N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J. ( 1 ) SINCE these three appeals arise out of and against the judgment in O. P. No. 89 of 1984, dated 20-8-1990 on the file of the Additional district Judge, Nizamabad, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) A. S. Nos. 674 and 1380 of 1992 are filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation; whereas A. S. No. 1606 of 1992 is filed by the State questioning the judgment of the lower Court, wherein the learned Judge confirmed the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer without any deduction towards developmenta charges. ( 3 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions put forth on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to advert to the facts of the case in brief, which read: The State has acquired the lands of the claimants to an extent of Ac. 7. 26 guntas comprised in sy. Nos. 415, 416/2, 401/69, 429, 401/66 of armoor village, Nizamabad District for the purpose of construction of APSRTC Bus depot and Bus Station by issuing the notification under Section 4{1) of the Land acquisition Act on 25-10-1979. The Land acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 25. 00 per Square Yard after deducting 30% of the area for developmental activities. Having not satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, a reference was made to the competent jurisdictional Civil Court for determination as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the Land acquisition Officer. ( 4 ) THE Court below examined R. Ws. l to 10 and marked Exs. B-1 to B-65 apart from marking Exs. X-1 to X-5, on behalf of the claimants. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the State, however, Exs. A-1 to a-4 were marked on its behalf. ( 5 ) THE Court below after taking into consideration the evidence, both oral and documentary made available before it, confirmed the compensation fixed by the land Acquisition Officer without making -any deduction towards developmental activities. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred A. S. Nos. 674 and 1380 of 1992; whereas the State preferred A. S. No. 1606 of 1992. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned Counsel of both the parties. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants preferred A. S. Nos. 674 and 1380 of 1992; whereas the State preferred A. S. No. 1606 of 1992. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned Counsel of both the parties. ( 7 ) IN view of the rival contentions raised by both the parties as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the Court below, we once again gone through the order of the Court below and the entire evidence, both oral and documentary made available on record. ( 8 ) CLAIMANT No. 3 filed claim statement stating that the land acquired is abutting the national High Way No. 7, that the land is highly suitable for house sites and the same is covered by buildings, markets, houses, shops, P. W. D. road, Rest House, workshops and Cinema Theatres etc. , that the market value of the land on the date of notification dated 25-10-1979 is rs. 9,00,000/- per acre or Rs. 250. 00 to rs. 300/- per square yard; that the land value was escalating day by day; that the land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation towards well and various types of fruit bearing trees existing on the lands acquired; that, since the land acquired is for the purpose of construction of Bus Depot and Bus Station, there cannot be any deduction; that after obtaining the approved lay-outs from the Gram panchayat and Town Planning Department, he sold the plots at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00 in march, 1979; that the Land Acquisition officer has not awarded even l/10th of the market value and that, therefore, he claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 300. 00 per square yard. ( 9 ) CLAIMANTS 10 to 16 filed a separate statement claiming as above. Claimants 1; 2, 4 to 9 filed a Memo adopting the claim statements of Claimant Nos. 3, 10 to 16. Claimant No. 17 also filed a separate statement claiming similar amount as claimants 10 to 16. Denying the averments made in the claim statements in general the land Acquisition Officer has filed reply statement. ( 10 ) IT is axiomatic from a perusal of the oral evidence adduced that: R. W. I, who is claimant No. 1 deposed that out of the land acquired from him, Ac. 2. Denying the averments made in the claim statements in general the land Acquisition Officer has filed reply statement. ( 10 ) IT is axiomatic from a perusal of the oral evidence adduced that: R. W. I, who is claimant No. 1 deposed that out of the land acquired from him, Ac. 2. 00 is wet land and the remaining is dry land and that he used to get annual income of Rs. 2,000. 00 per acre from the dry lands and Rs. 4,000. 