JUDGMENT MS. KAMLESH SHARMA, J.—These two appeals (RFA Nos. 112 and 123 of 1996) at the instance of Himachal Pradesh Housing Board (hereinafter called the Board), are being disposed of by a common judgment as these arise out of the same award dated 14.8.1996 passed by District Judge, Shimla whereby the market V9lU5 of the acquired land was enhanced to Rs. 1,11,660/- per Bigha from Rs. 20,000/- per Bigha granted by the Land Acquisition Collector. The acquired land is measuring 53.12 bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 354, 355 and 363 situated in village Annu, Tehsil Rohm, District Shimla, out of which land measuring 47 Bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 354 and 355 belbnged to Shri Bharat Singh Negi and three other arrayed as respondents—claimants in RFA No. 123 of 1996 and land measuring 6-12 Bighas belonged to Shri Rajnesh Dutta and 26 others arrayed as respondents-claimants in RFA No. 112 of 1996. The purpose of acquisition in question was construction of Social Housing Colony by the Board and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called the Act) was issued on 29.7.1989. The Land Acquisition Collector gave his award on 3.7.1992. 2. Having been not satisfied with the determination of market value by the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents-claimants filed reference petitions, which have been decided by the impugned award enhancing the market value of acquired land to Rs. 1,11,660/- per Bigha, which has been assailed by the Board in these appeals. The first ground of challenge is that sale transactions Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/D and PW-5/A could not be relied upon for determining the market value of acquired land for the reasons; firstly that the kind of acquired land was Bakhal Awal, whereas, the kind of the lands of the said sale transactions was superior /. e. Kiar Awal; secondly, the area of acquired land is very big as compared to the respective area of each of the sale transactions; thirdly, two of the sale deeds Ex. PW-4/D and Ex. PW-5/A could not be taken into consideration as these pertain to dates six months after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Another ground is that the District Judge has not made any deduction for the purpose of development keeping in view the purpose of acquisition, which is construction of housing colony. PW-4/D and Ex. PW-5/A could not be taken into consideration as these pertain to dates six months after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Another ground is that the District Judge has not made any deduction for the purpose of development keeping in view the purpose of acquisition, which is construction of housing colony. Before we deal with these grounds of challenge, we may advert to the factors which should be borne in mind while determining the market value of the acquired land, as provided under Section 23 of the Act. These are :— 1. The crucial date for determining the market value is the date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Even post notification instances can be taken into account if they are-very proximate, genuine and the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchasers to pay higher price on account of resultant improvement in development prospects. 2. The market value is to be determined not only with reference to the condition of the acquired land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act but its potential value must also be taken into account. 3. If for determining the market value the instances method is adopted, only those instances should be taken into consideration which are proved to be genuine by the evidence of the vendor and/or vendee and also proximate from time angle as well as situation angle. 4. By taking the market value of comparable instances as the basis, the market value of the acquired land should be determined by making suitable adjustment keeping in view the size and shape of the plot of land, proximity to a road, frontage on a road, nearness to developed area and special advantage or disadvantage which may affect the market value. 5. Prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of iarge tracts of land, as the two are not comparable properties. However, if it is shown that the large tract of acquired land is also fit for building purposes and its market value is required to be determined on the basis of the prices fetched for comparable small plots sold for building purposes, necessary deductions are required to be made for the expenses of development of the site and for providing civic amenities by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines etc. etc. etc. However, the extent of deductions may be from 20% to 65%. 6. The prices fetched for small plots cannot be applied in the case of large tract of areas for another reason that the former reflects the retail price of the land and the latter the wholesale price. 