JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—This is a batch of 20 appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Himachal Pradesh Housing Board. The appeals arise out of separate judgments and awards dated 22.6.1996 and 22.3.1997, respectively, rendered by the District Judge, Shimla in different Land Reference Cases whereby the amount of compensation has been enhanced in favour of the respondents-claimants and against the appellant-Housing Board. The facts and law involved in the present appeals are identical, notification for acquiring the land is of the same date and the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties advanced their arguments in common and, therefore, we propose to decide these appeals by this common judgment. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these appeals may be stated: The State of H.P. intended to acquire land of the respondents-claimants at Shoghi for construction of Housing Board Colony. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the H.P. Gazette on 6.11.1990. The land involved in the acquisition was of different categories. The land Acquisition Collector had taken up the proceedings of acquisition and assessed the market value of the acquired land and made his award on 3.8.1994. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded an amount of Rs. 32,073/ - per bigha in respect of Bakhal Awal, Rs. 24,288/ per bigha for Bakhal Doem and Rs. 7.785/- per bigha for Ghasani Banjar Kadeem. Feeling dissatisfied by the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents-claimants Board filed reference applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act claiming enhancement of the compensation to the extent of Rs. 22,00,000/per bigha on the ground that the market value of the acquired land was much more than what has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The reference applications came to be heard and decided by the District Judge who framed the following two issues in all the reference applications:— 1. Whether the petitioners in all these petitions are entitled to enhancement of compensation in respect of acquisition of their land, if so, to what extent and amount?...OPP 2. Relief. The parties led their oral and documentary evidence in respect of their respective claims and the learned District Judge on appraisal of the evidence on record awarded amount of compensation @ Rs. 2 lacs per bigha for all kinds of lands irrespective of their classification. Relief. The parties led their oral and documentary evidence in respect of their respective claims and the learned District Judge on appraisal of the evidence on record awarded amount of compensation @ Rs. 2 lacs per bigha for all kinds of lands irrespective of their classification. In addition to the enhanced amount of compensation statutory interest and solatium was also awarded in favour the respondents-claimants and against the appellant-Housing Board. The appellant-Housing Bo rd being aggrieved have filed the present appeals challenging the correctness and validity of the judgments and awards of the District Judge in these appeals. 3. We have heard learned Counsel on either side and re-examined and re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. 4. Mr. Deepak Gupta learned Counsel for the appellant-Housing Board has vehemently contended that the evidence produced by the respondents-claimants has no relevance whatsoever in the facts of the present cases and could not have been used for the purpose of assessing the compensation by the court below. He has contended that the sale deeds Exts. PW 2/A and PW2/B on which much reliance has been placed by the court below basing the determination of the market value ought not to have been relied upon for the reason that under sale deed Ex. PW2/A one biswa of land was sold whereas sale deed Ex. PW2/B is related to sale of two biswas of land in which there was also a double storeyed shop. He has challenged the truthfulness and veracity of the statement of Sh. Gursaran (PW 2) who appeared as RW-3 also and purchased two biswas of land along with double storeyed shop on 22.1.1990 from one Piara Singh by mode of sale deed Ex. PW2/B. The same witness also purchased one biswa of land from Satish Balooni for Rs. 30,000/- on 30.3.1991 under sale deed Ex. PW2/A and both these sale deeds according to the learned Counsel pertain to small parcels of land and cannot be taken as relevant piece of evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land and therefore by relying upon these sale deeds, the learned District Judge has wrongly awarded the amount of compensation in favour of respondents-claimants. Mr. PW2/A and both these sale deeds according to the learned Counsel pertain to small parcels of land and cannot be taken as relevant piece of evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land and therefore by relying upon these sale deeds, the learned District Judge has wrongly awarded the amount of compensation in favour of respondents-claimants. Mr. Deepak Gupta also contended that the learned District Judge has evolved a novel and unique method of assessing the value of land on his own hypothesis himself when the Court has once rightly come to the conclusion that there was no evidence of bonafide sales produced by the respondents-claimants on record and in the absence of evidence the assessment of the market value of the land determined by the court below is based on surmises and conjectures. The learned Counsel also brought to our notice a glaring error committed by the District Judge in awarding the amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants in RFA No. 109 of 1996 treating the respondents-claimants to be owners of 4-18 bighas of land and awarded compensation accordingly whereas according to the learned Counsel they are co-sharers to the extent of 6/25th share in Khasra No. 607/556/19 measuring 2.11 bighas and Khasra No, 25 measuring 1-09 bigha. Thus, according to the learned Counsel the share of the respondents-claimants comes to 0-19 biswas only and that even in the claim petition filed by these respondents-claimants they claimed to be owners of only 2-07 bighas of land acquired whereas the learned District Judge granted compensation for 4-18 bighas in favour of those respondents-claimants and award to that extent is illegal and deserves to be set-aside. In the last, learned Counsel contended that the awards of the learned District Judge are patently wrong awarding compensation at the flat rate for all kinds of lands irrespective of their classification and utility. 