Judgment :- Thangamani, J. Lands measuring an extent of 698.73 acres in Mukthapudupet village and Koilpadagai village of Saidapet Taluk were acquired as a block for the purpose of Heavy Vehicles Factory in Avadi under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act XXX of 1951 An extent of 62.42 acres in S.F.No.64 and 2.45 acres in S.F.No.63/2 of Mukthapudupet village belonging to the first appellant formed part of them. The notification under Sec.7(1) of the Act was published in the Gazette dated 210. 1971 as per Ex.A-1. The relevant “J” notice was given in July, 1972. The Special Deputy Collector in his Award Proceedings No.Rc.141/72-L.2, dated 30.6.1973 (Ex.B-2) fixed the value of lands at Rs.64/- per cent on the basisof Ex.B-1 sale deed dated 11. 1971 alter considering 56 sales of lands bearing the same tharam and assessment as that of the acquired lands in the locality. Since the land owner claimed enhanced compensation, the Collector of Chengalpattu at the instance of the Land Acquisition Officer made a reference to the District Judge, Chengalpattu under Sec.8(l) of Central Act XXX of 1952. The Arbitrator (District Judge, Chengalpattu) on enquiry fixed the land value at Rs.150 per cent and enhanced the value of casuarina trees from Rs.5,000 to Rs. 10,000. Not satisfied with the said decision, the land owner has come forward with this appeal, claiming Rs.250 per cent for the land and Rs.20,000 for the casuarin a trees. 2. Under Ex.B-1 the data land which is an extent of 47 1/2 cents in S.F.No.38/4 of Mukthapudupet village has been sold for Rs.3,000 on 11. 1971. This works out to Rs.64 per cent. Holding that the lands covered under Ex.B-1 are similar in nature to the acquired lands, the Special Deputy Collector for Land Acquisition adopted the value mentioned in that sale deed. Learned Arbitrator (District Judge) relied on Exs. A-16 and A-17 and arrived at a compensation at Rs.150 per cent. These are sale deeds dated 112. 1971 and 24. 1972 respectively. Under Ex.A-16 an extent of 103/4 cents in S.F.N635/ 2 of Mukthapudupet village has been conveyed for Rs.1,800. Under Ex.A-17 an extent of 6 cents in S.F.No.35/1 of Mukthapudupet village has been sold for Rs.1,000. The rate per cent under these two sale deeds comes to Rs.167. These are sale deeds dated 112. 1971 and 24. 1972 respectively. Under Ex.A-16 an extent of 103/4 cents in S.F.N635/ 2 of Mukthapudupet village has been conveyed for Rs.1,800. Under Ex.A-17 an extent of 6 cents in S.F.No.35/1 of Mukthapudupet village has been sold for Rs.1,000. The rate per cent under these two sale deeds comes to Rs.167. Learned counsel for the appellants assailed this finding and argued that the acquired lands when developed and plotted out as housesites would be more valuable than the properties covered by Exs.A-18 to A-21. Mainly on the basis of Exs.A-14 and A-15 he pleaded that the value should be enhanced to Rs.250 per cent. Ex.A-14 is the sale deed dated 12. 1971 for Rs.4,000 in respect of 17 cents in S.F.No.215/5 in Mitna-mallee village. Ex.A-15 is the sale deed dated 13. 1972 covering an extent of 6 1/2 cents in S.F.No.215/1 in Mitnamallee village for Rs.1,875. The rates per cent under these two sale deeds come to Rs.235 and Rs.288 respectively. Though the claimant as P.W.I states in his evidence that the lands covered under Exs.A-14 and A-15 are similar to his lands, he admits that they are situate about 11/2 miles away from his fields. We also find from the plan Ex. A-10 that Mitnamallee village is north of Mukthapudupet wherein the acquired lands are located. And there is no proximity between these lands and S.F.No.215/1 and 5 of Mitnamallee village conveyed under Ex. A-14 and A-15. P.W.2 Venkatesan, karnam of Mukthapudupet, Mitnamallee and the group of villages from 1952 to 1980 also swears that Mitnamallee is north of Mukthapudupet. The evidence of R.W.1 Subba Rao, Head Clerk of Chengalpattu Collectorate is to the effect that only small extents are dealt with under Exs.A-14 and A-15. So we cannot take the value per cent mentioned in Exs. A-14 and A-15 as a safe guide to arrive at the compensation amount. 3. Exs.A-15 to A-9 also cannot come to the rescue of the appellants since those sale deeds have come into existence subsequent to “J” notification on 30.8.1972. So we cannot take the value per cent mentioned in Exs. A-14 and A-15 as a safe guide to arrive at the compensation amount. 