4. Before we apply these factors to the present case, we may refer to the comparable instances proved by the parties on record. These are:— Sale Transaction Date of Sale Price and Area Price per Biswa Ex. PW-4/A 03.01.1989 Rs. 20,000/- for 3 Biswas Rs. 6,665/- Ex. PW-4/B 28.01.1989 Rs. 26,000/- for 3 Biswas Rs. 8,666/- Ex. PW-4/C 23.02.1989 Rs. 30,000/- for 3 Biswas Rs. 10,000/- Ex. PW-4/D 20.02.1989 Rs. 40,000/- for 4 Biswas Rs. 10,000/- Ex. PW-5/A 20.12.1990 Rs. 34,000/- for Z-V2 Biswas Rs. 9,715/- Ex. R-1 08.05.1989 Rs. 6,000/- for 3 Biswas Rs. 2,000/- Ex. RW-4/A July, 1989 Rs. 7,000/- for 3 Biswas Rs. 2,333/- 5. It is not in dispute that the sale transactions Exts. PW-4/A, PW-4/B, PW-4/C and PW-5/A have been proved to be genuine by the evidence of vendors Uday Singh PW-4 and Chatroo PW-5, whereas, sale transactions Ex. R-1 and RW-4/A by the evidence of vendees Bhagat Singh RW-1 and Mohan Singh RW-4 respectively. So far proximity of time is concerned, the sale transactions Exts. PW-4/A, PW-4/B, PW-4/C, R-1 and RW-4/A pertain to the period six months before the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whereas, the sale transactions Exts. PW-4/D and PW-5/A pertain to the period much later from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. There is no bar to take into consideration post notification sale transactions, provided, it is proved that the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of resultant improvement in development prospects, as held in Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC 1652 and Administrator-General of West Bengal v. Collector Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943. Since in sale transactions Ex. PW-4/D and PW-5/A there is no upward surge in the sale prices of plots, it can be said that the market value of the land had remained stable despite the acquisition. In view of this, even if these sale transactions are taken into account, these will not make any material difference. 6. Since in sale transactions Ex. PW-4/D and PW-5/A there is no upward surge in the sale prices of plots, it can be said that the market value of the land had remained stable despite the acquisition. In view of this, even if these sale transactions are taken into account, these will not make any material difference. 6. Further, the land of all these sale transactions Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/C and PW-5/A are situated in the same revenue estate where the acquired land is situated and these have been proved to be proximate to the acquired land in respect of location, distance from the main road, nearness to developed area and future prospects. Therefore, these sale transactions have been rightly taken as basis for determining the market value of the acquired land but the method of averaging adopted by the District Judge is not correct. However, on the basis of these sale transactions Exts. PW-4/A, PW-4/B, PW-4/C, PW-4/D and DW-5/E it can be reasonably presumed that the market value of the acquired land was not less than Rs. 9,000 per Biswa or Rs. 1,80,000/- per Bigha. 8. The first objection raised by learned Counsel for the appellant-Board that the land of these sales transactions being Kiar Awal is not comparable to the acquired land which is Bakhal Awal is not substantiated from the evidence on record. No doubt in the revenue records the kind of lands of these sale transactions is Kiar Awal but it has come in the statement of PW-4 Uday Singh, the vendor of sale deeds Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/D, that since 1978 the Koohal, which used to irrigate the lands of these sale transactions was not in existence. Similarly, Nagender Singh Negi PW-7, one of the respondents-claimants, has also stated that the lands of these sale transactions owned by Uday Singh PW-4, was Kiar Awal only in revenue papers and not as a matter of fact. Since the evidence of these witnesses is not contradicted by the appellant-Board, it rebuts the statement made in the revenue record. Moreover, the kind of both the lands i.e. the lands of the sale transactions and the acquired land becomes immaterial in view of the fact that both the lands had building potentiality and they were being assessed as such. 9. Another submission of learned Counsel for the appellant-Board is that sale transactions Exts. Moreover, the kind of both the lands i.e. the lands of the sale transactions and the acquired land becomes immaterial in view of the fact that both the lands had building potentiality and they were being assessed as such. 9. Another submission of learned Counsel for the appellant-Board is that sale transactions Exts. R-1 and RW-4/A as well as award Ex. PX have been wrongly ignored by the District Judge for assessing the market value of the acquired land. By sale transaction Ex. R-1 one Chatroo had sold 3 Biswas of land for Rs. 6,000/- to Bhagat Singh on 8.5.1989 and the sale price comes to Rs. 2,000/- per Biswa or Rs. 40,000/- per Bigha, whereas, by sale transaction Ex. RW-4/A the same vendor Chatroo had sold 3 Biswas of land for Rs. 7,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 2,333/- per Biswa or Rs. 46,660 per Bigha. In the award Ex. PX the market value of a piece of land acquired for the public purpose of construction of Government Degree College, Rohroo was determined at Rs. 3,000/- per Biswa or Rs. 60,000/- per Bigha. But this award is not of any help for determining the market value of the acquired land for the reason that there is nothing on record to show that the land of this award is comparable to the acquired land keeping in view their respective location, proximity to the main road, nearness to developed area and special advantage or disadvantage, etc. etc. It was also not proximate in time, as notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the land of this award was published on 31.1.1987, that is to say, 2-/4 years before the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued for the acquired land on 29.7.1989. So far sale transactions Exts. R-1 and RW-4/A are concerned, these are also of no help for determining the market value of the acquired land in view of the admitted fact that during the negotiations between the Board and respondents-claimants, the former had offered the price of Rs. 80,000 per Bigha, as stated by Rajinder Makkar RW~2, the then Superintending Engineer of the Board. 