B. PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the arguments of the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer and carefully perused the entire case records with his assistance. ( 2 ) THOUGH the appellant has not taken steps to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent l (c), if any, on record the appeal filed by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer does not abate in view of the fact that the other legal representatives of the deceased respondent 1 are already on record and the estate of the deceased respondent 1 is effectively represented by the other legal representatives of the deceased claimant-Gurlingappa. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondents 1 (a), (b) and (g) being absent, they could not be heard in the matter. Even in the absence of the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 (a), (b) and (g), the learned Government advocate appearing for the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer took me through the case papers in detail. Insofar as the respondents 1 (e) and (f), though they are served, they are unrepresented. ( 4 ) THIS miscellaneous second appeal under Section 54 (2) of the Land acquisition Act is filed by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer against the judgment and award passed by the First Appellate Court, whereby, it has determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre. It appears that though the First Appellate Court determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 28,200/- per acre, it has awarded the compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre in view of the fact that the respondents-claimants restricted their claim for compensation to Rs. 16,000/- per acre. The lower Appellate Court has also held that the respondents-claimants are entitled to additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition act on the market value determined from the date of dispossession i. e. , from 5-9-1970 till the date of passing of the award by the Special land Acquisition Officer i. e. , till 5-6-1982. It is against these findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, the appellant-Land Acquisition officer has preferred this miscellaneous second appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED Government Advocate, while challenging the market value of the acquired land determined by the First Appellate Court at rs. It is against these findings recorded by the First Appellate Court, the appellant-Land Acquisition officer has preferred this miscellaneous second appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED Government Advocate, while challenging the market value of the acquired land determined by the First Appellate Court at rs. 16,000/- per acre has vehemently contended before me that the court below has committed a serious error in taking the value of the small plots under Ex. P. 5-sale deed for fixing the market value for the larger extent of the land under acquisition. He also contended that while fixing the market value for the larger extent of the acquired land on the basis of the small plots, the deduction should have been at 65% and not at 53% as has been done by the First Appellate Court towards the developmental charges. He, therefore, contended that the market value fixed for the land in question at Rs. 16,000/- per acre by the Appellate court is excessive, exorbitant and the same is on the higher side. With regard to the awarding of 12% additional market value under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession to the date of award, he contended that the said additional amount is to be awarded only from the date of the preliminary notification and not from the date of taking possession and hence, the award made by the Courts below under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession is incorrect and improper. ( 6 ) IN support of his submissions, the learned Government Advocate has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Topandas Kundanmal (since deceased) by L. Rs v State through the Land Acquisition Officer, Jamnagar, (1996)10 SCC 613 and siddappa Vasappa Kuri and Another v Special Land Acquisition Officer and Another. ( 7 ) IT has to be stated at the outset that this being a second appeal under Section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the questions which may not be raised in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC cannot be raised. ( 7 ) IT has to be stated at the outset that this being a second appeal under Section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, the questions which may not be raised in an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC cannot be raised. The second appeal under Section 54 (2) of the Act can be entertained by this Court within the limits prescribed by Section 100 of the cpc and it is not open to the parties to demand reappraisal of the evidence by this Court on the ground that the First Appellate Court has erred in its view of the evidence in the matter of determination of the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre. I am therefore of the clear view that unless a substantial question of law arises for consideration, the second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 54 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act cannot be entertained. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the First Appellate Court has found on facts that the land in question is situated within the municipal limits of raibag town. It appears that the Chief Officer of the T. M. C. , Raibag, gave the evidence with reference to the Certificate, Ex. P. 3, which clearly indicated that the land in question belonging to the respondents-claimants was situated within the town municipal limits of Raibag. Apart from the evidence of the Chief Officer and the Certificate, Ex. P. 3, the respondents-claimants have also produced the map showing the location of the acquired land in Raibag town. On the basis of such materials placed on record, it is the finding of both the Courts below that the land in question is situated within the municipal limits of Raibag town and it possessed the non-agricultural potentiality. It cannot, therefore, be said that the said finding recorded by both the Courts below on appreciation of the materials placed on record is either incorrect or illegal. It has to be concluded, therefore, that the land in question being situated within the municipal limits of Raibag town possessed the potentiality of non-agricultural lands. The Courts below fixed the market value of the acquired land relying upon the sale deed, Ex. P. 5, dated 17-11-1978, wherein, sale consideration for a plot of land measuring 68 feet x 23 feet 3 inches situated at Raibag town was Rs. 6,000/ -. The Courts below fixed the market value of the acquired land