5. Mr. Deepak Gupta learned Counsel has placed reliance in V.M. Salgoacar and Brother Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 302, Shakuntalabai (Smt) and others v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 152; State of U.P. and another v. Rajendra Singh, (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 347; and Manipur Tea Co. Put. 5. Mr. Deepak Gupta learned Counsel has placed reliance in V.M. Salgoacar and Brother Ltd. v. Union of India, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 302, Shakuntalabai (Smt) and others v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 2 Supreme Court Cases 152; State of U.P. and another v. Rajendra Singh, (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 347; and Manipur Tea Co. Put. Ltd, v. Collector of Hailakandi, (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 673, to contend that the burden of proof regarding the market value of the land acquired lies on the respondents-claimants who must produce the evidence to prove the market value of the land but the respondents-claimants have failed to discharge the burden as recorded by the learned District Judge in his judgments and awards and that in the absence of the evidence of the market value of the land determination of the market value of the acquired land, the learned District Judge has committed a patent error awarding compensation to the claimants about 4-1/2 times in excess to the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. 6. On the other hand, Mr. G.D. Verma learned Counsel appearing for majority of respondents-claimants has made the leading arguments which were adopted by the other Counsel appearing on behalf of other respondents-claimants who have not added further submissions to the contentions of Mr. G.D. Verma. 7. The first contention of Mr. Verma was that in RFA No. 109/ 96 and other connected three appeals arising out of the same award, the learned District Judge has failed to discuss the evidence of the witnesses produced by the respondents-claimants and the discrepancy in calculating the extent of area involved in this appeal as pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Board is apparent on the face of the record therefore, this court without going further into the merits of the case shall remand the case to the District Judge concerned for fresh trial after scrutinizing the evidence on record. He next contended that in other cases also, the learned District Judge has not dealt with the evidence in right perspective and thereby miscarriage of justice has been caused to the respondents-claimants and that all the cases deserve to be remanded to the District Judge for fresh trial on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. He has also contended that the sale deeds Exts. He has also contended that the sale deeds Exts. PX 85 PY were relied upon by the District Judge and on the basis of these sale deeds, the market value of the acquired land comes to Rs. 24 lacs and Rs. 40 lacs per bigha, respectively, whereas the District Judge has awarded the market value @ Rs. 2 lacs per bigha. He also contended that on the basis of the oral evidence led by the respondents-claimants about the location potentiality and future prospects of the area the evidence of the witnesses was not challenged and shattered in the cross-examination by he appellant-Board and in such circumstances, the evidence of the witnesses has to be accepted in its entirety which would go to prove the potential value of the acquired land situated in an around Shoghi Bazar which is a fast developing town and that small transactions of sale can be taken into consideration by the Court below for determination of the market value of the acquired land. The learned counsel has placed reliance in Special Tehsildar, Land Acqn., Vishakhapatnam v. Smt A. Mangala Gowri, (AIR 1992 SC 666); Rattan Kumar Tandon and others v. State of U.P., (1997) 2 SCC 161; Harminder Kumar Modi and others v. State of H.P. and another, 1997 (3) Shim. L.C. 353; Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamlamma (Smt) dead by Lrs. and others, (1998) 2 SCC 385; Hasanali Walimchand (dead) by Lrs. v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 2 SCC 388 and Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Jagan Nath and others, (1998 (2) Shim. L.C. 92). 