JUDGMENT R L Khurana, J.—The above noted two appeals are being disposed of by a single judgment as they arise out of a common award dated 7-6-1984 passed by the District Judge, Una, involving common question of fact and law. 2. The District Judge, by his common award, has decided two reference petitions made under section 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) whereby compensation for the acquired land was awarded to the petitioner Karam Chand (appellant in RFA No. 55 of 1984) at the rate of Rs, 1,000 per marla, Compensation of Rs 8,000 was awarded in favour of petitioner Messrs, Victory Public Hill Motor Transport Company (appellant in RFA No 59 of J984) for the super-strtucture existing on the acquired land. 3. The acquired land comprises of khasra No. 4780/4242/107 measuring 4 kanals 1 marla situated within the municipal limits of Una Town. It was acquired for public purpose, namely, construction of the administrative block of Agriculture Department Laboratory and Kisan Bhawan. The requisite notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 28-3 1980 followed by the notification under section 6 of the Act on 2-7-1980. The award was made by the Collector, Land Acquisition on 20-6-1981. The Collector assessed the market value for the acquired land at Rs. 634 per marla and awarded the compensation at the said rate to petitioner Karam Chand. 4. Insofar as the structure existing on the acquired land is concerned it was observed by the Collector in the following terms ;— "There are a few structures on the land. The existence of structure.. has been proved from the statement of RW 1 and RW 2. Shri Sohan Singh, Managing Director, Victory Transport has claimed the value of those structures at the rate of Rs 50,000. However, no technical assessment of the value of these structures has been proved by the Victory Transport. I, therefore, order that the value of the structures be got assessed through an officer of the Public Works Department not below the rank of Assistant Engineer or any other Government Engineer of the same rank. This is being done separately and a supplementary award would be announced regarding the value of these structures." 5. The supplementary award was made by the Collector on 10-11-1981 whereby compensation payable to petitioner Messrs. This is being done separately and a supplementary award would be announced regarding the value of these structures." 5. The supplementary award was made by the Collector on 10-11-1981 whereby compensation payable to petitioner Messrs. Victory Hill Motor Transport Company in respect of the super-structure was assessed at Rs, 2,019. 6. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the awards of the Collector, Land Acquisition, the two petitioners applied under section 18 of the Act to the Collector for making a reference to the Court for determination of the market value of the acquired land and the super-structure standing therein. Petitioner Karam Chand claimed the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 9,000 per marla. The petitioner Messrs. Victory Transport Company claimed the value of super-structure at Rs. 20,000. 7. The parties led oral as well as documentary evidence before the District Judge. The following instances of sale transactions and awards were relied upon by the petitioners :— (i) Ex. AW I/A, sale deed dated 13-6-1972 whereby land measuring 5-1/2 marlas comprising of khasra No. 4243/107 alongwith a house was sold by petitioner Karam Chand in favour of AW 1 Bhagat Ram for a total consideration of Rs. 12,000. (ii) Ex. AW 2/A, sale deed dated 9-12-1976 evidencing sale of one marla of land comprising of khasra No. 4757/1203/3 in Una by one Gurdial Singh in favour of AW 2 Subash Chand for a sum of Rs. 9,500. (iii) Ex AW 3/A, sale deed dated 22-1-1980 in respect of sale of land measuring 7 marlas being 1/6 share in the land comprising of khasra Nos. 890/1 and 892/3 by S/Shri Lekh Raj and Prem Chand in favour of AW 4 Tilak Raj and his brothers for a consideration of Rs 30,000. This amount also included the amount of Rs. 3,500 spent towards execution aud registration of sale deed. (iv) Ex. AW 6/A, sale deed dated 15-2-1975 whereby land measuring 4 marlas comprising of khasra No. 4714/1079 was purchased by AW 6 Hari Krishan from one Gurdial Singh for a sum of Rs. 10,000. (v) Ex. AW 7/A, sale deed dated 7-11-1974 whereby land measuring 5 marlas being 5/26 share in the land comprising of khasra No. 4243/107 in Una was sold by the petitioner Karam Chand in favour of AW 7 Smt. Pritam Kaur for a sum of Rs 14,000. This consideration also included expenses of Rs. 10,000. (v) Ex. AW 7/A, sale deed dated 7-11-1974 whereby land measuring 5 marlas being 5/26 share in the land comprising of khasra No. 4243/107 in Una was sold by the petitioner Karam Chand in favour of AW 7 Smt. Pritam Kaur for a sum of Rs 14,000. This consideration also included expenses of Rs. 1,500 incurred for execution and registration of the sale deed. (vi) Ex. A-3, Award dated 3i 3-1982 of the District Judge, Una whereby the market value of the land in Una Town as on 28-3-1973 was assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,250 per raaria. (vii) Ex. A-4 is the copy of order dated 19-9 1979 of the High Court in R. S A. No. 69 of 1977 evidencing a compromise between the parties thereto whereby the land subject-matter, of the dispute was agreed to be purchased at the rate of Rs. 3,000 per marla. 