R. K. ABICHANDANI J.-, J. ( 1 ) THESE appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22. 2. 1991 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in a group of Land Acquisition Cases for which reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made. The appeals filed by the State are against the enhanced rates granted by the learned Judge while the appeals filed by the claimants are for claiming further amounts. The additional claim made in the High Court is Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. The Land Acquisition officer had fixed the price of irrigated land at Rs. 24. 00 per sq. mtr. for Category-1 being lands which about on the Naliya Road. He awarded Rs. 22. 00 per sq. mtr. for Category-2 being non irrigated land which also about on the Naliya Road. For Category-3 being irrigated lands having no frontage he awarded Rs. 22 per sq. mtr. and for Category-4 which were non irrigated lands having not frontage rate of Rs. 20. 00 per sq. mtr. was awarded. In the Reference Cases filed by the claimants the Extra Assistant Judge fixed the compensation for irrigated lands of categories I and 3 at Rs. 104/- per sq. mtr. and in respect of Categories 2 and 4 at Rs. 9/- per sq. mtr. Thus he awarded additional amount of Rs. 80/- per sq. mtr. to the claimants of Category-1 Rs. 72/- per sq. mtr. to the claimants of Category-2 Rs. 82/- per sq. mtr. to the claimants of Category-3 and Rs. 74/- per sq. mtr. to the claimants of Category-4. In case of new tenure lands he directed that deduction of 5% should be made from the compensation fixed. Solatium and interest were awarded at the rates prescribed by law. ( 2 ) THE lands which are the subject matter of this group were noticed under section 4 of the Act for acquisition on 7. 7. 1983 for the purpose of Gandhinagar capital development Sector 4. Notifications under section 6 of the Act were issued between 13. 9. 1984 and 19. 12. 1985. Admittedly all the lands were agricultural lands. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 22. 9 and the possession of these lands was taken away between 22. 9. 1986 and 8. 10. 1986. Against the award at the rate of Rs. 20/- to Rs. 24 per sq. mtr. 9. 1984 and 19. 12. 1985. Admittedly all the lands were agricultural lands. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on 22. 9 and the possession of these lands was taken away between 22. 9. 1986 and 8. 10. 1986. Against the award at the rate of Rs. 20/- to Rs. 24 per sq. mtr. made by the Land Acquisition officer the claimants in their Reference claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/- per sq. mtr. ( 3 ) BEFORE the Lower Court reliance was placed on auction sale of various plots which were situated in Sectors 16 22 21 and 11. These instances did not find favour with the Lower Court as these plots were in developed Sectors. The Lower Court also did not accept the evidence in the form of revenue entries at Exh. 93 to 100 relied upon on behalf of the State for showing the value of the lands which was reflected in those entries. These were discarded on the ground that they could not be accepted as evidence of sale transactions. Reliance was placed by the claimants on valuation report prepared by one Mr. Rami produced at Exh. 71 This Valuation Report also did not find favour with the Lower Court on the ground that admittedly he had not assessed the value of agricultural land as he had no licence to assess such agricultural lands and he had taken into consideration the auction sale price of plots sold in Sectors 21 and 20 which were not in the vicinity of the lands under acquisition which were in Sector 4. The theory adopted by the expert regarding fall in purchase price of rupee was not approved for its application in case of assessing the market value of land. The Lower Court then considered the judgment and award at Exh. 61 in the Land Acquisition case No. 215 of 1984 and found that it was in respect of Lands which were situated in Sector 14 and one of the survey numbers was on eastern side of Sector 13. It was noted that these lands were not in the vicinity of the lands under acquisition. The Lower Court then found that approximate distance of the lands in question in Sector 4 from Sectors 11 16 20 and 21 was not less than 2 1/2 K. Ms. This factual aspect is not disputed. In the judgment (Exh. It was noted that these lands were not in the vicinity of the lands under acquisition. The Lower Court then found that approximate distance of the lands in question in Sector 4 from Sectors 11 16 20 and 21 was not less than 2 1/2 K. Ms. This factual aspect is not disputed. In the judgment (Exh. 61) it was found that net profit of land in question was Rs. 13/- to Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. and on that basis it was found that amount of Rs. 130/- per sq. mtr. would be sufficient to compensate the claimants. Adopting this method and relying upon the evidence of the claimants that the net profit from the lands in question was Rs. 10 0 per Bigha the Court found that the income would come to Rs. 4. 35 per sq. mtr. per year and an amount of Rs. 43. 50 was required to be deposited at the rate of 10% interest for coming income of Rs. 4. 35 per sq. mtr per year. The Lower Court however found this to be inadequate and adopting the method of capitalising return by applying 15 multiples in computing the capitalised value of the land found that net income per sq. mtr. would come to Rs. 65 The Court then proceeded to observe that while fixing the compensation potential development of lands under acquisition must be considered. The learned Judge then observed as under: these lands acquired in Sector 4 would not after its acquisition be used for agricultural purpose. These lands will definitely be used for non agricultural purpose and so this factor I would like to consider very much for fixing the price of these lands. Finding that there were no comparable instances and discarding the expert evidence the Lower Court further observed as under: And so we have to resort to the method of capitalised return. But this method only would not serve purpose in fully compensating the claimants because we have yet to consider future potential development of this land under acquisition because these lands are now to be used for agricultural purpose. After their acquisition they will be used