JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, CJ. (Oral): The earlier appeal is by the claimants while the latter is by the State Government. The Notification under section 4(1) was issued on 10.2.1983. The declaration under section 6 was made on 15.9 1983 The Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award on 27.3.1984. fixing the market! value @ Rs.45.25 per square meter for the lands. He awarded a compensation of Rs.4986.25 for fruit bearing tress and Rs.273/- for non-fruit tearing trees. The matter was referred to the District Judge under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The District Judge passed his award on 9.9.1986, enhancing the compensation to Rs.70/- per square meter for the lands. As regards the compensation for the trees, he affirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer 2. The total extent acquired under the Notification was 14,125 square meters we are concerned in these two appeals with 3576 square meters of land. The claimants made a claim of Rs.4 lacs per bigha, that is, at the rate of Rs.500/- per square meter before the Land Acquisition Officer and also claimed Rs.8 lacs by way of compensation for the trees. In these appeals the claimants have claimed at the rate of Rs. 170/- per square meter and a sum of Rs.48,400/-for trees. The contention of the State Government is that the claimants are not entitled to get anything more than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Award passed by the District Judge is unsustainable 3. The claimants have examined as many as 18 witnesses and filed certain documents which are sale deeds pertaining to certain lands situate within the municipal area of Sndernagar and also two agreements for sale Strong reliance is placed on the two agreements for sale marked as Ex. PW 12A and Ex.PWl 3/A. With reference to Ex PW12/A, it is found that the agreement is dated 24-5-1981. The stamp paper on which the agreement is written bears the date 25-5-1981. There is no explanation as to how the stamp paper purchased on a later date could have been use for an agreement, said to have been executed, on an earlier date Learned counsel for the appellants attempt lo give explanation that it was t clerical error on the part of the persons, who entered into the agreement to mention the date .24.5 1981. As there is no evidence in support of this argument, we are unable to accept the same. Hence the District Judge is right in rejecting that document. 4. As regards other agreement Ex.PW-13/A, though the time limit fixed in the agreement for completion of transaction was only three months, there was no attempt by any of the parties to complete the sale inspite of the fact that almost two years had elapsed from the date of the agreement before the acquisition. Hence the District Judge was right in rejecting Ex.PW I3/Aalso, as unacceptable in them alter of proof of market value of the land. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on certain documents which have not been referred to by of the witnesses examined on this case. Hence those documents cannot be looked into by the Court. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in P. Ram Reddy & drs. v. Land Acquisition Officer & ors., (1995) 2 SCC 305 and Major Pakhar Singh Atwal & ors. v. Slate of Punjab & ors.. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 401 that in the absence of any of the parties to the transaction giving evidence before the Court, the sale deeds by themselves cannot be treated as evidence and the claimants are not entitled to place any reliance thereon. 6. Learned counsel has invited our attention to four documents which, according to him, have been spoken to by the witnesses. Ex.PF is one such en:. It is a sale deed dated 21.11.1983 with respect to an extent of 89 meters of land. The, rate works out to Rs.250/- per square meters. PW-4 the purchaser under that document. He has given evidence with respect to document. PW-4 has stated in his cross-examination that he purchased the in question as he was in need of purchasing it and he paid the price admaned. He has also admitted that the land is situated about 1 1/2 kilo meters ay from the Polytechnic Institute. Thus, this land is far away from the acquired land and the transaction has come into existence after the date of Notification under section 4(1). 7. Ex.PH dated 9.12.1983 is the next document on which reliance is by the appellants. Reference is made to this document by PW-7, who the purchaser. Thus, this land is far away from the acquired land and the transaction has come into existence after the date of Notification under section 4(1). 7. Ex.PH dated 9.12.1983 is the next document on which reliance is by the appellants. Reference is made to this document by PW-7, who the purchaser. Under the document an extent of 189.3 square meters has sold for a sum of Rs.35,000/- at the rate of Rs.185/- per square meter. 7 has admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen the acquired land. He has also stated that he purchased the land for the purpose clinic and residence There is no evidence on his part to the effect that acquired land is of the same quality or equal in all respects to the. land purchased by him. That sale deed has also come into existence after the Notification under section 4(1). Hence no reliance can be placed either on evidence of PW-7 or on Ex.PH. 8. The next document to which our attention is drawn is Ex.PG, under witch 94 square meters of land was sold for Rs.20,000/-. The rate works tat Rs.200/- per square meter. PW-5 is said to be the vendor under this dent. It is dated 14.12.1983. A perusal of this document shows that subject matter of sale included a dilapidated house. PW-5 has stated in evidence that the house had fallen before the date of sale and the stones etc. which were lying on the land sold were. also transferred to the purchaser cording to him, the amount of Rs.20,000 - was paid to him as demanded by him and he cannot give the price of the Malva sold. In such circumstance, it is not possible for the Court to find out the value of the land as such from Ex.PG or from the evidence of PW-5. It is also to be noted that there is no reference by PW-5 in his evidence to Ex.PG as such. The document snot put to him. Learned counsel contends that the document was produced PW-2, the Reader to the Sub Registrar, Sunder Nagar along with copies of other sale deeds and the evidence of PW-2 and PW-5 must be read together in order to connect the document with PW-5. Even if that contention it is to be pointed out that the document came into existence long after the of Notification under section 4(1). Even if that contention it is to be pointed out that the document came into existence long after the of Notification under section 4(1). 