3. Exs.A-15 to A-9 also cannot come to the rescue of the appellants since those sale deeds have come into existence subsequent to “J” notification on 30.8.1972. Learned counsel for the appellants cited the decision in Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1652, in support of his contention that the value mentioned in the sale deeds which have come into existence subsequent to the notification can also form the basis for arriving at the market value of the acquired lands. No doubt, the Supreme Court has laid down in the abovesaid decision that 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 prospects. But we have already seen that the plots covered by Exs.A-14 and A-15 are far away from the acquired lands and in view of the absence of proximity between the two fields, no reliance could be placed on Exs.A-14 and A-15. 4. The next set of documents pressed into service by learned counsel for the appellants are Exs. A-18 to A-21. These are sale deeds dated 11. 1971, 31. 1971, 13. 1971 and 27. 1971. The rate per cent under these sale deeds comes to Rs.318, Rs.400, Rs.500 and Rs.479 respectively. However, these fields are in Thandarai village which is admittedly south of Mukthapudupet village. A perusal of Ex.A-11 plan discloses that Survey No.405 conveyed under Exs.A-19 and A-21 and Survey No.366 dealt with under Ex. A-20 are on the southern extremity of that village and about the railway line from Madras to Thiruvallur. Besides, these fields are situate, quite close to Madras-Thiruval-lur Trunk Road, P.W.I also admits that the lands covered by Exs.A-18 toA-21are about a mile from his fields. The road from Madras to Thiruvallur passes through Thandarai village. The village is on either side of the road. He is not aware of the number of factories situate on either side of the road. The evidence of R.W.1 Subba Rao is to the effect that, there are workshops, factories and houses on either side of Thiruvallur-Thandarai trunk road which runs across Thandarai village. The village is on either side of the road. He is not aware of the number of factories situate on either side of the road. The evidence of R.W.1 Subba Rao is to the effect that, there are workshops, factories and houses on either side of Thiruvallur-Thandarai trunk road which runs across Thandarai village. Those lands are very valuable, and the lands covered by Exs.A-18 to A-21 are 11/2 miles away from the acquired lands. Further, the extent conveyed under these four sale deeds are 5 cents, 10 cents, 11 cents and 24 cents. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision in Bhagwathula v. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, A.I.R 1992 S.C. 2298, wherein it has been held that the proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not an absolute one. In given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted. But in the instant case there is no evidence on the part of the appellant that the block of lands acquired because of their advantageous position are capable of being used for the purpose for which extents ranging from 5 cents to 24 cents were sold under Exs.A-18 to A-21. 5. Learned Arbitrator has taken the value given in Exs.A-16 and A-17 on the ground that they are of the same village. S.F.No.35 covered by Exs.A-16 and A-17 and the acquired lands in Survey Nos.63 and 64 are in close proximity to each other. Ex.A-10 plan discloses that there are only about 10 survey fields in between the two lands. And P.W.I admits in cross-examination that he has sworn to an affidavit to his application in I.A.No.368 of 1977 that the fields covered under Exs.A-16 and A-17 are similar to the lands acquired. This factor also goes to strengthen the view of learned Arbitrator that it is just to adopt the value mentioned in these two sale deeds as the basis for awarding compensation. This factor also goes to strengthen the view of learned Arbitrator that it is just to adopt the value mentioned in these two sale deeds as the basis for awarding compensation. 6. Under Sec.8(3) of Central Act XXX of 1952| compensation payable for the acquisition of any property shall be the price which the requisitioned property would have fetched in the open market if it had remained in the same condition as it was at the time of requisitioning and been sold on the date of acquisition. And there is no dispute that the lands under acquisition are dry cultivable lands. The market value envisages the price which’ a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending upon the extent and nature of the land sold. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. The Supreme Court has pointed out in Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1652, that while determining market value of land, the following factors have to be borne in mind: .(1) Date of publication of notification. .