JUDGMENT : S.C. MOHAPATRA, J. 1. This is an appeal u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Memorandum of appeal has been accompanied by an application for leave to appeal and another application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act supported by affidavit. Counter-affidavit in objection has been filed by Respondent and rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed by Appellant. When claimants took steps for recovery of the awarded amount, an application for stay of execution proceeding was filed with an application to take up the matter urgently. Considering the urgency when the appeal was listed for orders, with consent of parties appeal was heard along with stay application as well as application for condonation of delay since parties expressed that they are in possession of copies of all relevant documents and in case delay is condoned, appeal can be finally disposed of with those documents, without calling for records of the lower court and without preparation of paper books. 2. Land in dispute was acquired for the Appellant by the State Government for the purpose of construction of III Telephone Exchange in the city of Varanasi for which Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published on 14.9.1988. After considering statement of claimants. Land Acquisition Collector made an award u/s 11 of the Act and thereafter took possession on 24.7.1989. Claimants received compensation under protest and requested for a reference to determine the compensation to be paid as they were claiming compensation at enhanced rate. Reference was made and impugned award was made u/s 26 of the Act on 19.4.1990. Coming to know of the award on 14.3.1991 Appellant took steps and filed appeal on 23.5.1991. Delay is explained to be on account of lack of knowledge and period spent to take steps. Respondents in counter-affidavit asserted that Appellant has knowledge of the reference proceeding from the stage of making reference by the Collector and on account of negligence, appeal was filed late which ought not to be condoned. 3. Land Acquisition Collector made the reference on 3.8.1989. On 7.12.1989 Collector sent all the papers with reference with a forwarding letter to District Judge with' copy to District Government Pleader (Civil) and District Manager, Telecommunication. No steps appear to have been taken by Telecommunication Manager thereafter an award u/s 26 was made on 19.4.1990. 3. Land Acquisition Collector made the reference on 3.8.1989. On 7.12.1989 Collector sent all the papers with reference with a forwarding letter to District Judge with' copy to District Government Pleader (Civil) and District Manager, Telecommunication. No steps appear to have been taken by Telecommunication Manager thereafter an award u/s 26 was made on 19.4.1990. This information can be treated to be information to Appellant. But there was no legal obligation for Appellant to appear in the reference. If it believed that Collector can effectively support his award before referring court through the District Government Counsel (Civil), no blame can be put that it was negligent. When Appellant was to deposit the compensation with the Collector for payment to claimants, it was obligation of the Collector and the District Government Counsel to intimate Appellant about the award u/s 26 of the Act immediately. There is no assertion that Collector or District Government Counsel discharged their obligation in such circumstances, lack of knowledge of Appellant till 14.3.1991 as asserted by Appellant can be accepted and is a sufficient cause for condonation of delay till that date. Case of Appellant that after getting information, it took opinion of the District Government Pleader on 30.4.91. Rightly it is submitted by learned Counsel for claimants that delay of each day should have been explained and there is no explanation for the period between 14.3.1991 to 30.4.1991. If we take a rigid view, appeal is to be dismissed for non-explanation of action taken during this period as steps taken on getting information on 14.3.1991 was within the knowledge of the Appellant. Learned Counsel for Appellant ought to have advised Appellant in this respect since officers of Appellant, who are normally technical officers are not well versed with niceties of the legal position. For mistake of the legal advisor, we are not inclined to penalise the Appellant as we find that subsequent to 30.4.1991 Appellant was vigilant allowing a little play in the Joint in working of departmental machinery and period taken till 23.5.1991 is a reasonable period in the circumstances, we condone delay subject to condition that Appellant shall pay Rs. 2,500 as costs to claimants to mitigate their grievance of taking away a valuable right of finality of the award. This amount can be realised by execution if not paid earlier. 2,500 as costs to claimants to mitigate their grievance of taking away a valuable right of finality of the award. This amount can be realised by execution if not paid earlier. Appellant at its end can realise the amount paid as costs from the delinquents on whose account there was delay by following due procedure of law so that exchequer does not suffer for inaction of officers. 5. Since there is no other defect, leave is granted, appeal is admitted. All parties having entered appearance, further notice is dispensed with. With consent appeal is heard on merits without calling for records from the lower court as all relevant documents are available with parties. 