9. Ex.PD is the last document on which reliance is placed by appellants. PW-6 is said to be the vendor under the document and he has as such referred to the document. Again, a request is made to read his evidence along with that of PW-2. Even so, the document is dated 21.3.1984, more than a year after the notification under section 4(1) of the Act. The land dealt with is about 8 biswas in extent and the consideration was Rs.40.000/- The rate works out to be Rs. 114/- per square meter. PW-6 has said that the locality of the acquired land is as good as land which was sold by hi and that acquired land is at a level whereas his land is slopy. In cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the market value at the time of sale and that he got the price demanded by him. 10. Thus, the evidence of the witnesses referred to above and the document as such by themselves, do not help the case of the claimants to claim an enhanced compensation @ Rs. 179/- per square meter, as has been done in the appeals. 11. However, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the acquired lands are situated within the municipal area and abutted by a road The contention is that there is ample evidence on record to show that the lands in the various Mohal of the municipal area are almost of the same value and the price for such lands must be fixed at the same rate. Reliance is placed, upon the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer himself, where he has observed that since Mohal Sunder Nagar is a thickly inhabited area and it lies within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Committee, the land transactions mainly for the purpose of houses/buildings constructions and as such, the cultivated/uncultivated as well as irrigated/unirrigated lands have been fetching almost equal prices. 12. It is contended that there is no suggestion to any of the witness that the prices have risen on account of the Notification under the Land Acquisition Act. 12. It is contended that there is no suggestion to any of the witness that the prices have risen on account of the Notification under the Land Acquisition Act. According to learned counsel, when there is no evidence before the Court to show that there was such a rise in prices, the documents which came into existence after the Notification should also be taken into consideration. Reliance is placed in this connection on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer. Poona & anr., (1988) 3 SCC 751. While setting out the factors which must be etched on the mental screen, the Supreme Court has observed that even post notification instances can be taken into account; 1) if they arc very proximate; 2) genuine and 3) die acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. 13. We will have to refer to this judgment at a later stage in more detail in order to arrive at the market value of the land in the present case. Learned counsel for the appellants has also brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mehta Ravinderrai Ajitrai (deceased) through his heirs and LRS & ors. v. State of Gujarat (1989) 4 SCC 250. It is submitted that in that case, the Notification under section 4 was issued on August 6,1956 and there was an agreement to sell certain lands on January 21,1957, which was followed by a sale deed dated April 2,1957. It is contended that inspite of the fact that the agreement for sale was itself a post notification transaction, the Court relied upon it to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. 14. We will advert to this aspect of the matter a little later. 15. Learned District Judge has given sufficient reasons for rejecting the documents relied on by the claimants. He has also chosen to reject the documents relied upon by the State Government We do not find any error whatever in the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge with regard to rejection of documents filed on both sides. However, learned District Judge has placed reliance on Mutation No.440 dated 24.8.1982. He has also chosen to reject the documents relied upon by the State Government We do not find any error whatever in the reasoning adopted by the learned District Judge with regard to rejection of documents filed on both sides. However, learned District Judge has placed reliance on Mutation No.440 dated 24.8.1982. In his judgment, he has considered mutation No.440, Mutation Not 477 and Mutation No.463, and after rejecting mutations Nos.463 and 477 on the ground that the lands involved therein are far away from the road, he has accepted Mutation No.440 as a comparable transaction for fixing the value of the .acquired land. An objection is taken by the State Government in RFA No.28/87 that mutations are not admissible in evidence at all. It is not in dispute that the relevant document of mutation has not been placed before the Court. The only material available before the Court with regard to the mutation is the oral evidence of the Patwari of the Halqua, that is, PW3. As regards the evidence of PW3, he has stated that he has no knowledge about the actual deals effected between the purchaser and the seller in respect of the mutation He has not produced the documents themselves and his oral evidence is worthless in view of his admission in the cress- examination that he has no knowledge of the actual transaction. The Land Acquisition Officer has referred to mutations in his Award and taken into consideration the three mutations in which the value of the land dealt with is shown to be highest. The highest transaction is rejected by him on the ground that it relates to not only a land but also a shop structure on it But the next three transactions are taken into account which are shown as serial Nos.2,4 and 10. The Officer has proceeded to ascertain the average value by adding the value fixed in those three transactions and dividing by the extent. Ultimately he arrived at the figure of 44.22 per square meter and fixed it at the market value of the acquired land. 16. The learned Advocate General contends mat the mutations should not have been taken as the basis for fixing the value by the learned District Judge. In support of this contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme. Court in Major Pakhar Singh Atwal & ors. 16. The learned Advocate General contends mat the mutations should not have been taken as the basis for fixing the value by the learned District Judge. In support of this contention he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme. Court in Major Pakhar Singh Atwal & ors. v. Slate of Punjab & ors.: 1995 Supp (2) SCC 401. "We have no hesitation to accept that contention, particularly in view of the fact that the mutations are not themselves placed before the Court and the oral evidence adduced by the patwari is of no worth therefore. 