8. After giving our best consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the position of law settled by the Courts in the judgments referred to above, we are of the view that the impugned judgments and awards do not stand judicial scrutiny. The respondents-claimants have mainly relied upon two sale deeds Exts. PW2/A and PW2/B to prove the market value of the acquired land. In support of the two sale deeds, the respondents-claimants examined vendee Gursaran (PW 2) in Land Reference Cases No. 2-s/4 of 95, l-s/4 of 95 and 3-s/4 of 95. Gursaran vendee purchased two biswas of land at Shoghi on 22.1.1990 for a consideration of Rs. 99,500/- under sale deed Ext. PW2/B. The vendee purchased the land alongwith double storeyed shop. In support of the two sale deeds, the respondents-claimants examined vendee Gursaran (PW 2) in Land Reference Cases No. 2-s/4 of 95, l-s/4 of 95 and 3-s/4 of 95. Gursaran vendee purchased two biswas of land at Shoghi on 22.1.1990 for a consideration of Rs. 99,500/- under sale deed Ext. PW2/B. The vendee purchased the land alongwith double storeyed shop. He purchased one biswa of land from Satish Balooni for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- at Shoghi. Besides this witness some of the respondents-claimants appeared in the witness box and stated that they were entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation claimed by them in their respective claim petitions. One of the respondents-claimants Lai Chand Sharma appeared as PW-1 in RFA No. 217/97 whose land measuring 0-11 biswas was acquired which he purchased in the year 1988 for running hotel and restaurant. He claimed compensation @ Rs. 10 lacs per bigha. In his cross-examination, he stated that the land which has been purchased by the industrialists at Shoghi for establishing their industries is about 1 Km. from the location of acquired land. Claimant-respondent Sanjiv Goel appeared as PW-2 and stated that he purchased 12 biswas of land at Shoghi in the year 1988-89 jointly with his Ajay Kumar from Shiv Ram for Rs. 48,000/- and the said land was the subject matter of present acquisition. He claimed the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 8 lacs per bigha. However, he categorically stated that the land was purchased by him for the purpose of setting up Steel Industry. The land owned by claimant Devinder Kumar measuring 4-18 bighas was acquired under the present acquisition. According to him, the market value of the acquired land was Rs. 7-8 lacs per bigha. Respondent-claimant Jai Kishan who filed claim petition along with five other owners of the land measuring 5-8 bighas which was acquired for establishing Housing Board Colony appeared as PW-13. He claimed compensation @ Rs. 8 lacs per bigha. He stated that in claim petition No. 31- S/4 of 95, he along with eight other co-sharers were owners of the land measuring 2-7 bighas out of the total land comprised in khasra No. 609/31 and the remaining 0-12 biswas of land was purchased by S/Shri Sanjiv Kumar and Ajay Kumar, 0-11 biswas was purchased by Lai Singh. He stated that in claim petition No. 31- S/4 of 95, he along with eight other co-sharers were owners of the land measuring 2-7 bighas out of the total land comprised in khasra No. 609/31 and the remaining 0-12 biswas of land was purchased by S/Shri Sanjiv Kumar and Ajay Kumar, 0-11 biswas was purchased by Lai Singh. Respondent-claimant Devi Saran appeared as PW-15 and deposed that in three claim petitions, namely, 16-S/4 of 95, 17-S/4 of 95 and 18-S/4 of 95 there are about 55 shareholders who jointly hold the land covered by these claim petitions. He along with other co-sharers were paid compensation for the land measuring 13-18 bighas whereas the land acquired was 13-10 bighas. Respondents-claimants through their learned Counsel Mr. Y.P. Sood, tendered in evidence Ex. P-Z, a copy of the award passed by the District Judge in Land Reference Cases No. l-S/4 of 95 and 2-S/ 4 of 95 and 3-S/4 of 95 decided on 22.6.1996 in the subsequent proceedings involving 17 claim petitions which were decided by the District Judge on 22.3.1997. All these reference cases are subject matters of these appeals. 9. On the other hand, the appellant-Board examined Moti Ram (RW-1) who sold 0-11 biswas of land in village Shoghi to Sh. Ranjish about 13 year back for Rs. 70,000/-. Bal Kishan (RW2) purchased 3.3. bighas of land from S/Shri Bhagwan Singh and Jia Lai etc. in the year 1989 for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/-. He produced a copy of the sale deed Ex. R-l. He stated that the land acquired by the appellant-Board is at a distance of 1/2 Km. from Shoghi bazar. The land was purchased by him for construction of a temple as it was situated on hill side and that the vendor has sold this piece of land at a lesser rate to him for the purpose of constructing a temple. Ashok Kumar Gupta, Assistant Architect of the Housing Board appeared as RW-3, who prepared the layout plan of the acquired land at Shoghi. He deposed that out of the total area acquired for the construction of Housing Board Colony at Shoghi is 3494.35 Sq. mtrs. and out of this constructed area will be 14019.69 Sqr. mtrs. The left out area will be covered for construction of roads and paths as well as commercial purposes and also for green land etc. He deposed that out of the total area acquired for the construction of Housing Board Colony at Shoghi is 3494.35 Sq. mtrs. and out of this constructed area will be 14019.69 Sqr. mtrs. The left out area will be covered for construction of roads and paths as well as commercial purposes and also for green land etc. He also deposed that in terms of percentage only 41.4% is being used for construction. He specifically stated that the acquired area had no approach road and it is approximately 1/2 Km. from Shoghi bazar to Kalka side. He placed on record blue print of the plan Ex. R-2. Prem Kumar (RW-4) is a vendee of two biswas of land purchased by him from Vishwa Nath in the year 1988 for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/- and placed on record a copy of the sale deed Ex. RW4/ A. He purchased the land for a construction of a shop which is at a distance of 400 yards from the acquired land. However, he admitted the suggestion of the respondents-claimants that in the year 1989-90 the rate of land per biswas at Shoghi was Rs. 25,000/- on the road side but denied the suggestion that he had paid more consideration of the land then Rs. 13,000/- as stated by him. Gursaran Sharma who appeared as PW-2 in the first reference case and PW-1 in second batch of reference petitions was again examined as RW-5. He placed on record a copy of the sale deed Ex. RW-5/A of the land measuring 1 bigha which he purchased from one Brij Lai in the year 1989 