00 to rs. 5,000/- per acre from the wet lands. However, he did not file any pahanies to show the crops raised by him in the lands acquired. In support of his contentions for enhancement of compensation, he filed exs. B-39 to 41 and some other registration extracts of sale deeds. R. W. 2 deposed that he purchased 50 square yards of land situated at Mohsinabad locality of Armoor, from R. W. I for a total consideration of rs. 11,250/- under Ex. X-1, dated 5-11-1979. R. W. 3 deposed that he purchased a Plot from R. W. I and later sold the same to r. W. 2 for a consideration of Rs. 27,000. 00. R. W. 4 deposed that he purchased a plot measuring 50 square yards situated at mohsinabad locality for a consideration of rs. 10,000/- under Ex. X-3, dated 20-10-1984 (rate per Sq. yard comes to Rs. 200. 00 ). R. W. 5 deposed that he purchased a plot of 20 square yards for Rs. 30,000. 00 and later he was issued a notice dated 21-9-1983 by the sub-Registrar to pay deficit stamp duty. R. W. 6, who is Claimant No. 2 deposed that the land acquired is situated in a developed area; adjacent to the National High Way and that after the lay-out plan was sanctioned in 1972 in respect of Sy. No. 424, he sold some of the plots. R. W. 7 is a licensed surveyor. He states that Ex. B-19 is a layout plan. He admits that the same is not drawn to the scale. Nothing is elicited from the oral evidence of R. W. 8. R. Ws. 9 and 10 are the claimants 7 and 10 respectively, who deposed that the Land Acquisition officer has not granted true market value for the lands acquired and no compensation was awarded for the Well and the existing fruit bearing trees. Nothing is elicited from the oral evidence of R. W. 8. R. Ws. 9 and 10 are the claimants 7 and 10 respectively, who deposed that the Land Acquisition officer has not granted true market value for the lands acquired and no compensation was awarded for the Well and the existing fruit bearing trees. However it has come in the evidence that though the witnesses stated that there are fruit bearing trees in their lands, during the award enquiry, none of the witnesses claimed that there were trees in their lands, that they did not adduce any evidence and further in the reference form submitted by the Land Acquisition officer under Section 18 of the Act, in the appropriate column, there is a mention in negative regarding trees or buildings in existence in the acquired lands. Nothing is unravelled from the oral evidence of the claimants except their contention to raise compensation for the land acquired. ( 11 ) INSTEAD of appreciating the voluminous documentary evidence adduced by the claimants, it is better to appreciate the documents relevant for the adjudication of these appeals. ( 12 ) EXS. B-29, 30,31, 32, 33,34 and 35 are the registration extracts of the sale deeds dated 30-3-1981, 5-8-1980, 11-9-1983, 11-9-1981, 15-1-1982, 15-1-1982 and 20-11-1984 respectively whereunder the land was sold ranging from Rs. 100. 00 to rs. 200/- per square yard. Ex. B-42 is the registration extract of the sale deed dated 27-8-1984 under which 50 square yards land was sold at the rate of Rs. 225. 00 per square yard, Ex. B-50 is the registration extract of the sale deed dated 15-9-1978 whereunder 144. 14 square yards was sold at the rate of rs. 89. 91 per square yard. Exs. B-54 and B-55 are the registration extracts of the sale deeds dated 23-3-1979 whereunder an extent of 230. 45 square yards each was sold at the rate of Rs. 44. 69 and Rs. 37. 31 per square yard respectively. Ex. B-56 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 30-8-1976 whereunder an extent of 48 square yards was sold at the rate of Rs. 100. 00 per square yard. ( 13 ) THOUGH some of the sales referred to above were prior to the Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 25-10-1979 which are at Exs. 100. 00 per square yard. ( 13 ) THOUGH some of the sales referred to above were prior to the Notification under section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, dated 25-10-1979 which are at Exs. B-50, b-54, B-55, B-56, neither the vendors/vendees nor anybody connected therewith were examined to support the same. Further it can be seen that the lands sold under these exhibits are situated at different localities, which are about a Kilometre from the land acquired, to say at Zirayath Nagar. All the other documents relied on by the claimants are only subsequent to the notification and most of the sale transactions relate to their own lands, which they converted into plots after obtaining necessary permission from the Gram panchayat. It has also come in the evidence that all the claimants got permission from the Gram Panchayat to construct the houses on a single day i. e. , on 11-11-1982, though they filed application for permission to construct the houses, one year prior to the date of sanction and the permission is accorded after the acquisition proceedings initiated. Further, it has come in the evidence and the observations made by the lower Court that the Land Acquisition officer has obtained 17 sale transactions, which took place between 25-10-1976 and 25-10-1979, whereunder the market value of the land in 1976 was shown at Rs. 5,517. 