Judgment :- Balakrishnan, J. These two appeals arise from the same judgment passed in L.A.R. No. 131 of 1983. The judgment dated 18th December, 1987 in L.A.R.131 of 1983 is a revised judgment passed pursuant to a remand order of this court in L.A. A. No. 353 of 1986. L.A.A. No. 76 of 1989 is filed by the State and L.A.A. No. 85 of 1989 is filed by claimants 1 and 2. 2. An extent of 2.6985 hectares of land in Sy. Nos. 170/1-4, 170/1-6, 7, 9,12,14 and 28 of Athiyanoor Village in Neyyattinkara Taluk was acquired for the purpose of starting a factory for the manufacture of Three Wheeler Autorikshaws. S.3(1) notification was published on 12-2-80. Advance possession of land was taken from claimants 1 and 2 on 31-3-80 and from other claimants on 15-4-80. A total amount of Rs. 5,71,558.68 was awarded as compensation. For the purpose of valuation of the land, the property was divided into three belts. The value of the property abutting the highway was fixed at Rs. 1830/- per Are and the value of the property abutting the municipal road was fixed at Rs. 1545/- per Are. The portion of the property which had no access to the road was valued at Rs. 1,450/- per Are. All the claimants received compensation amount under protest and sought for enhancement of the same. The matter was referred to Sub Court under S.20 of the Land Acquisition Act. By the impugned judgment, the land acquisition court revised the land value for the first category and fixed it at Rs. 7350/- per Are and for the second category the land value was fixed at Rs. 5450/- per Are and for the third category the land value was fixed at Rs. 4287/- per Are. Thus, for the first category there was enhancement of Rs. 5520/- per Are, for the second category there was an enhancement of Rs. 3926/-. The property of the appellants in L.A.R.85 of 1989 fell within the first and second category. So, we are mainly concerned with the enhancement allowed for the properties comprised in category Nos.1 and 2. 3. The learned Government Pleader contended that the enhancement allowed by the court below is highly excessive and the court relied on the documents which came into existence after 4(1) notification. So, we are mainly concerned with the enhancement allowed for the properties comprised in category Nos.1 and 2. 3. The learned Government Pleader contended that the enhancement allowed by the court below is highly excessive and the court relied on the documents which came into existence after 4(1) notification. It is also contended that the court below erred in relying on the documents relating to sale of smaller extent of property for fixing the land value of the acquired property which is having an extent more than 5 acres. It is argued that the court should not have accepted the commission report. 4. Counsel for the appellants in L.A.A. 85 of 1989 contended that the fixation of land value by the Land Acquisition Officer and the court below is patently erroneous and the acquired property should not have been valued by adopting "belt" system. According to the counsel for the appellants, the entire properties had the same advantage and benefits and hence they should have been valued uniformly. It is also contended that the "belt" system was applied without any rational basis and this has seriously prejudiced the rights of the claimants. Counsel for the appellants also argued that there was satisfactory evidence to prove that the land value of that locality around the date of 4(1) notification was Rs. 6000/- per cent and the fixation of the land value by the court below for a lesser amount is illegal and liable to be interfered with by this Court. 5. The first contention raised by me claimants' counsel is that in the instant case belt system should not have been adopted for valuing the land and that the entire Ian should have been valued uniformly. Counsel for the claimants further submits that be certain areas of that land are at a disadvantageous situation and even if such a system is adopted it should not be arbitrary or unreasonable. In an earlier decision of this Court it was held that adoption of belt system will cause prejudice to the owners of the property. The Court observed: "The arbitrary manner in which property is divided into parts for the purpose of valuation cases prejudice to the owners of the property. In an earlier decision of this Court it was held that adoption of belt system will cause prejudice to the owners of the property. The Court observed: "The arbitrary manner in which property is divided into parts for the purpose of valuation cases prejudice to the owners of the property. Such a method of valuation in land acquisition cases which is technically known as valuation by belts by artificially dividing the property into belts or plots is generally discouraged for the obvious reason that it involves a considerable extent of arbitrariness". (See Ananthan Filial v. State of Kerala (1961 KLT 723). He also hasten to add that that this observation was made in a case where the property had public road on the west and southern side and there was a pathway having a width of 10 links on the northern side of this property. 6. In Mariyam and others v. State and others ( A.I.R 1980 Kerala 176) Poti, J. as he then was, held: "Therefore while scientifically and theoretically there can be no objection to the valuation on the basis of the system of belting unless it is resorted to by expert valuers well-versed in the rule of belting and they act on appropriate materials which would justify the classification adopted by them". 