for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/-. The appellant-Board also placed on record, a copy of sale deed Ex. RX, the contents of the said deed were read-over and admitted by Sh. Y.P. Sood, Advocate representing the respondents-claimants. Sh Ajay Goel, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant-Board tendered in evidence, a copy of sale deed Ex. RY. Sh. Jai Kishan vendor appeared as RW-6 who is also one of the claimants in these proceedings and also appeared his own witness had sold 0-1 bigha of land on 11.1.1989 to Jagdish Chand for a consideration of Rs. 500/- and the said land is situated near Shoghi Railway Station. He placed on record certified copy of the sale deed Ex. Jai Kishan vendor appeared as RW-6 who is also one of the claimants in these proceedings and also appeared his own witness had sold 0-1 bigha of land on 11.1.1989 to Jagdish Chand for a consideration of Rs. 500/- and the said land is situated near Shoghi Railway Station. He placed on record certified copy of the sale deed Ex. RW6/A. He also stated that the land which he sold to Jagdish Chand is near to Shoghi bazar than the acquired land. The appellant-Board also produced Anil Kumar, Patwari as RW-7, who prepared Tatima Ex. RW7/A and Musavi Ex. RW7/B of the acquired land. He stated that there was no approach road to the acquired land and it has now been constructed by the Housing Board. He deposed that the acquired land is situated at a distance of 1/2 Km. from Shoghi bazar. He pledged his ignorance about the market value of the land in Shoghi Bazar @ Rs. 8 lacs per bigha at the time of acquisition of the land for the purpose of construction of Housing Board Colony by the appellant-Board. This is the entire evidence produced on record by the parties. 10. The appellant-Board has not examined vendor or vendee in respect of the sale deed Ex. RX. However, in respect of sale deed Ex. RW6/A Gursaran was examined, who purchased one bigha of land from Ranjit Lai for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/-. The learned District Judge in para-10 of the awards has concluded that the claimants have not been able to bring on record sufficient number of bona fide sales so as to determine the market value of the land and out of the sale transactions two sale deeds relied upon by them, one relates to 0-2 biswas of land on which there was a double storeyed shop which could not be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land. The second sale deed was executed after about four months from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the acquisition of the land. The learned District Judge also noticed that in the present cases both the sale deeds on which reliance has been placed by the respondents-claimants pertain to a tiny piece of land and despite this reasoning the learned District Judge has relied upon the sale deed Ex. The learned District Judge also noticed that in the present cases both the sale deeds on which reliance has been placed by the respondents-claimants pertain to a tiny piece of land and despite this reasoning the learned District Judge has relied upon the sale deed Ex. PW-2/B dated 22.1.1990 vide which vendor Piara Singh sold 0-2 biswas of land to vendee Gursaran (PW-2, PW-11 and RW-5) for a consideration of Rs. 99,500 and assessed the cost of the double storeyed shop existing on two biswas of land at the time of purchase at Rs. 60,000/- and after deducting the cost of double storeyed shop the market value of 0-2 biswas of land was determined at Rs. 40,000/- meaning thereby at Rs. 2 lacs per bigha. The method and mode of assessment of the value of double storeyed shop applied for by the learned District Judge in the absence of an iota of evidence on record the assessment of the double storeyed shop is unwarranted and unsustainable. If the learned District Judge wanted to assess the market value of the double storeyed shop, he ought to have based his assessment on some evidence produced on record to prove that the cost of the double storeyed shop was at Rs. 60,000/- and it appears to us that the learned District Judge has assessed the market value of the double storeyed shop on surmises, conjectures and on mere presumptions. Once it is recorded by the District Judge in his awards that no definite reliance can be placed on the sale deeds brought on record by the respondents-claimants, it is not permissible for the District Judge to have relied upon the said sale deeds for determination of the market value of the acquired land and awarding enhanced compensation to the respondents-claimants. The District Judge relied upon the sale deed Ex. PW2/ B and assessed the market value of the land involved therein @ Rs. 20,000/- per biswa and Rs. 30,000/ per biswa under sale deed Ex. PW2/A and after adding costs of both sale deeds the deduction 50% was recorded and cost was assessed® Rs. 25,000/- per biswa. Thereafter deducting 60% of Rs. 25,000/-, which would come to Rs. 15,000/- the market value of the acquired land has been fixed at Rs. 10,000/ per biswa of Rs. 2 lacs per bigha. PW2/A and after adding costs of both sale deeds the deduction 50% was recorded and cost was assessed® Rs. 25,000/- per biswa. Thereafter deducting 60% of Rs. 25,000/-, which would come to Rs. 15,000/- the market value of the acquired land has been fixed at Rs. 10,000/ per biswa of Rs. 2 lacs per bigha. On the basis of this criteria, the compensation amount @ 2 lacs per bigha came to be awarded to the respondents-claimants for acquired land. The assessment of the amount of compensation by the District Judge is not legal and valid based upon these two sale deeds for the reason that the criteria adopted by the District Judge is based on surmises and conjectures in the absence of definite evidence that the acquired land was better in quality or equivalent to the quality of the land purchased by the vendees by way of said two sale deeds. 