for non agricultural purpose namely for residence shopping commercial etc. So the question would be how much more compensation should be allowed for the factor of potential development over and above the amount of Rs. After their acquisition they will be used for non agricultural purpose namely for residence shopping commercial etc. So the question would be how much more compensation should be allowed for the factor of potential development over and above the amount of Rs. 65/- which we have arrived by applying method of capitalising return and number of year purchase. There is no guideline for fixing value of land for this factor of the potential development of the land which is to be acquired by the Government. I think that on this count the reasonable amount would be the amount double that the amounts of Rs. 65 which we have arrived at applying the method of capitalising return for potential development. Having arrived at the figure of Rs. 130/- per sq. mtr. the Lower Court then proceeded to deduct 20 for development-costs and arrived at the figure of Rs. 104/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs. 94/- per sq. mtr. for non irrigated lands. ( 4 ) IT was contended on behalf of the State government that the multiplier of 15 adopted by the Lower Court while applying the method of capitalising return was not warranted and the appropriate multiplier would be 10 in such cases. It was further argued on behalf of the state that the Lower Court could not have taken into account the fact the after acquisition these lands would be used for non agricultural purpose for awarding higher rate of compensation as it has done. In this regard reliance was placed on the provisions of Section 24 (Fifthly) which provides that the Court shall not take into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the claimants on the other hand contended that the Lower Court should have accepted the sale instances in form of public action which were relied upon by the claimants as also the Experts report. It was argued that potential development of the lands in dispute could not be ignored. All these lands though agricultural had building potential which ought to be taken into account. The instances of auction sales were relevant for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the lands in Sector 4 and they could be termed as neighbouring instances. It was argued that potential development of the lands in dispute could not be ignored. All these lands though agricultural had building potential which ought to be taken into account. The instances of auction sales were relevant for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the lands in Sector 4 and they could be termed as neighbouring instances. It was argued that most of the lands were covered by the Gujarat New Capital (Periphery) Control Act 1960 and therefore could not have been put to any different use by virtue of provisions of Section 11 of that Act. Some of these lands wore made part of Gandhinagar and were taken out from Village Vavol. ( 6 ) RELYING upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar vs. Town Improvement Trust Bhopal AIR 1989 SC 1222 the counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that in estimating the marked value of the land all of the capabilities of the land and all its legitimate purposes to which it may be applied or for which it may be adopted are to be considered. It was held by the Supreme Court in this case that the proper principle is to ascertain the market value of the land taking into consideration the special value which ought to be attached to this special advantage possesses by the land; namely its proximity to developed unbanised areas. It was observed that the market value of the land acquired has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. Considering this aspect of the matter and the potential value of the land as urban developed area the compensation in that case was enhanced by 1/6th to Rs. 14 0 per acre. ( 7 ) IN Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector Varanasi AIR 1988 SC 943 on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants it was held that the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas for the reason that the former reflects the retail price of land and the latter the wholesale price. Where the value fixed for large extent of land acquired worked out to 40% of retail price it was held that there was no justification for interference with determination of value. It was observed that deduction for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can together come upto 53%. Those decision far from supporting the case of the claimants indicate that the prices father for small plots cannot be directly applied in case of a large area. Therefore the plots which were in the developed area in respect of which auction sales are relied upon by the claimants cannot be made the basis for fixing the price of land in undeveloped area of Sector 4 which land admittedly was more than 21/2 K. Ms. away from the developed plots which wore the. subject matter of the auction sales. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the claimants also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer AIR 1988 SC 1652 in which various factors which are required to be borne in mind while determining the market value of the land have been set out. It was observed that evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case and that there cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. In the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Makhan Singh and another AIR 1992 SC 1406 which was also referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the claimants while slicing down 1/6th amount from the rate reflective from sale instance which was relied upon and 1/3rd from the rate granted in the award the Supreme Court applied the rule of thumb taking into account the poor locale disadvantageous position and other relevant circumstances of the case. ( 9 ) RELIANCE was also placed on the judgment in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Davengere vs. P. Veerabhadarappa AIR 1984 SC 774 on behalf of the claimants for contending that the Lower Court should have relied upon the other material namely auction sales and experts report and ought not to have adopted the