 19-3-1991 passed by this Court, the said xerox copy of the plan has been taken on the record. The same is hereinafter referred to as the plan. For the purpose of appreciating the evidence on various survey nos. for which the sale instances have been submitted for the consideration, it would be first necessary to set out the particulars of such sale instances. ( 18 ) THE sale instance of survey No. 44/2 at the rate of Rs. 90. 00 per sq. mtr. , 49 at the rate of Rs. 54. 00 per sq. mtr. , 47/4, 46/5 P. , 46/7 and 46/ 6 at the rate of Rs. 77. 74 ps. per sq. mtr. , 19 P. at the rate of Rs. 72/ -per sq. mtr. , 83 P. at the rate of Rs. 90. 00 per sq. mtr. (inclusive of Rs. 33. 00 for the confirming parties), 33/1 pan at the rate of Rs. 90. 00 per sq, mtr. , 51/2, 62 to 70 and 72 to 74 at the rate of Rs. 36 and Rs. 66. 00 per sq. mtr. , have been discarded by the learned City Civil Judge for various reasons. On a reference to the plan, it can be seen that as compared to the sale instances hereinafter referred to, all these plots/parcels of land repre-sentated by the relevant sale instances are situated at a distance from the land under acquisition. Thus, from the point of view of a very important consideration of proximity of the place/situation, the plots/parcels of land covered by the said sale instances are apparently not comparable with the land in question. It would not be necessary to deal with the question of proximity of time qua the various dates of sale transactions covered by the sale instances from that point of view. For this reason, it has to be found that the leained City Civil Judge has rightly discarded all these sale instances. ( 19 ) THE land bearing survey No. 39 part is located just near the land bearing survey No. 38. On a reference to the plan, it is to the North (slightly towards the West) of land under acquisit. For this reason, it has to be found that the leained City Civil Judge has rightly discarded all these sale instances. ( 19 ) THE land bearing survey No. 39 part is located just near the land bearing survey No. 38. On a reference to the plan, it is to the North (slightly towards the West) of land under acquisit. There is a plot of land bearing survey No. 36 towards the eastern direction of land under acquisition and just adjacent the land under acquisition, that is to say land bearing survey No. 38 (land under acquisition) and land bearing survey No. 36 are adjacent to each other. Land bearing survey No. 36 is again in greenbelt for which there is sale instance. These plot/parcel of land adjacent to the land bearing survey. No. 36 is the land bearing survey No. 35, which is not in green-belt and for which there is a sale instance available in the evidence adduced before the learned City Civil Judge. Below the land bearing survey No. 35, the plot/parcel of land bearing survey No. 300 is situated. One corner of land bearing survey No. 36 is adjacent to one corner of land bearing survey No. 300. Thus considering the proximity of the place, the only sale instances which can be taken up for the purpose of consideration are the sale instances for the land bearing survey No. 39, land bearing survey No. 35 and the land bearing survey No. 300. It has to be considered as to which of the plots/parcels of the land covered by these sale instances can be compared with the land under acquisition. ( 20 ) SO far as the land bearing survey No. 35 is concerned, the discussion of the evidence regarding a portion of this land appears in para 20 of the judgment of the learned City Civil Judge. The claimants have relied upon sale instances pertaining to survey Nos. 33, 34 and 35 paiki admeasuring 356 sq. yds. Exh. 39 is the document of sale which is proved by witness kantilal Dhirajlal Dixit vide his deposition Exh. 37. Accordingly sub-plot no. 10 of survey Nos. 33, 34 and 35 paiki of Paldi area admeasuring 356 sq. yds. was purchased by the witness on 18-7-1975 at the rate of rs. 50/- per sq. yard. Nothing substantial could be brought out from the cross-examination of the witness. 37. Accordingly sub-plot no. 10 of survey Nos. 33, 34 and 35 paiki of Paldi area admeasuring 356 sq. yds. was purchased by the witness on 18-7-1975 at the rate of rs. 50/- per sq. yard. Nothing substantial could be brought out from the cross-examination of the witness. Even on the perusal of the document Exh. 39, it could not be suggested that price of Rs. 50. 00per sq. yard did not reflect the real market value of the land comprised in the document Exh. 39. Posing for a moment at this stage, it may be stated that two sale transactions of 356 sq. yards each totalling to 712 sq. yards were entered into by the owners and, therefore, in substance there was a sale of land admeasuring 712 sq. yards. There was no suggestion to the witness in the cross-examination about the sale consideration, so that the fact remained that the witness paid Rs. 50. 00 per sq. yard for the land under the document to the owner of the said land. With this discussion and findings of the evidence, the learned City Civil Judge has held that land bearing survey nos. 300 and 39 paiki all the sale instances would not be comparable for the simple reason that the condition and situation of the land are not similar to that of the land under acquisition with regard to the nature of the user, the development, the proximity of the land, formation of the society, etc. In our opinion the learned City Civil Judge has committed an error in finding that the land bearing surveys Nos. 33, 34 and 35 paiki representated by the sale-deed Exh. 39 is not comparable inasmuch as the actual portion of the land is sub-plot No. 10 which is located in land bearing survey No. 35. Upon the scrutiny of the document Exh. 39 and upon the reading of the document of sale appearing at Exh. 39, this fact was conceded by the learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Parikh for the appellants. In fact he had made submissions for taking into consideration this sale instance as the most genuine and proximate both in point of time as well as in point of place. 