11. The appellant-Board has placed on record certified copy of the sale deed Ex. Rx which was executed by claimants Savitri Devi and others in favour of Bai Kishan on 3.5.1989. The vendor sold 3 bighas 3 biswas of land in favour of vendee for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/-. Vendee PW-Gursaran who is one of the claimants purchased one bigha of land from Ranjit Lai on 27.9.1989 for Rs. 11,000/- only vide sale deed Ex. RW3/A. The contents of sale deed Ex. RX were admitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants in his statement and undoubtedly no vendor or vendee has been examined in respect of this transaction, yet for quesswork, the sale price of the land covered by the sale deed can be taken into consideration for determining the market value of the acquired land. The second sale deed relied upon by the appellant-Board was Ex. RY (wrongly marked as Ex. RX) pertaining to the sale of 0-2 biswas of land by Vishwa Nath in favour of S/Shri Prem Kumar and Jagdish Dutt in December 18, 1987 whereunder two biswas of land was old by vendor to the vendee for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/ -. This sale deed has been brought on record by Prem Kumar who is one of the vendee and was marked RW4/A as well. 13,000/ -. This sale deed has been brought on record by Prem Kumar who is one of the vendee and was marked RW4/A as well. Thus, the vendee of this sale deed has been examined by the appellant-Board and according to sale this deed the value of the land purchased by RW-Prem Kumar from Vishwa Nath in the year 1988 comes to Rs. 1,30,000/- per bigha. The sale price of sale deed Ex. RX measuring 0-2 biswas was Rs. 48,000/- purchased by PW- Sanjiv Goel jointly with his brother Ajay Kumar in the year 1988-89 which he has admitted in his statement and the contents of the sale deed has been admitted by Sh. Y.P. Sood, counsel for the respondents-claimants in his statement recorded by the District Judge. The execution and consideration was also admitted by the counsel on 4.12.1996 as noticed in the copy of the sale deed. 12. We have examined both oral and documentary evidence noticed above. We now refer to the decisions of the Supreme Court dealing with principles of determination of the market value of the land acquired for public purpose. In AIR 1992 Supreme Court 666 (Special Tehsildar, Land Acqn., Vishakhapatnam v. Smt A. Mangala Gowri), it is held that the market value postulated in Section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act designed to award just and fair compensation for the land acquired. The word "market value" would postulate price of the land prevailing on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). The judgment proceeded to hold that in determining the market value of the land, price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to obtain from a willing purchaser would form the basis to fix the market value and for ascertaining the marker rate, the Court can rely upon such transactions which would after a reasonable basis to fix the price. The price paid in sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the data to assess the market value. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the data to assess the market value. We are obliged to refer to the relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the apex Court in Special Deputy Collector and another v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao and others , (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 41, dealing with the principles for determination of the market value of the land and burden to be discharged by the claimants to establish that the land was capable of fetching higher market value besides objectively assessing the evidence tendered by the parties. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are extracted as under:— "6. On the basis of the above factual material collected, the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award. The question arises whether the acquired lands possessed of potential value for being used as building sites. The High Court has found, as pointed out by Shri Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the claimants, that the lands are possessed of potential value for being used for building purpose. It is well settled legal position that the claimants stand in the position of plaintiffs. Burden of proof is always on the claimants to prove by adduction of cogent and acceptable evidence that the lands are capable of fetching higher compensation than what is determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which is only an offer. If the award is accepted without protest, it binds the parties. It is the bounden duty of the court to evaluate the evidence on the basis of human conduct, even if no rebuttal evidence is produced by the Land Acquisition Officer, to assess the market value applying the relevant tests laid down by this Court in beadroll of decisions. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, this Court considered the entire case law as on that date, on the principle of determination of market value and the relevant test laid in that behalf. The burden of proof that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector is not adequate is always on the claimant. In Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala, this Court considered the entire case law as on that date, on the principle of determination of market value and the relevant test laid in that behalf. The burden of proof that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector is not adequate is always on the claimant. The burden is to adduce relevant and material evidence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching higher market value than the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector or that