Judgment : A. Raman, J. An extent of 16.10 acres comprised in Survey Nos.426/2, 427, 428/2, 429, 430/1, 431-A and situate in the village of Velampalayam Palladam Taluk, was acquired for the construction of housing accommodation by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pollachi. In respect of the said acquisition he passed an award on 30.3.1978 determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs.250 per cent and passed an award accordingly. On the landowners objecting to the said award, the matter was referred to Sub Court, Tiruppur in C.C. No.9 of 1981, under Sec.18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. On reference the Sub Judge, Tiruppur, held an enquiry. On behalf of the claimant, three witnesses were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the State, two witnesses were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were marked. The learned Sub Judge determined the market value of the land at Rs.275 per cent and enhanced the compensation accordingly. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the tribunal, the claimant has now preferred this appeal. 3. The point for determination is whether the claimant is entitled to any higher compensation? If so, whether the order passed by the lower court has to be modified? 4. The point: The total extent of land acquired by the Government is 16.10 acres and it is situate in the village of Velampalayam. Of the 16.10 acres, the 1st claimant (appellant herein) is entitled to 15.90 acres while the 2nd claimant is entitled only to any extent of 20 cents. The particulars of the property acquired are as follows: 3.48 acres in Survey No.426/2 B 5.03 acres in Survey No.427 2.88 acres in Survey No.428/2 2.82 acres in Survey No.429 1.23 acres in Survey No.430/1 0.46 acres in Survey No.431/1 The total extent comes to 15 acres 90 cents, which belonged to the 1st claimant. Ex.A-1 is the Survey plan of the Village Velampalayam. From the Survey plan we find that the property acquired about Tiruppur -Avinashi Road. The Award Officer has relied upon the sale transaction pertaining to Survey No.434, which lies to the West of Tiruppur -Avinashi Main Road. Exs.A-6, A-7 and A-14 are the registration copies of sale deeds relating to sale transactions of portions of S.No.434. From the Survey plan we find that the property acquired about Tiruppur -Avinashi Road. The Award Officer has relied upon the sale transaction pertaining to Survey No.434, which lies to the West of Tiruppur -Avinashi Main Road. Exs.A-6, A-7 and A-14 are the registration copies of sale deeds relating to sale transactions of portions of S.No.434. From the evidence available on the side of the claimants as well as from the admissions of R.Ws.l and 2 we find that the property which was acquired lies to the east of Tiruppur -Avinashi Road and also abuts the said Road. The 1st claimant has applied to the competent authority for grant of licence to run a theatre in the property acquired. The licence has also been granted, as evidenced by Exs.A-10, A-11 is the plan submitted by the 1st claimant at the time when he applied for the licence. Exs.A-12 and A-13 relate to the writ proceedings initiated by the 1 st claimant with reference to the licence applied by the claimant for running the cinema theatre in the said property. Therefore, it is clear that the property is to be valued as a house site. In other words, the fact that licence was applied for and obtained for running a theatre would show that it is a potential house site. In this case, a notification was published on 15. 1975 and possession of the land was taken over on 17. 1975. According to the 1st claimant, the property which has been taken as the basis for determining the market value by the award officer is situate about half a furlong award from the main road, in the interior. His further evidence is that from the Avinashi Road upto the place where Tiruppur Textiles is located, the said area is not fit for housing and that only factories and shops can be located in the property. In the course of cross examination, he admits that the owner of Survey No.434 divided the property into several plots with the intention of selling it as house sites and sold it accordingly. His further admission is that at the time of acquisition proceedings, the property was lying fallow. In the course of cross examination, he admits that the owner of Survey No.434 divided the property into several plots with the intention of selling it as house sites and sold it accordingly. His further admission is that at the time of acquisition proceedings, the property was lying fallow. To a suggestion made to him that he has not made any construction in pursuance of the grant of licence, he stated that as there was the writ proceedings pending he did not put up any construction in the property. He admits that at the earliest point of time, he offered to sell the property at the rate of Rs.15,000 per acre. He further admits that he had also requested for compensation at the rate of Rs.350 per cent. 5. As per the evidence of P. W.2, he purchased a property measuring 3 1/2 cent to the West of Avinashi Road in 1974, at the rate of Rs.800 per cent. His further evidence is that for residential purpose only the properties in the east of Avinashi Road are fit. It is also his evidence that there is a mill to the west of the road and therefore it is. not for residential purpose as peaceful living will be affected. In the course of cross-examination, he admits that there are houses to the west of the road. A suggestion was made to him that because he is running a Barber shop and the 1 st claimant is his customer, he has chosen to give an exaggerated value for that the property. The evidence of P.W.3 is that her husband purchased a property in between Avinashi Road and Tiruppur Textiles at the rate of Rs.500 per cent. Though in the sale deed it was recited as only Rs.1,100 he had purchased the property under Ex.A-14, which is the date sale deed. In the course of cross-examination, she has stated that for the purpose of reducing the stamp duty, the consideration was recited at Rs.1,100. It is also her evidence that there are houses and shops on either side of the property. R.W.1, is the officer who passed the award under, Ex.R-2. It is his evidence that on the basis of Ex.A-14, he determined the market value of the land at Rs.250 per cent. It is also her evidence that there are houses and shops on either side of the property. R.W.1, is the officer who passed the award under, Ex.R-2. It is his evidence that on the basis of Ex.A-14, he determined the market value of the