6. Appellant did not appear in the reference court and as such could not produce evidence. As the documents and affidavit filed to be accepted as additional evidence are useful for proper adjudication, they are admitted to evidence. Documents and affidavit filed by claimant for appreciating an evidence produced by Appellant are also material and are accordingly, admitted as additional evidence. 7. Land acquired is situated in two plots numbered 422/1 and 423. Plot No. 422/1 measures 55 3/4 decimals and plot No. 423 measures 64 decimals. Total area is thus 1 acre 19 3/4 decimals. Land is situated in revenue village Shiv Purwa which is within city of Varanasi. Evidence available on record which has been appreciated by learned District Judge makes it clear that acquired land is by side of a 60' wide road and on another side there is a 40' wide road connecting the 60' wide road. Area within which land is acquired is a residential area of people of higher economic group. Building of the Jal Nigam is nearby and there are other important buildings like buildings of Nagar Mahapalika. Thus, learned District Judge has rightly come to conclusion that the acquired land is of substantially high value. We confirm that finding as nothing contrary has been shown to us to come to conclusion that finding is unreasonable. 8. Before the reference court, claimants produced evidence that this acquired land was proposed to be acquired by the Jal Nigam in 1986 and office of the District Magistrate reported that approximate value would be Rs. 85,745 per Biswa. (One Bigha is 3025 sq. yards which was twenty Biswas). 8. Before the reference court, claimants produced evidence that this acquired land was proposed to be acquired by the Jal Nigam in 1986 and office of the District Magistrate reported that approximate value would be Rs. 85,745 per Biswa. (One Bigha is 3025 sq. yards which was twenty Biswas). This was, however, not acquired by Jal Nigam which acquired another piece of land rate of which was intimated by office of the Collector to be Rs. 90,000 per Biswa. A sale-deed of land in that area sold by one Raj Kumar measuring 212 Sq. metres in the year 1986 for consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 was produced by claimant as an exemplar in evidence it was stated that Raj Kumar purchased this land in 1981 paying a consideration of Rs. 34,500. This exemplar has been accepted by learned District Judge as evidence of the fact that market value of land in the area is increasing day by day and also is an evidence of market value of land having small area which has similar advantages to the acquired land except the disadvantage of being a large area. For collecting correct stamp duty on transactions, Collector fixes circle rate for land. Such circle rate for the acquired land and other land in the area in the year 1988 fixed by the Collector has been filed as exemplar indicates the same to be Rs. 85,279.50 paise per Biswa. With the aforesaid materials on record, learned District Judge has taken into consideration (i) importance of the area in which acquired land is situated, (ii) official records showing assessment of market value in 1986 and in 1988, (iii) transaction of the year 1987 in respect of a small piece of land having similar advantage which was purchased some years back to show the rate of increase in market value. Learned District Judge determined market value of 1 Biswa of land small area at Rs. 1,11,468 and deducted 20% from the rate to determine rate of land sold in large area. Thus, learned District Judge determined market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 89,174.80 paise per Biswa. 9. Learned District Judge determined market value of 1 Biswa of land small area at Rs. 1,11,468 and deducted 20% from the rate to determine rate of land sold in large area. Thus, learned District Judge determined market value of acquired land at the rate of Rs. 89,174.80 paise per Biswa. 9. Sale of the same land a few days before Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act is the best piece of evidence for determination of market value of acquired land in absence of the same, contemporaneous transaction in respect of land having similar advantages would be good evidence for determination of market value in case, the same is also not available, other transactions of land having similar advantage" nearer to the date of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act would guide the adjudicating authority for determination of the market value. Where such transactions are also not available, transaction of other lands may be taken into consideration giving premium for better or lesser advantages to make a reasonable guess work for determination of market value. Other materials though are not relating completed transaction may also be good evidence for determination of market value. 10. In order to prove that determination of market value of the acquired land by learned District Judge is not correct, Appellant has filed copy of a sale-deed in respect of a small strip of land in plot No. 422 transacted on 7.4.1986. This transaction was considered by the Collector. From the sale-deed itself it is seen that the land sold is at a distance of 20 yards from the road. Appellant could have filed a sketch map of the entire plot No. 422 to show the situation of the acquired land and the land under sale-deed dated 7.4.86. Merely from the fact that both the areas are part of the same bigger plot, no inference can be drawn that they are of similar advantages. If some evidence would have been led either by affidavit or otherwise that advantages of both areas are the same, an endeavour could have been made to determine the difference in market value on account of distance from the road and on that basis to determine market value of the acquired land in plot No. 422/1 after giving premium for the largeness of the area and rise in price in two years. Appellant has not taken any step in this regard. Appellant has not taken any step in this regard. Accordingly, though we have admitted the sale-deed as additional evidence, it is of no assistance to the Appellant. 