the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector proceeded on a wrong premise or applied a wrong principle of law. The object of the enquiry in a reference under Section 18 of the Act is to bring on record the price which the land under acquisition was capable of fetching in the open market as on the date of the notification. The relative situation of the acquired land which is the subject of the sale transaction, the nature of .the land, its suitability, nature of the use to which the lands are put to on the date of the notification, income derived or derivable from or any other special distinctive feature which the land is possessed of and the sale transactions in respect of lands covered by the same notification are all relevant factors to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. It is, therefore, the paramount .duty of the courts of facts to subject the evidence to very close scrutiny, objectively assess the evidence tendered by the parties on proper consideration thereof in correct perspective to arrive at adequate and reasonable market value. The attending facts and circumstances in each case would furnish guidance to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands. It is equally relevant to consider the neighbourhood lands as are possessed of similar potentiality or any advantageous features or any special circumstances available in each case. The Court is required to take into account all the relevant considerations. The Court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guesswork is involved, feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. The Court is required to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the lands. In that process, though some guesswork is involved, feats of imagination should be eschewed and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. Even in the absence of oral evidence adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer or the beneficiaries the Judges are to draw from their experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. Misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. 7. Whether fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depends on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence, and probabilities arising in each case. The guiding star or the acid test would be whether a hypothetical willing vendor would offer the lands and a willing purchaser in normal human conduct would be willing to buy as a prudent man in normal market conditions prevailing in the open market in the locality in which the acquired lands are situated as on the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act; but not an anxious buyer dealing at arms length with throw always price, nor facade of sale or fictitious sales brought about in quick succession or otherwise to inflate the market value. The Judge should sit in the armchair of the said willing buyer and seek an answer to the question whether in the given set of circumstances as a prudent buyer he would offer the same market value which the court proposed to fix for the acquired lands in the available marker conditions. The Court is, therefore, enjoined with the bounden duty of public function and judicial dispensation in determination of the market value of the acquired land and compulsory acquisition. 8. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration, and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors. They are all relevant factors. In the absence of such a sale deed relating to the acquired land, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. In that case, the features required to be present are: it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; it must be a bona fide transaction; it should be a sale of land similar to the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar advantageous features. These are relevant features to be taken into consideration to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of he notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act. This would be established by examining either the vendor or the vendee. If it is proved that they are not available, the scribe of the document may also be examined in that behalf. Section 51-A of the Act only dispenses with the production of the original sale deed and directs to receive certified copy for the reason that parties to the sale transaction would be reluctant to part with the original sale deed since acquisition proceedings would take long time before award of the compensation attains finality and in the meanwhile the owner of the sale deed is precluded from using the same for other purposes iris-a-ins this land. The marking of the certified copy per se is not admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and the witnesses, viz., the vendor or the vendee, are examined. This principle has been repeated in a catena of subsequent decisions of this Court. 9. In Basant Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 5452, this Court pointed out that doctrine of equality in determination of the payment of same compensation to all claimants covered by the same notification, is not a good principle. Treating the entire village as one unit and uniformity determining compensation on that basis is not sustainable in law. The Court must always determine the market value prevailing as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not what was claimed by the parties. Even estimate of claimant is not decisive. The status of the claimant is irrelevant. The Court must always determine the market value prevailing as on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and not what was claimed by the parties. Even estimate of claimant is not decisive. The status of the claimant is irrelevant. It was reiterated that while determining the compensation under Section 23(1), the Court should sit in the armchair of a prudent willing purchaser