Judgment G.C.Bharuka, J. 1. These appeals are directed against a common judgment dated 21st August, 1976 passed by the 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 110 and 114 of 1968. 2. The land in question which has been described in paragraph-2 of the impugned judgment have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) for improvement of Muzaffarpur Pipara Kothi section of Latera Road. The areas of the lands are 1.5 bigha and 2.358 acres respectively. The lands are situated in village Kaspakhuti lying in the district of Muzaffarpur. The compensation originally awarded and ultimately affirmed by the court below are Rs.3651.68p. and Rs.6425.41p., respectively. The Collector had awarded compensation by determining the price of the lands at the rate of Rs. 1161- and Rs. 114.00 per katha. But according to the land owners-applicants the market value of the lands ought to have been taken at least at Rs. 400.00 per katha which according to them was the minimum rate which could be said to be prevailed on the date of notification under Sec. 4(i) of the Act. 3. In support of their claims the applicants have examined two witnesses, namely A.W.1-Ganga Bishun Shah and A.W.2-Ram Chandra Prasad Singh. They have also filed sale deeds being Ext. 1 series. 4. On the other hand, the District Land Acquisition Officer has examined himself as D.W.I and has also filed sale deed dated 4.6.1965 which has been marked Exhibit E The date of notification under Sec. 4(i) in the present case is 31.7.1965. The sale deeds Exts. 1 to 1C are of the year 1962 and 1963 under which the agricultural lands of the areas measuring between 1, 1/2 kathas have been sold @ Rs. 400.00 per katha. As discounted by the court below and is apparent from the sale deeds these lands are bounded at least on one side by road. Exhibit-ID and 1G which evidences post-notification sales being dated 10.9.1965 and 2.9.1965 relates to sale of lands measuring 1 katha 15 dhurs and 2 kathas having sold at the rate of Rs. 800.00 and Rs. 750.00 per katha. The sale deed Ext. E relief upon by the acquisitioning authority is dated 4.6.1965 where under land measuring 1 bigha had been sold @ Rs. 90.00 per katha. 5. 800.00 and Rs. 750.00 per katha. The sale deed Ext. E relief upon by the acquisitioning authority is dated 4.6.1965 where under land measuring 1 bigha had been sold @ Rs. 90.00 per katha. 5. So far as oral evidence is concerned, both A.W.1 and A.W. 2 have admitted that the lands are situated at about nine miles away from Kanti Bazar. Keeping in view the sales in or near the village Kasbakanti as evidenced by the sale deeds Exts. 1 to 1C they have stated that the lands in the past had been sold @ Rs. 400.00 per katha. A.W.1 has also stated that the lands were being used for growing cash crops like sugarcane etc. and the same were identified by the boundaries of the land. D.W.1, the Land Acquisition Officer has deposed that he had assessed the lands after verifying the value of similarly situated lands from the register. He further stated that determining the compensation rate disclosed in the sale deed Ext. E it was the most proximate. But the date of notification was taken to be the basis for estimating the rate of the lands in question. 6. The Court below on appreciation of all the facts and materials placed before him has come to the conclusion that the compensation awarded was quite fair and reasonable. According to him, the rates of small plots as set out in sale deeds Ext. l to 1C are of no avail in the present case since those do to represent comparable scene. Similarly according to him the post-notification sales are also not of much avail for those very reasons. 7. Mr. M.P. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that looking at the rates of the lands in the area has disclosed in the sale deeds Ext. 1 series which are both prior and subsequent to the date of notification under Sec. 4 (i) of the Act it has to be admitted that in the area in question the price of the lands was having a rising trend and, therefore, even if some minus factor is added, to the price disclosed in the sale deeds for being a smaller area still the rate applied by the authorities in awarding of compensation in the present cases is unreasonably low. He has further submitted that the reliance on the sale deed Ext. E showing sale price at Rs. He has further submitted that the reliance on the sale deed Ext. E showing sale price at Rs. 90.00 per katha is misplaced as according to him in this era of speedy land acquisition the lands sold by a father to his daughter and considering the normal human conduct it can be well presumed that in view of the relationship the consideration cannot be taken to be that of a market rate, since under such sales love and affection also plays a role. 8. Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment ad for the reason assigned therein he says that the same should be upheld in this case. 9. In these appeals the only issue canvassed is regarding the rate of the land which should be applied for computing, the compensation. The Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal V/s. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona reported in -- has laid down the criteria for ascertainment of the market value of the land for the purpose of quantification of compensation. The guidelines have been set out in paragraph-4 of the judgment which reads as under. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (1) A reference under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates on Notification under Sec. 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The termination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Sec. 4 as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase and 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. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to co-relate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (6) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land). (9) Even post-notification instance can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition, itself has to motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) 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. (11) Having identified the instances which provides 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 deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. Plus factors 1. smallness of size. 2. proximity to a road. 3. frontage on a road. 4. nearness to developed area. 5. regular shape. 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (14) The exercise indicated in Clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: (15) 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. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 1000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. Minus factors 1. largenessof area. 2. situationinthe interiorat a distance fromthe road. 3. narrow stripof land with very small frontage compared to depth 4. Minus factors 1. largenessof area. 2. situationinthe interiorat a distance fromthe road. 3. narrow stripof land with very small frontage compared to depth 4. lower level requiring the depress portion to be filled up. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must pace himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. 10. Keeping in view the submissions made at the bar and the reasons assigned for not accepting any of the documents as basis for determining the compensation in the present case in my opinion, none of the sale deeds represents a comparable instance for ascertaining the market value of the lands in question. Nonetheless it cannot be denied that value of the land was gradually increasing in the area. Admittedly during the pre-notification period i.e. 1962-63 the plots of land though much smaller in nature and having some roads in their boundaries were sold in the area @ Rs. 400.00 per katha but the fact remains that by the time the notification under Sec. 4 was issued the general value of the land in the area had almost doubled. In this view of the matter taking the former to be a minus factor and the latter to be a plus factor to be reasonable, the price of the land in question can be fairly taken to be 50% of the price at which the smaller lands were sold during the pre-notification period as referred to above. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant-land owners be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 200.00 per katha. It is also directed that they should also be given the solatium at the rate of 15% and interest at the rate of 6% as provided under Sec. 23(2) and 34 of the Act. in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India V/s. Raghubir Singh reported in -- alongwith proportionate cost to the extent the claim is allowed.