7. The Supreme Court had also occasion to consider the question of valuation by adopting belt system and that was approved in State of U.P. v. Ram Swamp (1971 (3) SCC 857) we do not think that belting system for the purpose of valuation is thoroughly unscientific and arbitrary. It is true that in the case of acquisition of small plots adoption of belt system has no place as the land can obtain a uniform market value for the entire land. But, in the case of larger extent the entire property may not have all the advantageous. If a portion of the property is lying by the side of a public road that will definitely fetch larger price as it has got more commercial and other potentialities. That portion of the land which is lying away from the road is likely to get only a lesser price. It is true that the entire land could be provided with access to road but for that purpose major portion of the land have to be set apart for construction of roads and by-lanes. That portion of the land which is lying away from the road is likely to get only a lesser price. It is true that the entire land could be provided with access to road but for that purpose major portion of the land have to be set apart for construction of roads and by-lanes. In Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust ( A.I.R 1982 SC 940) the Supreme Court held that even an extent of 20% of the land acquired is normally taken as a reasonable deduction for the space required for the roads. The Supreme Court held: "It is well-settled principle of valuation that where there is a large area of undeveloped land under acquisition, provision has to be made for providing the minimum amenities of town such as water connection, well laid out roads, drainage facility, electric connection etc". In that case, the Tribunal had directed a deduction of 33% of the market value as developmental charges. This direction was held to be not arbitrary or unreasonable by the Supreme Court. 8. In one of the earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court reported in Government of Bombay v. Karim Tar Mohammed (1908 I.L.R Bombay 325) belting system was approved and was held that: "When determining the value of the frontage land the depth is a question of supreme importance and what is suitable depth will depend on the character of the building in the locality. But in an ordinary shop and chawl locality it had been the custom for the surveyor to calculate the depth at 100 feet". From these various decisions it is clear that the valuation by belt system is not illegal but the same could be applied in a manner which would not cause prejudice to the land owner. 9. In the instant case, we do not think that the petitioner is in any way seriously prejudiced by the valuation made by the Land Acquisition Officer by adopting belt system. The property of the appellants in L.A.A. 85/89 comes only within the first two belts. The first belt property is having road frontage of national highway. The property included in the second belt is by the side of a municipal road. The third category of property does not have any access either to the municipal road or to the national highway. The first belt property is having road frontage of national highway. The property included in the second belt is by the side of a municipal road. The third category of property does not have any access either to the municipal road or to the national highway. It may also be noticed that there was a water channel through this property. At the time of acquisition the property which was lying beyond the water channel, had no direct access either to the national highway or to the pathway that situated on the southern side. There is some dispute regarding the pathway that situated on the southern side. The evidence adduced by the State indicated that it was also a small country lane having a width of 16 links and only after the land acquisition this bye-lane was converted into a pucca municipal road. The Commissioner who visited the property has described it as a municipal road but did not make any enquiry as to what was its position at the time of acquisition. It is true that the property of the appellants in L.A.A. 85/89 was abutting National Highway. But we do not think that the entire five acres of land could have the advantage of this national highway. It may be noticed that while considering the market value of the land, the land is not to be valued by the use to which it is put at the time of S.4(1) notification but by reference to the use to which it is being reasonably capable of in future, or in other words, it is the possibilities of the land and not its relies possibilities that must be taken into consideration. If this land had been used for residential plots naturally it had to be divided into various plots and for that purpose atleast 20 to 30 percent of the land should have been used for laying out roads and bye-lanes. Only that portion which is abutting the national highway could be used for commercial purpose for putting up buildings for shops or business places. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that the entire land value ought to have been uniformly valued without their being belting system for valuation. 10. The next question to be considered is whether the market value assessed by the Court below is either excessive or inadequate. We are unable to accept the contention of the appellants that the entire land value ought to have been uniformly valued without their being belting system for valuation. 10. The next question to be considered is whether the market value assessed by the Court below is either excessive or inadequate. Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellants in L.A.A. 76/89 contended that the valuation is very much on the higher side. The claimant appellants on the other hand contended that the land should have been valued atleast Rs. 4,000/- per cent instead of the present valuation of Rs. 7,350/- per Are for the first category and Rs. 5,451/- per Are for the second category. S.23 of the Land Acquisition Act is the relevant provision. There are several decisions of the Supreme Court and other courts indicating the guidelines that are to be followed in fixing the market value. It has been held in Gajapathi Raj v. R.D.O. (1939 Privy Council 98) that, "Compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser. The disinclination of the vendor to part with the land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy must alike be disregarded. Neither must be considered as acting under compulsion". 