in the open market and see whether he would be willing to offer the same price as is proposed to be fixed by Land Acquisition Officer as market value for the same or similar lands possessed of all the advantageous features. This test should always be kept in mind in analysing the evidence and the Court should answer affirmatively taking into consideration all the relevant factors. If feats of imagination are allowed sway, the Land Acquisition Officer/Collector would overstep judicial decisions/quasi-judicial orders and would land in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law. In that case the compensation as fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was reduced. In Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Tajar Hanifabi, (1996) 10 SCC 627, the question related to determination of the market value in respect of 6 acres of land. When the land in fact was used for agricultural purpose, no prudent and willing vendee would offer the market value on square-foot basis. Thus determination of compensation on square-foot basis on the foot of a small-sale transaction was held to be a wrong principle of law and accordingly the determination of compensation was reduced from Rs. 1,96,200 per acre to Rs. 45,000/-per acre. 10. In Agricultural Produce Market Committee v. Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner, (1996) 10 SCC 627, the same view was reiterated. It was held that when a total 7 acres and odd of land was sought to be acquired no prudent purchaser in the open market would offer to purchase the open land on square-foot basis that too on the basis of a few small sale transactions. This Court pointed out that such fixation of the market value was illegal and accordingly reduced the market value. 11. This Court pointed out that such fixation of the market value was illegal and accordingly reduced the market value. 11. It would thus be settled law that the Court is enjoined to determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market, the nature of the user of the land to which the land was put on the date of the notification, the situation of the land, the income derived therefrom and all other relevant attending circumstances. The market value so determined should be just, adequate and reasonable. In other words, it must be just equivalent to what the land is capable of fetching in the open market from a willing and prudent buyer. Therefore, the Court is required to sit in the armchair of a bona fide willing and prudent purchaser in the open market and seek an answer to the question whether in the conditions prevailing in the market he would offer the same market value as the Court has proposed." 13. Again in Manipur Tea Co. Put Ltd. v. Collector of Hailakandi, (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 673, it was held that for determining the market value of the land sale statistics cannot ipso facto form a basis to determine the compensation unless persons connected with the sale deeds and the documents are examined. Similar view has been taken by the apex Court in other decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the parties mentioned above, we may not be obliged to refer each one of them in detail for unnecessarily burdening the judgment. 14. In the light of the settled position of law quoted above on the question of admissibility of sale transactions and data for determining the market value of the land, we find on record in these cases that there are only three relevant sale deeds which are marked Exhibits PW2/A, PW2/B, RX and RY. Sale deed Ex. PW 2/ B is dated 22.1.1990 in respect of which vendee PW-Gursaran (RW5) has been examined by both the parties who is also one of the claimants in the claim petitions. He purchased 2 biswas of land from Piara Singh on 22.1.1990 for a consideration of Rs. 99,500/-. On this land there was a double storeyed shop. This witness also purchased another piece of 0-1 biswsa of land through sale deed Ex. PW2/ A, for a consideration of Rs. He purchased 2 biswas of land from Piara Singh on 22.1.1990 for a consideration of Rs. 99,500/-. On this land there was a double storeyed shop. This witness also purchased another piece of 0-1 biswsa of land through sale deed Ex. PW2/ A, for a consideration of Rs. 30,000/- from Satish Balooni and the value of this land comes to Rs. 6 lacs per bigha. The second sale deed was executed after notification issued on 6.11.1990 and, therefore, the market value of that sale deed cannot be taken into consideration for determination of the acquired land. The three sale deeds relied upon by the appellant-Board are marked RX, RW3/ A, again marked RW5/A and RY (RW4/A) pertaining to the year 1988-89 in respect of sale and purchase’ of the land in Shoghi Bazar by the vendors and vendees. To prove sale deed Ex. RW3/A (RW5/ A) RW-Gursaran was examined (who appeared as his own witness in the claim petition), the vendee purchased 1-0 bigha of land in the year 1988-89 for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/- from one Ranjit Lai. One Shiv Ram sold 0-12 biswas of land to PW-Sanjiv Goel and his brother Ajay Kumar in the year 1988-89 for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/- and the said land was purchased by vendee for the purpose of setting up of steel industries. PW-Prem Kumar purchased two biswas of land from Vishwa Nath for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/ - copy of which was marked Ext. RX and again RW4/A. From the perusal of these sale deeds it is clear that they pertain to 1-1/2 or 2 years prior to the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The duty of the Court is to keep at the back of its mind that the object of assessment is to arrive at reasonable and adequate market value of the land and in that process, though some guesswork, is involved, and mechanical assessment of the evidence should be avoided. It is also