(2) Date line of valuation 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. .(3) 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. .(4) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land). .(5) 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 higher Driceon account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. .(6) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: .(i) proximity from time angle, .(ii) Proximity from situation angle. .(6) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: .(i) proximity from time angle, .(ii) Proximity from situation angle. .(7) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deducted by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. .(8) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. .(9) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deducted by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. The exercise indicated in clauses (1) to (9) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. 7. The Apex Court has also given some illustrative, factors: Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size 1. Largerness of area. 2. Proximity to a road 2. Situation in the interiorat a distance from the road. 3. Frontage on a road 3. Narrow strip of land with verysmall frontage compared to depth. 4. Nearbess to developed 4. Lower level requiring the areadepressed protion to be filled up. 5. Regular shape 5. Remoteness from developed locality. 6. Level vus-a-vis land under acquisition 6. Some special disadvantageous factorwhich would deter a purchaser. .7. Special value for an owner of an adjoiningproperty to whom it may have some veryspecial advantage. .The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. On a close scrutiny of the materials on record in the light of the principles enunciated above, we are of the view that learned Arbitrator has correctly fixed the value of the land at Rs. 150 per cent. .8. The first appellant has claimed Rs.20,000 for the value of casuarina trees in 10 acres of the acquired land. Whereas learned Arbitrator has fixed the value at Rs.10,000. 150 per cent. .8. The first appellant has claimed Rs.20,000 for the value of casuarina trees in 10 acres of the acquired land. Whereas learned Arbitrator has fixed the value at Rs.10,000. On this aspect P.W.I merely states that there were 3 or 4 years old casuarina trees in 10 acres of land at the time of requisition. But his version in cross-examination is to the effect that those trees were planted by his vendors. When he purchased the land, they were 3 or 4 years old. He does not know whether they were 3 years old at the time of requisition. They were about 4 to 5 feet height. Whereas R.W.I deposes that the trees were only 2 years old at the time of requisition. They have calculated their value at Rs.5,000 on the basis that the saplings were worth Rs.300and the land owner would have spent Rs. 1,000 in making the land fit for transplantation and Rs.100 to transplant them and Rs.3,600 as watering charges for two years. There is no cross-examination on this aspect of evidence. Instead it was elicited from him that there is no mention of the girth of the trees in Ex.B.7 the report of the Special Revenue Inspector dated 29. 1943. The market rate of firewood would be published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. They did not estimate what would be the value of firewood if the trees are cut. This witness denies the suggestion that the yield of trees per acre was 75 tonnes. He does not know what was the price of casuarina trees in 1943. However, it is his version that they ascertained from Forest Department that the trees were three years old and on that basis their value was arrived at. It is significant to note that as per the appeal memorandum on account of Second World War conditions firewood was very scarce and was in much demand at the time of requisition and so the value of casuarina trees should have been fixed at Rs.20,000. However, neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 has stated in their evidence that would be the yield of firewood per acre if casuarina trees of 3 or 4 years old are cut and what was the price prevailing at the relevant time. The claimant has not filed any documentary evidence also in this connection. While so, we cannot say that the value of Rs. The claimant has not filed any documentary evidence also in this connection. While so, we cannot say that the value of Rs. 10,000 fixed by learned Arbitrator for the casuarina trees in low. 9. In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of learned Arbitrator and the appeal is dismissed. No costs.