17. Learned Advocate General has also brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddass case (supra), to which we have already made are reference. In that judgment, the various factors, which should be taken into account by the Court while fixing the market value of the land have been set out in detail in para 4. It is worthwhile to extract the entire paragraph 4 in this judgment: "4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen: (I) 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 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 conclusions reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to read the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. - . modify or reverse the conclusions reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to read 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 die position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his and in the sward is; inadequate on the basis of the material produced in the Court. Of course, the material 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 section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notification 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 value is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that date. 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 purchase to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The mist comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle, (11) 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. (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 miaus factors (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 Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size 1. Largeness of are* = 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.sma1 frontage compared to depth 4. Nearness to developed area 4. -Lower level requiring the depressed portion to filled up. 5. Regular shape 5. Remoteness from developed locality 6. Level vis-a-vis land under; 6. Some special disadvantageous which acquisition • would deter a purchaser. 7. Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may . have some very special advantage 18. We have already adverted to factor (9) mentioned in the said paragraph. It is also to be noted that the Supreme Court has pointed out the plus factors and minus factors in factor No.14. The Court has observed that foresaid plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factor may be determined in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. The court also held that the reference to the court must be treated as an original proceeding before it and the market value be determined afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. The Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open exposed to challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the Court unless produced and proved it. 19. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the Court unless produced and proved it. 19. It follows, therefore, that the Court cannot proceed on the footing that the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer in the Award should be taken to be the market value of the land, even if the claimants have not been able to produce the relevant documents to prove that the value is much more than what is awarded. But on the other hand an attempt must be made by the Court, to look into all the evidence placed before it and arrive at the market value by taking into account various factors set out by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment If all these factors are taken into account, it is clear that the lands in question are situated within the municipal area and with regard the entire municipal area they are almost of equal value as pointed by the Land Acquisition Officer himself. In such a situation, we find number of sale transactions having been effected subsequent to the notification issued under section 4(1). The sale transactions, as such, cannot be utilized for fixing the market value as on the date of notification because they are subsequent to the notification but certainly those transactions can be taken into account for ascertaining the market value which would have been prevailing on the date of the notification by back tracing the market value of the land. We find in November/ Decemaber,1983 as well as in March,1984, the lands have been sold at a higher value but it is also evident that those transactions were for higher value because of particular reasons relating to such tram-actions But taking into account all these transactions together and working out the average we come to the conclusion that the rate of Rs.70/- per square meter fixed by the learned District Judge is quite reasonable and it will be appropriate market value in the facts and circumstances of this case. We are aware that to some extent we are making a guess work with regard to market value of the land in this case but we are taking into account the various factors set out by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Chimanlal’s case referred to above In the same judgment the Supreme Court has pointed out that all the factors referred to by them are incapable of precise or scientific evaluation and the valuer has to indulge in some kind of guess work and make the evaluation of the situation Hence we are of the opinion .hat in the present case the rate of Rs.70/- per square meter fixed by the learned District Judge is reasonable value of the land 20. As regards the trees, the Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer has been affirmed by the District Judge. No material has been placed before us by the appellants to show that the trees are of more worth than what has been awarded therefore by the Land Acquisition Collector or that the appellants are entitled to a sum of Rs.48.400/- for the trees. It is pointed out by the learned Advocate General that trees cannot be separately valued when the compensation for the land is being granted. Our attention has been drawn to tie judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh & anr, etc. 1995 (I) Scale 530 The Court held that under no circumstances the Court should allow compensation on the basis of the nature of the land as well "as for fruit bearing trees. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the judgment of the Supreme Court would apply only in the case of orchard. But in the present case, PW-1. the father of the first claimant, has given evidence that the land acquired is under orchard with fruit bearing trees numbering 123. 21. In any event, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the value of the trees separately and passed the Award. The State Government cannot go behind the same and, therefore, the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and affirmed by the District Judge, on reference under section 18 has to be upheld. 22. In such circumstances, we find that .both the appeals are without merit and have to be dismissed. The appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. -