the duty of the District Judge to draw from his experience the normal human conduct of the parties and bona fide and genuine sale transactions are guiding star in evaluating the evidence. The Supreme Court cautioned about the misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. The Supreme Court cautioned about the misplaced sympathies or undue emphasis solely on the claimants right to compensation would place very heavy burden on the public exchequer to which everyone contributes by direct or indirect taxes. Fair and reasonable and adequate market value is always a question of fact depends on the evidence adduced, circumstantial evidence and probabilities arising in each case. The District Judge is enjoined to determine the market value on an objective assessment of the conditions prevailing in the open market, the nature of the user of the land to which the land was put on the date of the notification, the situation of the land, income derived therefrom and all other relevant attending circumstances. 15. The oral and documentary evidence on record discussed above is sufficient in our view to determine the fair, reasonable and adequate market value of the acquired land and we do not find any reason to remand the cases for fresh trial as submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants. The value of the land purchased by the three vendees, namely, Prem Kumar, Gursaran and Sanjiv Goel who are also claimants in some of the claim petitions and the prices of the lands purchased by them about 1-1/2 or 2 yeas prior to the acquisition of the land involved in the present cases after calculation and divided by three would come to Rs. 1,03,667/- per bigha. Applying the guesswork of the escalation of the price between the year 1988-89 on 6.11.1990, we determine the market value of the acquired lands on the basis of these sale deeds at Rs. 1,50,000/per bigha. It has been unequivocally stated by RW-A.K. Gupta, Assistant Architect that in terms of percentage only 41.4% of the total area is being used for construction and the remaining is used for services like roads, path, commercial, green spaces and waste land. There is no rebuttal to the expert evidence of A.K. Gupta, by the respondents-claimants on this aspect of the matter. After giving 40% of the deduction for wastage of the acquired land, the market value of the acquired lands in bur guesswork is determined at Rs. 90,000/- per bigha and this is considered to be fair, reasonable and adequate. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents-claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs. After giving 40% of the deduction for wastage of the acquired land, the market value of the acquired lands in bur guesswork is determined at Rs. 90,000/- per bigha and this is considered to be fair, reasonable and adequate. Therefore, we are of the view that the respondents-claimants are entitled for enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs. 90,000/- per bigha and the judgments and awards of the District Judge shall stand modified to that extent. The District Judge has awarded solatium and statutory interest to the respondents-claimants which in our view is legal and awards to that extent are maintained. 16. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Board has brought to our notice certain discrepancies in the acquisition of lands in respect of certain respondents-claimants which have been wrongly mentioned by the District Judge in his awards. In respect of lands involved in RFA No. 109/96, the total area falling to the share of the respondents-claimants in that appeal acquired by the appellant-Board comes to 3.05 bighas and the District Judge has wrongly awarded enhanced compensation for the total land of 4-18 bighas. In these circumstances, respondents-claimants in RFA No. 109/ 96 are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation determined by us in respect of 3.05 bighas of land and not 4-18 bighas as given by the District Judge. 17. In RFA No. 197/97 the respondents-claimants have been awarded enhanced amount of compensation by the District Judge for the whole Khasra No. 609/31 measuring 3-10 bighas whereas respondents-claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation falling in their shares of land which comes to 2.08 bighas only. 18. In RFA No.198/97, the District Judge again erred in awarding enhanced amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants for whole of Khasra No.609/31 measuring 3-10 bighas whereas it should be only for 0-11 biswas of land. 19. In RFA No.199/97, again the District Judge has awarded enhanced amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants for the land measuring 0-15 biswas whereas 1-02 bigha of land was acquired and, therefore, respondents-claimants in this appeal are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation determined by us in respect of the land measuring 1-02 bigha. 20. 19. In RFA No.199/97, again the District Judge has awarded enhanced amount of compensation to the respondents-claimants for the land measuring 0-15 biswas whereas 1-02 bigha of land was acquired and, therefore, respondents-claimants in this appeal are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation determined by us in respect of the land measuring 1-02 bigha. 20. In RFA No. 213/97, the District Judge awarded enhanced amount of compensation for whole of Khasra measuring 3-10 bighas whereas the respondents-claimants in this appeal are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation in respect of the acquired land measuring 0-11 biswas only. 21. In the result for the above discussion, these appeals are partly allowed and the judgments and awards passed by the District Judge, Shimla shall stand modified to the above indicated extent. However, parties are left to bear their own costs. Stay, if any, granted shall stand vacated. Appeal partly allowed.