method of capitalising It was held in the said case that normally the method of capitalising the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. It can be resorted to only when no other method is available. This obviously means that when no other reliable method is available and when there are no comparable instances method of capitalising the profits or the rent of number of years purchase can be adopted. ( 10 ) IN the case of Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Yamanappa Basalingappa Chalwadi JT 1994 (2) SC 179 the Supreme Court noted that suitable multiplier which would be applicable to the agricultural crops was held to be ten years multiplier in Special Land Acquisition officer Davangare vs. P. Veerabhadarappa and Ors. (supra) The Supreme Court found that 10 years multiplier would be proper method in determining the total market value by following the method of capitalisation as just and reasonable principle. The Court proceeded on the footing that two crops were raised in the lands under acquistion. ( 11 ) IN the present case the claimants had relied upon the auction sales of various plots which had taken place between the years 1970 and 1983 These sale instances were in respect of plots situated in Sectors 11 16 21 and 22 From the material on record it appears that these polts were situated in the Sectors where development had taken place In the Master Plan of Gandhinagar which is at Exh. 21 which was printed in August 1982 it was in terms mentioned that Sectors 1 2 3 4 5 14 25 and 26 were not developed whereas remaining Sectors were at different stages of development It would be noted from the legend in the Map (Exh. 21 which was printed in August 1982 it was in terms mentioned that Sectors 1 2 3 4 5 14 25 and 26 were not developed whereas remaining Sectors were at different stages of development It would be noted from the legend in the Map (Exh. 21) that there was development in Sectors 11 16 21 and 22 while there was no development at all in Sector 4 The distance of the developed Sectors from Sector 4 is more than 2 1/2 K Ms Therefore the auctions which took place of the developed plots in developed Sectors cannot be said to be comparable instances with the undeveloped lands situated in undeveloped Sector 4 In our view therefore the Lower Court was justified in not relying upon the sale instances Exhs. 24 to 34 and 62 to 65 which were in respect of developed small plots in sectors 11 16 21 and 22 ( 12 ) AS regards the experts evidence at Exh. 71 it appears that this witness Mr. Rami had seen the lands of Sector 4 in the year 1990 and he had taken sale instances of sectors 11 21 and 22 where development had already taken place. Admittedly he had not assessed the value of agricultural lands and was not Licensed to take up such assessment of agricultural lands He had taken into consideration auction price of plots which were not in the vicinity of Sector 4 We find ourselves in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Lower Court in not accepting the Valuation Report Exh. 71 ( 13 ) THE State Govt. had placed reliance on the Revenue entries at Exhs. 92 to 100 which reflected the price of the agricultural lands which were sold Though there is reference to sales of agricultural lands in these entries they cannot be considered as evidence of actual sale transactions and therefore the Lower Court was justified in not relying upon these instances adduced on behalf of the State. ( 14 ) THUS there is no reliable evidence in form of comparable sales and the Court was left with no alternative but to adopt the capitalisation method for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the land under acquisition. The evidence of the claimants discloses that not income per Bigha of the land in dispute was Rs. 10 000/- On this admitted premise the income per sq. The evidence of the claimants discloses that not income per Bigha of the land in dispute was Rs. 10 000/- On this admitted premise the income per sq. mtr. per year has been worked out to Rs. 4. 35. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. Yamanappa B. Chalwadi (supra) the proper multiplier which would be applicable in such cases would be ten. The Lower Court therefore committed an error in adopting the multiplier of 15 without there being any special reason for adopting such higher multiplier. Therefore in our opinion the market value of these agricultural lands would come to Rs. 43. 50 per sq. mtr. The Lower Court could not have taken into account the factors which could not be considered under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and therefore it could not have taken into consideration any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put when acquired as per Clause Fifthly of Section 24. However the existing potential value of the land is required to be taken into account. Sector 4 though an undeveloped area has been included in the Master Plan of the Capital Town and is at a distance of about 2 1/2 K. Ms. from the developed area. Having regard to all the attendant facts and circumstances and more particularly the location of the land its proximity to the developed area existing potential of its use the time that it would take to develop and all of the capabilities of the land in our opinion rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. mtr. will be a just rate. The claimants will also be entitled to solatium and interest at the rates at which they are awarded by the Lower Court. Having regard to the potential use to which the lands could be put we do not find it necessary to adopt different rates for the four categories and in our view the compensation should be awarded at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq. mtr. for all the lands under acquisition. In case of new tenure lands there will be the usual deduction at the rate of 5% from the compensation fixed above. 50/- per sq. mtr. for all the lands under acquisition. In case of new tenure lands there will be the usual deduction at the rate of 5% from the compensation fixed above. ( 15 ) IN the result the appeals filed on behalf of the State Government are allowed to the above extent and the Cross Objections filed in these appeals stand dismissed. The appeals filed by the claimants are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Accordingly. .