39 and upon the reading of the document of sale appearing at Exh. 39, this fact was conceded by the learned Advocate Mr. V. S. Parikh for the appellants. In fact he had made submissions for taking into consideration this sale instance as the most genuine and proximate both in point of time as well as in point of place. As can be seen from the location of the plot of land being a portion of land comprising survey No. 35 (though described as sale of portion of land bearing survey Nos. 33, 34 and 35 paiki) described in the sale-deed Exh. 39 it is the southern portion of the land which was for sale, meaning thereby that it could not be but some portion situated to the south of survey No. 35 which was for sale under that sale transaction. In our opinion, there is no reason why for the purpose of comparison, this sale instance should not be taken into consideration. As a matter of fact, we are in agreement with the submission of the learned Advocate for the claimant-appellants that this would be the relevant sale instance which can be compared for the purpose of ascertaining the real market value of the land under acquisition on the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. The date of sale reflected by the sale instance Exh. 39 is 18-7-1975; whereas the dale of Banakhat (agreement to sell) is 12-6-1975; that is to say about 6 months later than the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. In the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 934 to 941 and 943 to 950 of 1978 with Civil Appeals Nos. 634 to 666 and 668 of 1979 in the case of Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Rameshchandra govindbhai Patel (supra), the authority contained in the case of Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, reported in AIR 1958 SC 1652 was considered and followed on principle. The factors which must be basically considered while assessing the value of the land under acquisition were reproduced. The 9th factor which has been reproduced reads :"even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine, and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospect. The 9th factor which has been reproduced reads :"even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine, and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospect. "all the aforesaid 3 conditions set out by the Supreme Court are satisfied so far as the land comprised in the sale instance of survey Nos. 33, 34 and 35 paiki reflected by document Exh. 39 is concerned. It can be seen that though the document is larer in point of time as compared to the document of sale of land bearing survey No. 300 and land bearing survey No. 39 part, from the point of view of the price reflected by the sale transaction Exh. 39 and from the point of view of proximity of place and time (bearing in mind the date of Sec. 4 Notification), the sale instance reflected by Exh. 39 is the one which satisfies all the ingredients. This can be seen from the discussion of the sale instance of land bearing survey Nos. 300 and 39 P which soon follows. On a referance to the document Exh. 39 it can be seen that there is a reference to a permission having been obtained under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. This means that the land under sale reflected by Exh. 39 was an agricultural land soon before the sale transaction. This is an additional feature which should place it on a better position for the purpose of comparison than the land bearing survey Nos. 300 and 39 P. . ( 21 ) PARA. 22 of the judgment of the learned City Civil Judge deals with the sale transaction of land bearing survey No. 300. The sale instance exh. 59 was proved through the evidence of witness Vinod Keshavlal Shah exh. 43. 300 and 39 P. . ( 21 ) PARA. 22 of the judgment of the learned City Civil Judge deals with the sale transaction of land bearing survey No. 300. The sale instance exh. 59 was proved through the evidence of witness Vinod Keshavlal Shah exh. 43. Vinod Keshavlal Shah, the member of the Managing Committee of Rangsagir Co-operative Housing Society which purchased land admeasuring 5 acres and 26 gunthas of land of Paldi area in the year 1972 by various documents, deposed that the original owners of the land executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Mulajibhai Dosabhai Kannada, who in turn executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Venus Housing corporation and Venus Housing Corporation in turn executed an agreement to sell in favour of Rangsagar Housing Corporation. The original agreement to sell executed by the owners was dated 15/04/1971 and the rate agreed was Rs. 35. 00 per sq. yd. As against that, the ultimate sale to rangsagar Housing Corporation was at the rate of Rs. 60. 