land at Rs.250 per cent. His further evidence is that the property acquired and the property covered by the data sale deed are similar in nature. Also it is stated by him that at the time of acquisition, on both the sides of the road there were sites plotted out for construction of houses. The suggestion that the property lying to the east of the road is more valuable than the property lying to the west of the road, was denied by him. 6. R.W. 1 speaks to the fact that the 1st claimant submitted an application requesting compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000. He also states that me 1 st claimant later gave another application requesting compensation at the rate of Rs.350 per cent. It is admitted by him in the course of cross-examination that the property was acquired by his predecessor and on the basis of the sales statistics he determined the compensation. That there are plots situate on either side of the road, is also admitted by him. He further admitted that after 1972, the value of land has increased. He admits that it might be that the property west of the road has been sold out at Rs.500 per cent. R.W.2, speaks to the fact that he inspected the property and chose the sale covered by Ex.A-14 as the data sale. It is admitted that the property was originally valued at Rs.375 per cent. But it was reduced to Rs.250. His evidence is that during the course of enquiry he came to understand mat industrialists have purchased the property, paying higher value at the rate of Rs.375 per cent and therefore he has not take it as the basis. Therefore, an analysis of the documentary and oral evidence would show that the property acquired is fit as house site and his adjacent to Tiruppur - Avinashi Road and there are houses and factories around the said property. It is further clear that the value of the property was determined at Rs.375 originally, but later on reduced to Rs.250. Therefore, an analysis of the documentary and oral evidence would show that the property acquired is fit as house site and his adjacent to Tiruppur - Avinashi Road and there are houses and factories around the said property. It is further clear that the value of the property was determined at Rs.375 originally, but later on reduced to Rs.250. The data sale deed Ex.A-14 relied upon by the Award Officer, comprised in S.No.434 lies to the west of Avinashi - Tiruppur Road. It is also in evidence that in and around the said property, there are houses and there are also factories. There is nothing to show that the property lying to the west of the road is less valuable than the property lying to the east of the said road. The purchaser of the property under Ex.A-14 is dead and his wife has been examined. She has stated that though the sale deed recites only Rs.1,100 as the sale consideration, what was actually paid by her husband was at the rate of Rs.500 per cent. In this connection, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in P. T. Kannan Nayar v. R.Krishna Iyer, A. I. R. 1969 Ker. 265, wherein it is observed as follows: “It is very doubtful where in the case of registered sale deeds a presumption could be drawn under Sec.114 of the Evidence Act mat the price mentioned in the sale deed is the price actually paid having regard to the common course of human conduct and business for its notorious that in order to save on stamp duty and registration charges if for anything else parties often show a lower price in the sale deed that the price actually paid. Even if a presumption does arise it would be a very weak presumption sufficiently rebutted by a bare denial by the opposite party... the sale deeds by themselves are of little for providing the relevant fact.” 7. Here, the purchaser has stated that the property was purchased at the rate of Rs.500 per cent but for the purpose of stamp duty it was shown as Rs.1,100 as the total consideration for the sale of 4 1/2 cents. The tendency to show lesser price in the sale deed with a view to avoid stamp duty is not uncommon one. The tendency to show lesser price in the sale deed with a view to avoid stamp duty is not uncommon one. This Court has held that there is nothing wrong in the parties taking steps to avoid payment of higher duty. The property is situate in the main road. Admittedly, there are factories, houses and shops not only in and around the acquired property but also in relation to the property covered by the data sale deed. Therefore, it will not be a surprise to hold that a higher price would have been paid for the property than what is recited in the sale deed. 8. The Supreme Court has held in the decision in N.M. Kasliwal v. M.FathimaBeevi,A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 2298 as follows: “In awarding compensation in acquisition proceeding, court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant notification. It is useful to consider the value paid for similar land at the material time under genuine transactions. The market value envisages the price which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending upon the question and nature of the land sold. A fully developed small plot in may fetch a higher value than a larger area in an undeveloped condition and situated in a remote locality. By comparing the price shows in the transactions all variables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction regard to smaller property cannot therefore be taken as a rule basis for fixing the compensation for longer tracts of property. In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property whichever a deduction as given taking into consideration the expenses required, condition of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots, dealt with under the sale transaction.” Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the property, which is acquired herein being a larger extent of land even assuming that actually higher amount was paid under Ex-A-14, still it being a small plot considering the admission that there are factories beside the same, it is not safe to accept the amount given thereunder. The admissions of P.Ws.1 and 2 are to be the effect that there are plots residential and non-residential in and around the said property. Further, there is a textile mill near the property. Moreover, according to P.W. 1 the owner of S.No.430 had plotted out the property with a view to sell them as house sites to different parties. Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon Ex:A-14 as an infalliable one for determining the value of the acquired land. Ex.A-2 relates to S.No.434. Under the said document, what has been sold is an extent of 7 and 14 cents. That is sold for Rs.3,700. Ex.A-3 is the sale deed dated 20.8.1972. It is also a sale deed relating to 7 and 14 cents. Ex.A-4 is of the year 1973. An extent of land measuring 66’ x 40’ viz. roughly six cent, has been sold for Rs.7,000. Under Ex.A-5 which is dated 30.5.1973, a site measuring25’ x 80’, i.e., 2,000 sq.ft. roughly about 4 cents has been sold for Rs.2,300. Ex.A-6 is of the year 1974. It deals with a site measuring 18’ x 19’ and it also roughly works out Rs.600 sq.ft. Ex.A-7 is of the year 1974 whereunder property measuring about 4 cents has been sold for Rs.1,740. Ex.A-8 is of the year 1973 and it is of an extent of 2 3/4 cents. Ex.A-9 is to the effect that a common 1/3 share in 10 cents was sold for Rs.1,000. Ex.A-14 is,(he data sale deed.The value reflected in the sale deed relied upon by the claimant, cannot be taken as a safe guide for arriving at the market value of the property. 9. In the decision in Sri Rani M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. The Collector of Madras, (1969)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 45, it has been held that the higher value represented should be normally taken unless there are strong circumstances justifying the different course. Here, we have strong circumstances for not accepting the value given by the Government. It is clear from the cross-examination of the witnesses already referred to that the value of property covered by a transaction regarding a smaller property cannot be taken as the real basis for fixing compensation for a larger extent of property. We have to take into consideration all variables. Only in certain circumstances it is permissible to take the price secured for a small plots of land. 10. We have to take into consideration all variables. Only in certain circumstances it is permissible to take the price secured for a small plots of land. 10. It is also in this context to be pointed out that the claimant, when land acquisition proceedings had been initiated gave his consent for acquisition but requested compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000 per acre. At a later stage, he has claimed compensation only at the rate of Rs.350 per cent. Therefore, this aspect has also be taken into consideration. For it would show that the value reflected in the sale deeds produced by the claimant cannot be a safe guide for determining the value of the property lying to the east of the road. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the value was determined once at Rs.375, but it has been subsequently reduced to Rs.250 per cent, It is not the evidence of either R.W.1 or R.W.2, that the value was once determined and fixed at Rs.375 per cent. R.W.2 has stated that originally it was held to be Rs.375 per cent and later it was reduced to Rs.250 per cent because during the course of site enquiry he came to know that some industrialists have purchased properties at the rate of Rs.375 per cent and they have given higher value for the property, so purchased and therefore he has determined at Rs.250. His further evidence is as follows: 12. The Award Officer was examined as R.W.1. As stated in the course of examination, his predecessor rejected the price at Rs.375 as not proper. Therefore there was no final determination as such by R.W. 1 or R.W.2 at the rate of Rs.375 per cent. 13. In such matters where determination of value of property is at issue, one cannot assess the same with | any golden scale. One has to take into consideration the lie of the property; and the purpose for which it is acquired. The fact that they are either among from or near busy roads, public institutions like schools, colleges and temples etc., have all to be taken into consideration, arid therefore it is only an exercise in the realm of conjecture with certain guidelines. The fact that they are either among from or near busy roads, public institutions like schools, colleges and temples etc., have all to be taken into consideration, arid therefore it is only an exercise in the realm of conjecture with certain guidelines. Therefore, in such circumstances, unless parties are able to place before court materials impeccable in nature and quality, it is not possible for the court to pinpoint accurately the value of the property acquired. In this case, we do not have any acceptable material to determine the value of the land at Rs.375 or Rs.400 as claimed by the claimant. In the same bream, it has to be also stated that the determination of the value at Rs.275 by the lower court appears to be somewhat low. Considering the fact that the property has an immediate access to the main road, fit as a house site for which purpose the property was acquired, and in view of the general trend that can be discerned from the sale deed produced by the claimant, we would fix the market value of the property at the rate of Rs.325 percent. 14. The lower court deducted from the value of the land a sum equivalent to 20% towards development for roads, drainage, etc. There is no evidence on the side of the Government to show that the property acquired cannot be used as such for the purpose for which it was acquired without further development. On the other hand, we find that the property is fit for the purpose for which it was acquired. It abuts the main road. Therefore the principle mat a large extent is acquired and therefore there must be deduction in the value for the purpose of development will not hold food in this case. Therefore, the order of the lower court deducting 20% out of the compensation amount arrived at by it towards development cost cannot be sustained. 15. For all the above reasons, we hold that the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.325 per cent. Hence, the points formulated for consideration have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the claimant holding that he is entitled to a higher compensation at.Rs.325 per cent. 16. 15. For all the above reasons, we hold that the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.325 per cent. Hence, the points formulated for consideration have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the claimant holding that he is entitled to a higher compensation at.Rs.325 per cent. 16. In the result, mis appeal is allowed in part, modifying the award passed by the lower court holding that the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.325 per cent with 15% solatium, less the amount of compensation already received by the 1st claimant, if any, together with interest as per rules. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their costs.