00 per acre, in 1978 it was shown at rs. 14,454/- per acre and in 1979 the rate was shown at Rs. 5. 714. 00. It is further observed by the Court below that the Land acquisition Officer has discarded many of the sale transactions stating that the lands sold thereunder were situated at different localities; that they are not of standard size plots and the purchasers took them for shops for the purpose of conducting business offering high price, therefore, they cannot represent true market value and that some sale transactions were based on the basic value register of the registration office ignoring the market value in the vicinity to avoid stamp duty. The trial Court after discussing the voluminous evidence at prolix concluded thst:"from the above evidence, it is clear that the claimants have not relied on any of the sale transactions prior to the notification, whereas, the Land acquisition Officer has obtained sale particulars for three years prior to the notification. The trial Court after discussing the voluminous evidence at prolix concluded thst:"from the above evidence, it is clear that the claimants have not relied on any of the sale transactions prior to the notification, whereas, the Land acquisition Officer has obtained sale particulars for three years prior to the notification. This clearly show that the market value of the land never exceeded Rs. 9,000. 00 per acre, except a single piece of land of acre 0. 02 guntas was sold for Rs. 14,545. 00 in June 1978 and hence there was only a single transaction. In Sy. No. 413, acre 0. 08 guntas was sold for Rs. 9,000. 00. All the documents relied on by the claimants are only subsequent to the notification, as already stated and most of the sale transactions relate to their own plots, which they converted into plots with the permission of the Panchayat and sold and by that time, the acquisition proceedings were initiated and hence, they were obtained for higher consideration and no credence can be given. The LAO fixed the market value of rs. 25/- per square yard after considering all the aspects as discussed in the award. But he fixed the same after deducting 30% of the area for common roads. . . . . . The LAO fixed the market value of rs. 25/- per square yard after considering all the aspects as discussed in the award. But he fixed the same after deducting 30% of the area for common roads. . . . . . " ( 14 ) WE can take judicial notice of the fact that a reference under Section 18 of the LA act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the LAO in his award, unless the said material is produced and proved before the Court; that the award of the LAO is only an offer and the material utilized by him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the Court unless produced and proved before it and it is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the LAO as if it were an appellate Court; the trial Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it; that the market value of the land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act; that the determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day; it has to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at reasonable price; that only genuine instances have to be taken into account; that even the post notifications instances can be taken into account, if, (1) they are very proximate, (2) genuine; (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated and the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects and that every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. ( 15 ) ON the wake of aforesaid discussions, we do feel it expedient to record that the trial Court has not dealt with the matter in right perspective and as such fell into an error in passing the order impugned in this appeal. ( 16 ) IN view of the above discussions and in view of the fact that no specific evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of the contentions of the claimants for enhancement of the compensation was adduced, we are of the considered opinion that the reasons adopted by the Court below and the basis adopted to come to such conclusion in awarding the compensation are not just and proper. The learned Counsel for the claimants though attacked the impugned order on various grounds failed to substantiate their grounds of attack. As there is no specific and sufficient evidence either to enhance or decrease or confirm the compensation awarded for the lands acquired, we feel it just and proper to give one more opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their contentions. ( 17 ) IN the circumstances, the order and decrees impugned in these appeals are set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to adduce further evidence and cooperate with the Court below for disposal of the matter at the earliest. The amounts already paid or deposited or adjusted shall be subject to the final result of the subject matter. ( 18 ) IN the circumstances, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in these appeals.