00 per sq. yd. The intervening party is the same as confirming party in the document. It appeared in the cross-examination of the witness that there were about 8 to 9 different documents of sale by which various sub-plots each admeasuring about 800 to 900 sq. yds. were sold. The land bearing survey no. 300 was reconstituted as a final plot under Town Planning Scheme no. 22. As stated above, this sale instance was held to be comparable by the learned City Civil Judge. ( 22 ) NOW on a look at the map which it can be seen that the land bearing survey No. 300 is located to the south of land bearing survey No. 35. Although the corner of land bearing survey No. 36 appears touching the corner of land bearing survey No. 300, major portion of land bearing survey No. 300 is at a distance from the land bearing survey No. 36. As against that, major portion of survey No. 35 is nearer to survey No. 36 which is adjacent to the land under acquisition. Thus, from the point of view of proximity of place/situation, the land bearing survey No. 35 reflected by sale instance Exh. 39 is more comperable with the land under acquisition than the land bearing survey No. 300. As against that, major portion of survey No. 35 is nearer to survey No. 36 which is adjacent to the land under acquisition. Thus, from the point of view of proximity of place/situation, the land bearing survey No. 35 reflected by sale instance Exh. 39 is more comperable with the land under acquisition than the land bearing survey No. 300. The original transaction of entering into an agreement to sell by the owners of land bearing survey No. 300 dates back to somewhere in the month of April 1971 (the date is 15-4-1971)- The document of sale saw the light of the day somewhere in the month of May 1972 (the document of sale Exh. 59 is dated 27-5-1972 ). Thus, the transaction is two years earlier in point of time as compared to the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, so far as the land acquisition is concerned. As against this, the date of sale transaction of Exh. 39 is about 6 months later than the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act, so far as the land under acquisition is concerned. Thus, from the point of view of proximity of time, the sale instance reflected by Exh. 39 sounds more genuine and more comparable than the sale instance reflected by the Exh. 59. On a reference to para 11 of the document concerning the sals instance of survey No. 300 appearing at Exh. 59, it can be seen that the land bearing survey No. 300 was ultimately given final plot No. 135 in the Town Planning Schema No. 22. On a reference to para 13 of the documsnt, it can be seen that the permission under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act was obtainsd as back as in the month of December, 1971. Thus, the transaction itself reflects the devalopannt of the land bearing survey No. 30) during the span of period from 1971 to the date of sale, namely, 17-5-1972. The price reflected by this sale instance (Exh. 59) cannot be taken up for comparison on account of all these considerations, particularly when a better and comparable sale instance is available on the record of the case. ( 23 ) THERE are two documents of sale with regard to survey No. 39 part. The price reflected by this sale instance (Exh. 59) cannot be taken up for comparison on account of all these considerations, particularly when a better and comparable sale instance is available on the record of the case. ( 23 ) THERE are two documents of sale with regard to survey No. 39 part. They are dealt with by the learned City Civil Judge in para 23 and 24 of the judgment. The first one is the document Exh. 51 whereby land admeasuring 805 sq. yards out of land bearing survey No. 39 was sold at the rate of Rs. 51. 00 per sq. yard. The transactions of agreement to sell came to be entered into on 10-1-1973 and 22-4-1973. The sale-deed came to be executed on 21-7-1973. Here is again a case of Gopinath Apartments Cooprative society having ultimately purchased the land. Witness Mr. Kantilal prabhulal Thakkar, Chairman of the said society Exh. 49 testified to the sale instance Exh. 51. It is, no doubt true that land bearing survey No. 39 is adjacent to the land under acquisition. It is to the north of land bearing survey No. 38 (land under acquisition ). Here also there are confirming parties. The transaction, for that reason, is spread over for a period of time before it transformed into a complete sale ultimately in favour of Gopinath Apartments co-op. Housing Society Ltd. Even this land became non-agricultural land as back as in the month of June, 1973. Prior to that when agreements to sell the land were entered into between the owners of the land and the first purchaser, the process of converting the land from the agricultural to nonagricultural land might have been taken on hand. There is an apparent time gap between the date of the agreement to sell as well as the date of sale and the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act insofar as the land under acquisition is concerned. All these factors should weigh while considering the comparison of land bearing survey No. 39 P with the land under acquisition, particularly when a better parcel of land is available for consideration as discussed above. The remaining portion of the land bearing survey No. 39 p has been sold on 18-8-1975 as per Exhs. 55, 56 and 57. No particulars of earlier agreement to sell are forthcoming. The price fixed is Rs. 65. The remaining portion of the land bearing survey No. 39 p has been sold on 18-8-1975 as per Exhs. 55, 56 and 57. No particulars of earlier agreement to sell are forthcoming. The price fixed is Rs. 65. 00 per sq. yd. so far as the Exh. 55 is concerned. It appears that the price of Rs. 30. 