D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by the State against the judgment and award passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raichur in lac No. 189 of 1998, dated 17-4-1999 filed under Section 18 of the Land acquisition Act questioning the legality and validity of the said judgment and award in enhancing the market value of the land of the first respondent from Rs. 9,000/- per acre as fixed by the Land Acquisition officer to Rs. 74,000/- per acre. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the above appeal are that several extents of lands in S. Nos. 194/al, 194/a2, 193, 193/u, 193/e, 192/a, 201/2, 221/a and 229 etc. , in all seven different pieces of land situated in Korvi village of Manvi Taluk came to be acquired by issue of a preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 18-8-1994. These lands belonged to seven different persons. The first respondent owned an extent of one acre twenty guntas in S. No. 221/a amongst the seven pieces of lands acquired under the said notification. In respect of the lands acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value at Rs. 9,oooa per acre for the purpose of compensating the respondent-land- owner as per his award dated 10-11-1996. The Land Acquisition Officer had fixed same or similar value in respect of the other pieces of lands acquired under the same notification. ( 3 ) THE respondent and other landowners, being aggrieved by the very nominal value fixed in respect of their lands, had sought for referring the matters to the Civil Court by filing appropriate applications under the Act. The respondent's application was numbered as L. A. C. No. 189 of 1998. The other six landowners had also sought for similar references and their applications were also before the Civil Court. It appears, all the cases were clubbed together and common evidence was let in. The civil Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 74,000/- per acre on the premise that in respect of the lands which were acquired under another acquisition proceedings which were subject-matter of reference for enhancement before the Court in L. A. C. Nos. 19 to 27 of 1998, based on the yield certificate produced in those proceedings which had been marked as Ex. P. 32 in LAC. Nos. 74,000/- per acre on the premise that in respect of the lands which were acquired under another acquisition proceedings which were subject-matter of reference for enhancement before the Court in L. A. C. Nos. 19 to 27 of 1998, based on the yield certificate produced in those proceedings which had been marked as Ex. P. 32 in LAC. Nos. 19 to 27 of 1998, the value of the land had been fixed at around Rs. 74,340/ -. The Civil Court noticed that this value had been fixed by the Court in those cases mainly depending on the yield certificate produced in those cases to the effect that the average annual yield of Jaider cotton could be taken as seven quintals and taking the price of cotton at Rs. 1,770/- per quintal and after allowing for the expenditure incurred for cultivation, the net yield per year would come to Rs. 7,434/- and applying the multiplier 10 for valuing, based on such yield, the market value was fixed at Rs. 7,434/ -. The Civil Court allowed all the seven references and in all the cases on the very same material, enhanced the value of the land from Rs. 9,oooa per acre fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer to Rs. 74,000/- per acre. ( 4 ) THE State being aggrieved by such enhancement, is in appeal before this Court. Sri Ashok Mensinkai, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the Civil Court had no reason or basis to enhance the market value of the land from Rs. 9,000/- to Rs. 74,000/- per acre; that the enhancement is not based on any relevant material on record; that the evidence let in, in some other case should not be relied upon as material for fixing the market value in the instant case and as this was the only basis for enhancing the compensation, enhancement cannot be sustained and as such the appeal be allowed. ( 5 ) IT is also submitted by the learned Government Advocate that one another error has crept in inasmuch as in the course of the judgment the civil Court has mentioned that the possession of the land from the respondent and other similar persons had been taken as on 5-3-1976 and obviously this cannot be so, inasmuch as the preliminary notification itself is of the year 1994 and if the Civil Court should take some such earlier date, it amounts to saddling the Government for payment of additional interest and solatium etc. , for no reason at all. On this aspect of the matter, the learned Government Advocate was asked to place any other material which was available in the records to indicate that possession had been taken on any date other than the date mentioned in the judgment of the Civil Court under appeal. However, the learned government Advocate is unable to place any material on record to indicate that possession had been taken at any point of time later. In fact, on the other hand, the learned Government Advocate said he was able to lay hands on some information which only indicated that possession had been taken earlier but not later. As there is nothing on record to indicate the date mentioned in the course of the judgment of the Civil Court regarding taking possession of the land was incorrect, I am not inclined to disturb this finding on mere surmises or conjectures or on mere probabilities. ( 6 ) SRI Shivakumar Kalloor, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that all the seven pieces of land that were acquired under the same notification and all the seven owners had sought for enhancement and the case had been heard in common and common evidence had been let in. The Civil Court has enhanced the compensation in respect of the lands to Rs. 74,000/ -. The Civil Court has enhanced the compensation in respect of the lands to Rs. 74,000/ -. It is also submitted that in respect of the other six persons, the State had filed appeals but as the value of subject-matter was less, the appeals had been preferred to the District Court, Raichur and it is submitted that the appeals preferred to the District Court, Raichur by the State have all been dismissed as per the judgment dated 19-8-2000 and in fact the State has accepted this judgment confirming the market value of the land acquired under the same notification as Rs. 74,000/- per acre and all the claimants have been paid compensation at this enhanced rate and they have all reached a finality. ( 7 ) IT is the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that in this view of the matter, appeal by the State in this case should not be entertained by this Court as the State has accepted in principle the valuation of Rs. 74,000/ -. per acre in respect of the other six pieces of land acquired under the same notification. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent that Ex. P. 32 referred to by the civil Court which was accepted in L. A. C. Nos. 19 to 27 of 1998 was also in respect of the lands in the vicinity of the land under acquisition and in this view of the matter, there was nothing wrong in adopting the value of that land as a comparable value for the purpose of fixing the market value of the land under acquisition and moreover, fixing of compensation based on such comparable valuation having been accepted by the State in respect of the other six landowners, there is absolutely no justification to hold it otherwise only in this appeal and for this reason, this appeal has to be dismissed confirming the enhanced value of compensation fixed at Rs. 74,000/- per acre. ( 8 ) I have given my anxious thought to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent. It may be true that the State has accepted the valuation at Rs. 74,000/- per acre. ( 8 ) I have given my anxious thought to the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondent. It may be true that the State has accepted the valuation at Rs. 74,000/- per acre in respect of the other six pieces of land under the very notification for acquisition and those matters might have reached finality and compensation might have also been paid on such lands, but that cannot be a ground for non-consideration of the appeal before this Court when tenable legal points are raised by the appellant. In a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, what falls for consideration is the question of determining the correct market value of the land which has been acquired. Determination of the proper market value has been the subject-matter of any number of decisions and judgments and legal principles have been more or less crystallised on this aspect. One aspect is very clear and that principle is that of the market value should be based on relevant material having nexus to the land in question which has been acquired. In the instant case, the value of the land for acquisition which is subject-matter of this appeal has been fixed based on some material which has been produced in some other case. The learned Civil judge does not even give any clue or information as to how this material is relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the land in the instant case. If the owner of the land who has sought for enhancement in the reference application does not place material justifying the enhancement of compensation, it is not for the Court to go round shopping to find out as to what other material it can pluck from which other case, implant the same into the reference under consideration and determine the market value of the land. It is most obnoxious to say the least and definitely not based on any known or acceptable legal principle. In fact, the manner in which the learned Civil Judge has referred to this document as Ex. P. 32, gives one an impression as though it is a document marked in this very proceedings. Ex. P. 32 marked in LAC. Nos. 19 to 27 of 1998 is not a document which has been marked in the instant case. In fact, the manner in which the learned Civil Judge has referred to this document as Ex. P. 32, gives one an impression as though it is a document marked in this very proceedings. Ex. P. 32 marked in LAC. Nos. 19 to 27 of 1998 is not a document which has been marked in the instant case. Not even a certified copy of Ex. P. 32 had been produced in the instant case and any link established in respect of the land under consideration with the lands that were subject-matter of acquisition in l. A. C. Nos. 19 to 27 of 1998. If that is so, Ex. P. 32 is not a material on record and absolutely has no nexus to the proceedings and can never have been relied upon by the learned Civil Judge for the purpose of determining the market value. Accordingly it is held that the reliance placed on so-called Ex. P. 32 in L. A. C. Nos. 19 to 27 of 1998 by the Court below is totally erroneous, not known to any method in law and is only to be discarded. As the enhanced compensation is based only on such unreliable material, enhancement is also not sustainable. ( 9 ) NORMALLY, in a matter of this nature, appeal would have come to an end by setting aside the judgment and award of the Court below. However, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case and particularly having regard to the fervent plea made by the learned Counsel for the respondent that in respect of all other pieces of lands acquired under the very same acquisition proceedings those landowners have had the benefit of enhanced compensation and the State has also accepted the finality of those proceedings and having paid such enhanced compensation, i deem it fit to remand this matter to the file of the Civil court, Raichur for affording an opportunity to the respondent herein to place such material as is available, examine the matter afresh and then answer the reference fixing the just compensation in respect of the land in question, without being influenced by other proceedings which might have reached finality or conclusion. ( 10 ) APPEAL is allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Court below in L. A. C. No. 189 of 1998, dated 17-4-1999 is set aside. ( 10 ) APPEAL is allowed. Judgment and award passed by the Court below in L. A. C. No. 189 of 1998, dated 17-4-1999 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Civil Court, Raichur for answering the reference in l. A. C. No. 189 of 1998 afresh in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. ( 11 ) AS the matter is quite old, the Civil Court may take up this matter on a priority basis and conclude the same expeditiously. No costs. --- *** --- .