10. The next question for consideration is whether it is desirable to be guided by sale transactions Exts. 80,000 per Bigha, as stated by Rajinder Makkar RW~2, the then Superintending Engineer of the Board. 10. The next question for consideration is whether it is desirable to be guided by sale transactions Exts. PW-4/A to PW-4/D and PW-5/A for determining the market value of the acquired land in view of the fact that each of these sale transactions pertains to small area to the extent of 3 to 4 Biswas as compared to the large area of the acquired land measuring 53 Bigha 12 Biswas. In the absence of sale transactions of bigger extents of land comparable to the acquired land we have no alternative but to rely upon these sale transactions, which have been proved to be proximate in time, location and future prospects but some deduction is required to be made as the market value determined on the basis of these sale transactions is a retail price, whereas, we are required to determine the wholesale price in view of the large area of the acquired land. This deduction can also be viewed from another angle that large part of the acquired land will be consumed for development purposes, such as, road, drainage, electricity and other civic amenities- necessary for the construction of a housing colony for which the acquisition has been made. 11. In order to determine the quantum of deduction, we may refer to some latest judgments of the Supreme Court. In Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons and others v. State of Gujarat, (1995) 5 SCC 422, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court have approved 60% deduction towards development charges allowed by the High Court in view of the totality of facts on record. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. V.T. Velu and others, (1996) 2 SCC 538, it is observed that 1/3rd of the land acquired for building purposes is to be set apart for development purposes, such as, road and civic amenities and deduction to the extent of 53% and in some cases 60% was upheld keeping in view the facts of each case. Even deduction to the extent of 65% towards development charges was approved by the Supreme Court in Basavva (Smt.) and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 9 SCC 640, whereas, deduction at the lesser rate of 33-1/3% was allowed towards development charges in Ram Pi ah and another v. Land Acquisition Collector, Solan and others, (1996) 8 SCC 338. 12. Therefore, from these judgments it is clear that the percentage of development charges will differ in each case depending upon the extent of land required for development purposes, which will further depend upon the nature of development, conditions and nature of land, the land required to be set apart under the building rules for roads, sewerage, electricity, parks, water, etc. and all other relevant circumstances. So far as the case in hand is concerned, one witness Satish Kumar RW-3, the then Architect of the Board, categorically stated that 55% of acquired land is under residential area as per the lay-out plan. Though this statement has not been rebutted by the respondents-claimants, yet it is not conclusive in the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence on the record that how much of the acquired land has been actually utilized for development purposes. The respondents-claimants have tried to show that in view of existence of schools, markets and other facilities at a short distance from the acquired land as well as one road going through it, only a small portion of the land was required for development purposes. Even if it is assumed that all these facilities are available in the vicinity of the acquired land, a reasonable portion of it is required for roads/paths, sewerage, electricity, etc. in the housing colony which has been built over the acquired land. So far as the contention of the appellant-Board in respect of the existing road is concerned, it has not been proved. According to the appellant-Board, there was only a footpath linking the main road with the acquired land existing at a distance of 20 feet. Even if the respondents-claimants had constructed a road/path for going to their land which was being used for agricultural purpose, it might not serve any purpose for the housing colony, which was to be constructed as per the approved plan. 13. Even if the respondents-claimants had constructed a road/path for going to their land which was being used for agricultural purpose, it might not serve any purpose for the housing colony, which was to be constructed as per the approved plan. 13. Therefore, in the totality of facts and circumstances on record the ends of justice will be served if 40% deduction is allowed towards the development charges, which will also serve the purpose for determining the wholesale price of the acquired land. On the basis of 40% deductions the market value of the acquired land will come to Rs. 1,08,000/- per Bigha, whereas, the District Judge has determined the market value at Rs. 1,11,660 per Bigha. Accordingly, the appeals are accepted and the impugned award is modified determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 1,08,000 per Bigha instead of Rs. 1,11,660/-. However, the respondents-claimants will be entitled to solatium and interest in accordance with law. No costs. Appeals allowed.