8. The State—respondent had produced the following documents before the Court below :— (a) Ex. D-l, sale deed dated 22-4-1980 whereby land measuring 1 kanal 3 marlas comprising of khasra No. 4987/4699/807 in Una town for a sum of Rs. 8,441, that is, at the rate of Rs. 367 per marla was purchased by Agriculture Department of State of Himachal Pradesh through RW 1. (b) Ex. D-2, sale deed dated 1-4-1980 in respect of sale of six kanals of land in favour of the Agriculture Department for a sum of Rs. 44,040 at the rate of Rs. 367 per marla. (c) Ex. D-3, sale deed dated 1-4-1980 evidencing the sale of 5 marlas of land in khasra No 4878/4487/718 for a sum of Rs. 1,835, that is, at the rate of Rs. 367 per marla in favour of the Agriculture Department. (d) Ex. D-4 is the statement showing the average sale price of Rs. 507 per marla during the period of five years preceding the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. 9. Taking note of the evidence led by the parties, the District Judge while assessing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per marla has observed in para 14 of his award :— "Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the sale transactions of smaller plots, the price fluctuation within the vicinity of one kilometer varied from 1972 to 1980 i. e. Ps 2 200 or Rs. 1,000 per marla has observed in para 14 of his award :— "Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the sale transactions of smaller plots, the price fluctuation within the vicinity of one kilometer varied from 1972 to 1980 i. e. Ps 2 200 or Rs. 2,800 or Rs. 4,000 per marla in 1980 The sale of Rs 4 000 per marla is in the Bazar where there is teasing of pressure of Abadi. This and is in low level and according to the evidence the water collects in ,t. Judicial notice can be taken that pressure of Abadi is not as much acute as compared with the location of sales of smaller plots. Practically the pressure of Abadi is decreasing towards the acquired land." So keeping in view allthese factors and also its potentiality of commercial and Abadi nature but sometime potentiality also varies in degrees depend ing upon the situation of the heart of the town In my view the" Court has to strike balance in such a way that it would not be a lottery o the petitioner and robbery of community money Naturally no body is going to purchase 4 kanalas-0 mis. land at the rate of Rs. 9.500 per marla and Rs. 4,200 per marla or so on But again the Court is also to take a judicial notice of the rise in prices recently and pressure on land. After taking all the factors into consideration and reasonable guess work which is allowed to Judges after going through the material on record the compensation of the acquired land is fixed to be Rs l 000 per marla. I am not inclined to agree with the negotiation price as guide line paid by the department for the purpose of determination of compensation as various considerations prevail for example RW 2 Harzi sold land to the department at a cheaper rate ignoring the interest of tenant. I decide the issue accordingly.” 10. Insofar as the super-structure of petitioner Messrs Victory Transport Company existing in the acquired land is concerned, the District Judge after disbelieving the evidence led by the parties assessed the compensation payable therefor at Rs. 8,000. I decide the issue accordingly.” 10. Insofar as the super-structure of petitioner Messrs Victory Transport Company existing in the acquired land is concerned, the District Judge after disbelieving the evidence led by the parties assessed the compensation payable therefor at Rs. 8,000. It was observed :- "So after taking possible conservative view the condition of the building i.e, the condition and age of the building and when part of the structure was demolished, the price at the time of notification, with respect to the structure, cannot be said less than Rs. 8.000 and I decide the issue accordingly." 11. The two petitioners were not satisfied with the award of the District Judge. They, accordingly, have come up before this Court by wav of the present regular first appeals. It has been contended that the District Judge has not correctly appreciated the evidence in assessing the marked value of the acquired land and the super-structure standing therein The State—respondent on the other hand, has supported the award by contenting that the market value of the land and building was correctly assessed at by the District Judge upon proper appreciation of the material placed before him. F 12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 13. It is well settled that in order to determine the market value of the acquired land under section 23(1) of the act sales of land under acquisition if any or the sales of land in the neighborhood possessing same or similar potentiality/advantages furnish the basis for the assessment of just and fair market value for the acquired land as on the relevant date, that is, the date of issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act. What a willing vendee would offer and a willing vendor would accept as a prudent man denotes the normal market price near or about the date of notification under section 4 of the Act, However, such comparable sales must inspire confidence to be genuine, 14 The apex Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC 1612, has laid down the factors which are required to be kept in view while determining the market