00 per sq. yd. allocated to the confirming parties is separately stated. This sale in the absence of any earlier agreements to sell forthcoming is about 7 months later than the date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act insofar as the land under acquisition is concerned. Thus, from the point of view of various factors which are required to be taken into consideration as said by the Supreme Court, the transaction with regard to land bearing survey Nos. 33, 34 and 35sp (precisely portion of survey No. 35) reflected by Exh. 39 is comparable with the land under acquisition. We do not see any reason why, when such a comparable instance is available even according to the submissions made on behalf of the claimants/appellants, the sale instances for land bearing survey nos. 300 and 39 P should be taken for comparison. ( 24 ) THAT being the situation so far as the evidence with regard to comparable instance is concerned, it would be appropriate to state what is the position of the sale instance reflected by document Exh. 39. The land under sale is admeasuring 712 sq. yards (as a matter of fact, half of it is reflected by Exh. 39 ). The rate at which the land is sold on 18-7-1975 is Rs. 60. 00 per sq. rntr. It is not in the green-belt. As against this, the land under acquisition is comparatively forming big plot or parcels of land. They are more than 5000 sq. mtrs. in each of the cases. It is clarified that the sale instances of the land bearing survey No. 300 and land bearing survey No. 39 P are also for small plots or sub-plots of the land. Therefore, from the point of view of smallness of size, they do not stand on any belter position than survey No. 35 P covered under sals instance Exh. 39 is concerned. Therefore, from the point of view of smallness of size, they do not stand on any belter position than survey No. 35 P covered under sals instance Exh. 39 is concerned. The learned City Civil Judge has considered the authority contained in the case of Fabrics Private Limited v. Special Land Acquisition officer, Kaira, (1971) XII GLR 319 (it may be stated that the page is not correctly stated in the Jadgment of the trial Court ). The question that was for consideration of the Division Bench of this Court in that case was whether a small plot of land can ever be compared with a big plot of land under acquisition. In this respect, it was held that neither the valuer or the Court would be justified in rejecting the sale instance of a small plots as one that is not comparable sale instance only on the ground of difference in siza, and a large plot of land may, in a given 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 evaluated. In that case the land under acquisition consisted of a large block of land admeasuring 44 acres and 37 gunthas owned by a single owner. Whereas the transaction which was sought to be compared was comparatively of much smaller piece or parcel of land admeasuring one acre and 25 gunthas. Thus, the land under acquisition was more than 20 times the comparable instance. Bearing in mind that fact, a deduction of approximately 35 to 40% from the sale price of the comparable instance was made. Here in each of the cases the land under acquisition is almost similarly bigger than the sale instance which has been taken up for comparison as stated above. Besides, it is the fact that the land under acquisition is in a green-belt and is having some restrictions arising from the very nature of the zone. Whereas the land as per the comparable sale instance Exh. 39 is better developed and is not in a green-belt. Bearing in mind all these factors and the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and fair to deduct 50% from the price of Exh. Whereas the land as per the comparable sale instance Exh. 39 is better developed and is not in a green-belt. Bearing in mind all these factors and the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and fair to deduct 50% from the price of Exh. 39, namely, rs. 60/- per sq. mtr. for the purpose of coming to a real market value of the land under acquisition on the date of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. We accordingly fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 30. 00 per sq. mtr. ( 25 ) AS can be seen from the award of the Land Acquisition Officer as well as from the judgment of the learned City Civil Judge, in-all the rate of Rs. 10. 00 per sq. mtr. has been awarded to the claimants of the each of the cases. Insofar as Kharaba land is concerned, we do not agree with the conclusion of the learned City Civil Judge inasmuch as from the point of view of building purpose and non-agricultural use Kharaba nature of the land makes little difference. The fact that some portion of land is a Kharaba land would not be a relevant consideration. ( 26 ) IN the result, the claimants/appellants in each of the appeals would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 20. 00 per sq. mtr. with 15% solatium thereon. They would also be entitled to interest at the rate of 4. 5% on the total amount from the date of taking possession of land under acquisition till the date of payment. The additional compensation is directed to be worked out accordingly. ( 27 ) THE respondents in each of the cases shall pay proportionate costs to the claimants/appellants in each of the cases. ( 28 ) THE claimants/appellants shall pay proportionate costs insofar as the remaining claim which is not allowed is concerned. The appeals are accordingly allowed. .