relying upon the sale deed, Ex. P. 5, dated 17-11-1978, wherein, sale consideration for a plot of land measuring 68 feet x 23 feet 3 inches situated at Raibag town was Rs. 6,000/ -. The sale deed, Ex. P. 5, dated 17-11-1978 was admittedly prior to the date of preliminary notification. Therefore, it could have been relied upon by the courts below as a guide for fixing the market value of the acquired land. There can be no serious dispute that the transaction of sale of land on or few days before notification under Section 4 (1) can be relied upon in determining the value of the acquired land. It can therefore be stated that the Courts below committed no error in placing reliance upon the sale deed, Ex. P. 5, which was prior to the preliminary notification as a guide for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. It is no doubt true that the land in question was still an agricultural land and though it was situated within the municipal limits of Raibag town, it was not situated in a developed area. It is equally true that the sale deed, Ex. P. 5 relied upon by the respondents-claimants was in respect of a small extent of land, whereas, the land in question was a larger extent measuring 4 acres 22 guntas. In view of this, the First Appellate court deducted 1/3rd of the land value as the smaller extent of the land was taken as a guide for fixing the market value for the larger extent of the land. Besides this, the Court below has also deducted 53% of the land value towards the development charges. By making such deductions and by placing reliance upon sale deed, Ex. P. 5, the Court below determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 28,200/- per acre and since the respondents-claimants had restricted their claim only to Rs. 16,000/- per acre, the Court below awarded the compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that this is a very reasonable and adequate basis for determining the compensation of the land in dispute. 28,200/- per acre and since the respondents-claimants had restricted their claim only to Rs. 16,000/- per acre, the Court below awarded the compensation for the acquired land at Rs. 16,000/- per acre. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that this is a very reasonable and adequate basis for determining the compensation of the land in dispute. It has to be stated that it is not at all possible for any Court to determine the compensation amount with mathematical precision and assessment in such matters is bound to involve a certain degree of guesswork. I have carefully perused the judgment of the First Appellate Court and I find that on a detailed discussion of the evidence on record and for certain cogent reasons recorded in the judgment, the Court below has assessed the compensation of Rs. 16,000/- per acre for the acquired land of the respondents-claimants. Neither the reasons stated can be found fault with nor, on an overall assessment of the materials can it be said that the compensation amount awarded is excessive or exorbitant and warrants interference by this Court in the second appeal. Having given my anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, I do not find that the judgment under challenge suffers from any serious illegality in the matter of determination of the market value for the acquired land of the respondents-claimants. The approach of the Courts below in this regard is quite reasonable and fair and hence, no interference with the decision rendered by the court below with regard to the determination of the market value of the acquired land is called for. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-Land Acquisition officer that the market value fixed for the land under acquisition at Rs. 16,000/- per acre by the Appellate Court is excessive. In my view, the market value so fixed by the Appellate Court is quite fair and reasonable and it warrants no interference by this Court in the second appeal. ( 9 ) WITH regard to the award of additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act, from the date of dispossession to the date of passing of the award is concerned, I find that the Court below was in error in taking the starting point from the date of possession for awarding such amounts. It has to be stated that the starting point for the purposes of calculating the amount to be awarded under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act at the rate of 12% p. a. on the market value is the date of publication of the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The terminal point for the purpose is either the date of the award or the date of taking possession, whichever is earlier. In the instant case, though the terminal point taken by the Courts below for the purpose of awarding additional amount under Section 23 (1-A) is correct and proper but, the starting point for the purpose of Section 23 (1-A) from the date of possession is not correct and proper and hence, it needs interference to that extent. In this connection, a reference may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddappa Vasappa Kuri, supra, wherein, it is clearly held that the starting point for the purpose of calculating the amount under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act is the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The Courts below therefore, were in error in holding that the respondents-claimants were entitled to the additional compensation or additional market value at 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act from the date of taking possession from 5-9-1970. On the other hand, it should have been from the date of the preliminary notification under Section 4 (1) of the land Acquisition Act, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 14-12-1978. Under the circumstances, therefore, it has to be held that the respondents-claimants are entitled to the additional amount at 12% per annum under Section 23 (1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act on the market value from the date of the preliminary notification i. e. , 14-12-1978 till the date of passing of the award i. e. , 5-6-1982. Only to this extent, the judgment and award made by the Courts below needs to be modified and it is accordingly modified. ( 10 ) IN the result, therefore, this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer succeeds in part. The judgment and award made by the Courts below are modified only to the extent as indicated above and in all other respects, they remain undisturbed. ( 10 ) IN the result, therefore, this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant-Land Acquisition Officer succeeds in part. The judgment and award made by the Courts below are modified only to the extent as indicated above and in all other respects, they remain undisturbed. But, in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. --- *** --- .