11. To avoid the report of the office of District Magistrate to Jal Nigam in the year 1986 that rate per Biswa of the acquired land during that period was Rs. 85,745 at that time, an affidavit is filed that husband of one of the claimants was Additional District Magistrate under the Collector suggesting that he might have influenced for such a report. Conduct of claimants in not disclosing before the Urban Land Ceiling Authorities about this area is also pressed to service that an endeavour was being made to make illegal gain out of the land. From the materials, it is not possible to come to conclusion that report to Jal Nigam was not correct. Official acts are presumed to be correct unless strong materials are proved to doubt the same. Accordingly, we are inclined to accept this document which relates to the same land to have evidentiary value. But the same cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence specially in absence of disclosure of basis for such determination. Same Collector has determined the circle rate at Rs. 86,279.50 paise per Biswa in the year 1988. This indicates that Collector has not been meticulous in determination of rate at which the land could have market value on both the occasions. Since determination of lesser rate in 1988 prevailing then in 1986 ought not to be less as it is well-known that value of land in urban areas is increasing year to year. We find that there are two transactions of 1986 in the area in one transaction Jal Nigam paid for another piece of land in 1986 where Collector certified the rate at Rs. 90,000 per Biswa. There is also a sale-deed of 1986 though in respect of a small strip of land measuring 212 sq. metres where consideration has been paid at the rate of Rs. 89,390 per Biswa. Therefore, it can be held on the materials available that rate at which small strip of land were sold in 1986 is between Rs. 89,390 to Rs. 90,000 per Biswa. Giving benefit to claimants who have lost their land on account of compulsory acquisition, we can accept the market value of small strip of land Rs. 89,390 per Biswa. Therefore, it can be held on the materials available that rate at which small strip of land were sold in 1986 is between Rs. 89,390 to Rs. 90,000 per Biswa. Giving benefit to claimants who have lost their land on account of compulsory acquisition, we can accept the market value of small strip of land Rs. 90,000 per Biswa in 1986 and taking note of gradual increase in the rate year to year, it can be held that rate of increase of small strip of land would be Rs. 10,000 per year. Thus, in 1988 which is the year of publication of notification u/s 4(1) of the Act in respect of the acquired land, the rate of small strip of land would be Rs. 1,10,000 per Biswa. Learned District Judge mathematically calculated the rate to be Rs. 1,11,468.50 paise. Mathematics may be a good servant in matters of determination of rate. It should not be the master to control an adjudicating authority. 12. Learned District Judge reduced the rate by 20% on the finding that being roadside land, no developmental expenses would be needed as in case of a housing project. There is no material to come to this conclusion. Telephone Exchange building is a big building. It is always constructed leaving wide space from the main road. Wide roads are necessary to be constructed to carry machineries and heavy vehicles. in respect of small residential building smaller space is required to be left whereas bigger the building, wider would be the space left around the building. Employees of Telephone exchange are provided with cycle stand, canteen, bathrooms and toilets in public service of local calls or District place calls are provided, as a part of service facilities for parking and toilets are to be provided failing which a consumer disputes redressal agency constituted under the Consumer Protection Act may give directions to remove the deficiencies. These aspects are so well-known that learned District Judge ought to have taken note of it. Appellant also should have produced the building plan of the Telephone Exchange to satisfy us that development costs and area left out would be more than 20% in absence of such evidence, we are inclined to hold that deduction of 30% of the rate for small strip of land would be reasonable to determine market value of large area like the acquired land. Mathematically the rate, thus, comes to Rs. 77,000 per Biswa. Claimants are entitled to market value at this rate. 13. Mr. Singh submitted that claimants are not entitled to any compensation for wall and boundary wall has been well proved. Therefore, in absence of better evidence, we are not inclined to interfere with the amounts awarded by learned District Judge. 14. Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act having been published in 1988 after the Act was amended by Act 68 of 1984, claimants are entitled to statutory benefits under Clauses (1A) and (2) of Section 23 and to interest at the amended rate as provided in Section 28 of the Act. 15. In result, appeal is allowed in part. In view of tall claim by Appellant. it is not entitled to costs in this appeal.