value of the acquired land, These factors ate :— "(1) A reference under section 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. (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. (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 the land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant), (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under section 4) 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. (7) 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, (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of Land). (9) 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. (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 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 deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in 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. (14) The exercise indicated in Clauses (II) 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 :— Plus factors 1. Smallness of size. Minus factors 1. Largeness of area. 2. Proximity to a road 2, Situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. Frontage on a road. 3. Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. Nearness to developed area. 4. Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. Regular shape. 5, Remoteness from developed locality. 6. Level visa-vis land under acquisition. 6. Some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. 7. Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage, (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 10000 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. 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. (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 place himself (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense." 15. It has further been pointed out that evaluation of the above factors would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. 16. Keeping the above factors and principle in mind, we proceed to examine the evidence produced by the parties in order to find out whether the market value for the acquired land has been properly assessed by the District Judge. 17. At the very out set it may be stated that the three instances of sale, Ex. D-I to D-3, produced by the State respondent evidencing the market value of the land as Rs. 367 per marla in April 14j8O can be safely ignored on the mere ground that the Collector Land Acquisition himself has awarded a rate much higher than it by ignoring the same Similarly, the statement Ex. D-4 showing the average sale price in Una Town during the period of five years preceding the date of notification under section 4 of the Act cannot be relied upon. D-4 showing the average sale price in Una Town during the period of five years preceding the date of notification under section 4 of the Act cannot be relied upon. The Supreme Court has not approved the determination of market value of the acquired land on average price basis in Printers House Pvt Ltd v. Saiyadan (deceased) by L.R.s and others 1994 LACC 10. 18 Coining to the evidence of the petitioners, it is significant to note that vide Ex AW I/A apart from the land measuring 54.12 marlas, the building existing therein was also sold for Rs 12,000 on 13 6-1972 Therefore, this instance of sale cannot foe relied upon for the purpose of assessing the market value of the acquired land. 19. One marJa of land was sold on 9-12-1976 vide Ex. AW 2/A for Rs 9,500. It is in the statement of AW 2 the vendee that this land is just opposite to the new Bus stand Una, which is about one kilometer away from the acquired land There is nothing in evidence to show that the land subject-matter of Ex, AW 2/A and the acquired land are comparable and possess the same or similar potentialities as a building site. This instance also, therefore, cannot be made the basis for determination of the market value of the acquired land For the self sarae reasons no reliance can be placed on Ex AW 3/A whereby seven marlas of land was sold for Rs, 30,000 on 22 H 980. It is in the evidence of AW 4, the vendee, that the land is located in the Bazar near Civil Hospital about one kilometer away from the acquired land The instance of &ale evidenced by Ex AW 3/A also does not help the case of the petitioners since this land also is about one kilometer away from the acquired land and there being nothing on the record to show that the two lands have similar potentialities. 20. The award copy of which is Ex. A-3 pertains to the land which was acquired on 28-3-1973, Besides, nothing has come on record to show the location and situation of the land subject-matter of Ex A-S or to show that the said land has the same or similar potentialities as that of the acquired land It is in evidence that the acquired land comprises of a low lying area. 21. 21. No reliance can be placed on Ex, A-4 for the simple reason that the compromise arrived at between the parties to the said case does not depict the correct and true market value of the land The party agreeing to pay Rs. 3,000 per marla had in fact bought peace and to see an end to the litigation. 22. The only evidence thus available is in the form of the instance of sale vide Ex. AW 7/A whereby an area of 5 marlas out of khasra No. of which the acquired land also forms a part was sold on 7-11-1974 for a consideration of Rs. 14,000 This consideration also included the expenditure of Rs 1,500 incurred towards execution and registration of the sale deed, Deducting this amount, the sale consideration comes to Rs. 12,500, that is, Rs, 2,500 per marla. 23. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State respondent, has contended that the price depicted by Ex AW 7/A is for small plot of land and the same cannot be accepted as such in fixing the market value of a much larger plot of acquired land. 24. We do not find force in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General. The Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SO 943, has held :— "The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SO 943, has held :— "The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents, However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes ; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant la such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities ; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity Kaes9 and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the prices the profits on the venture etc. are to be made." 25. In Brig. Sahib Singh Kolha v. Amntsar Improvement Trust, AIR 1982 SC 940 the Supreme Court has indicated that deductions for the land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together come up to as much as 53%, It was further observed that 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. 26. A single Judge of this Court in Shimla Development Authority v. Smt Krishna Devi, 4990 (2) SLC 98, relying upon the ratio laid down in Administrator General of West Bengals case (supra), had assessed the market value of the acquired land on the basis of the instance of sale of a small piece of land by allowing a deduction of 40%. 27. As stated above, the sale vide Ex. 27. As stated above, the sale vide Ex. AW 7/A had taken place on 7-11-1974 about six and a half years before the issuance of the notification under section 4 of the Act in the present case, which was issued on 28-3-1980. Judicial notice can be taken that that a lot of developments have taken place at Una during this period between 1974 to 1980 It is also a universal fact that prices of urban land /property is increasing from day to day, month to month and year to year. A comparative reading of Ex AW 7/A and Ex. AW 3/A reveals that prices of land in Una Town rose from Rs 2 500 per marla to Rs. 3,785 approximate per Bigha during the period November 1974 to January 1980. There has been, therefore, an increase in price to the extent of about 50%. 28. The deduction, to be allowed while valuing the price of a small plot of land for determining the market value of a large area of land in the present case would, thus, stand neutralised with the rise in price during the intervening period between 1974 to 1980. We, therefore, hold that Ex. AW 7/A in the present case can be safely made the basis of assessing the market value of the acquired land. Relying on the same, the market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs, 2s500 per marla as on the relevant date. The findings of the District Judge holding the market value of the acquired land to be Rs. 1,000 per marla are, therefore, liable to be set aside 29. The District Judge, as stated above, had awarded compensation of Rs. 8,000 for the super-structure existing on the land acquired These super-structures relonged to the petitioner Victory Transport Company. The findings of the District Judge on this count do not call for interference. It is significant to note that there are neither pleadings nor evidence to show the extent of construction and the extent of area over which the super-structure existed. The estimate alleged to have been prepared by RW 5 has not been placed and proved on the record of the present case. We, therefore, affirm the findings of the District Judge assessing the value of super-structure at Rs. 8,000. 30. The estimate alleged to have been prepared by RW 5 has not been placed and proved on the record of the present case. We, therefore, affirm the findings of the District Judge assessing the value of super-structure at Rs. 8,000. 30. The District Judge has also rightly not awarded any apportionment of compensation payable in respect of the acquired land in favour of the Victory Transport Company. Though we do not agree with the reasons advanced by the District Judge. Suffice to say that Messrs. Victory Transport Company has neither pleaded nor led evidence to show their entitlement to any apportionment and, if so, to what extent. 31. As a result, while RFA No, 59 of 1984 is dismissed, RFA No 55 of 1984 filed by petitioner Karam Chand is allowed and the award of the District Judge is modified to the extent that the market value of the acquired land is assessed at Rs. 2,500 per marla. The petitioner is entitled to compensation at the said rate alongwith :— (a) Additional compensation at the rate of 12-1/2% per annum on the market value of the acquired land with effect from 28-3-1980 (the date of notification under section 4 of the Act) till 20-6-1981 (the date of the award) or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier ; (b) Solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value of the acquired land ; (c) Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the land till the expiry of the period of one year therefrom and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till the date of payment/deposit of the amount. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Order accordingly.