11. In Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector of Varanasi ( A.I.R 1988 SC 943) it was held that, "The determination of market value of the land with potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria. The market value of a piece of property, for purpose of S.23 is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event, viz., the price outcome of hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and indeed the best, evidences of market value". 12. The determination of market value is the prediction of an economic event, viz., the price outcome of hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bonafide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual and indeed the best, evidences of market value". 12. In the instant case, the Court below fixed the land value relying on some of the documents produced by the claimants but all these documents had come into existence after the date of S.4(1) notification, The counsel for the claimants contended that documents of later origin also could be looked into for the purpose of fixing the market value. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Narayana Iyer v. State of Kerala (1990 KLT 432). This decision was based on an earlier decision reported in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector of Varanasi ( A.I.R 1988 SC 943). In that case the observation of the Supreme Court was to the following effect: "We cannot accept the argument that the price indicated in Ext. 24 should be accepted after allowing an appropriate Deduction for the possible appreciation of the land values during the period of one year. Apart from other difficulties in this exercise, there is no evidence as to the rate and degree of appreciation in the values of land so that the figure could be jobbed backwards from 14-7-1960 (the date of Ext. P24 was 18 - 8-60) to 4-7-1959". 13. The learned Sub Judge relied on Exts. A2, A3 and A7 documents for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land. Originally the claimants had filed Exts. Al to A6 documents and after the remand Exts. A7 to All documents were filed. As the court relied on Exts. A3 and A7, we do not propose to consider the details of other documents. 14. Exhibit A3 is dated 28-3-82 and Ext. A7 is dated 3;6-83. Ext. A3 property is for an extent of 35 cents and the land value per cent would come to Rs. 8000/-. In Ext. A7 the extent of land sold was 33 cents and the land value would come to Rs. 8000/ - per cent. The court below based these two documents for fixing the land value at Rs. 7350/- per Are. It is pertinent to note that both Exts. 8000/-. In Ext. A7 the extent of land sold was 33 cents and the land value would come to Rs. 8000/ - per cent. The court below based these two documents for fixing the land value at Rs. 7350/- per Are. It is pertinent to note that both Exts. A3 and A7 sales were after a period of 31/2 years of the date of 4(1) notification. Moreover, these two lands situate far away from the acquired land. Both Exts. A3 and A7 properties situate very near to Neyyattinkara town. There are several public institutions around these two items of properties. 15. Counsel for the claimants contended that based on Exts. A3 and A7 the court should have fixed land value at Rs. 6000/- per cent for the property included in the first category. We are unable to accept this contention for various reasons. Exts. A3 and A7 properties are not comparable lands. They are only 35 and 33 cents respectively. The land value for such plots cannot be taken as a criteria for fixing the land value of larger plots. Even the market value fixed by the Sub Court is slightly on the higher side. Both A3 and A4 documents have come into existence subsequent to the date of 4(1) notification and these documents show that there was increase in land value. So, that did not, in any way indicate the prevailing land value as on the date of 4(1) notification. However, we are not inclined to interfere with the land value adopted by the Sub Court since the court below has taken into consideration of other potentialities of the acquired land. The land situated by the side of National Highway. It had commercial importance. There were some public institutions near the land. The commission report was also taken into consideration by the court below in fixing the land value. 16. Counsel for the claimants contended that the Commissioner opined that Rs. 6000/- per cent would be the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification. The commissioner had visited the property much after 4(1) notification. The property was not a levelled ground at the time of acquisition. A by-lane that situated on the side of the property was not a pucca Municipal road by that time. 6000/- per cent would be the market value of the acquired land as on the date of notification. The commissioner had visited the property much after 4(1) notification. The property was not a levelled ground at the time of acquisition. A by-lane that situated on the side of the property was not a pucca Municipal road by that time. When the Commissioner visited the property he had assessed the land value on the basis of the then existing features of the land. This is clear from the evidence given by the Deputy Collector who was examined in this case. 17. On an anxious consideration of all the relevant materials, we are of the view that the land value now fixed by the court below is adequate and reasonable. The questions raised "in the Cross Objection have no merit and it is liable to be dismissed. In the result, we hold that the appeals filed by the State and the Claimants are without any merit and they are liable to be dismissed. Both the appeals and the Cross Objection are dismissed and the parties will suffer their respective costs.