B. PADMARAJ, J. ( 1 ) EARD the learned Government Advocate both on I. A. No. 1 of 2002 as well as on the question of admission of this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant/lao. ( 2 ) THE appellant/lao on being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18-12-2001 passed by the 1st Appellate Court whereby it has confirmed the judgment and award made by the reference Court fixing the compensation at Rs. 34,000/- per acre, has preferred this miscellaneous second appeal. The land belonging to the respondent/claimant situated at Kuntur Village in Mysore District was acquired by the appellant/lao for the purpose of formation and distribution of house sites to the weaker section of the society under a preliminary notification dated 29-6-1s78. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 12,000/- per acre. On reference, the reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 34,000/- per acre. On appeal by the appellant/lao, the 1st Appellate court has confirmed the award and dismissed the appeal. Hence this miscellaneous second appeal. There being a delay in filing this appeal, the appellant/lao has filed I. A. No. 1 of 2002 for condonation of delay. ( 3 ) LEARNED Government Advocate for the appellant/lao has vehemently contended before me that the Courts below have grossly erred in taking Ex. P. 4 as the basis for fixing the market value of the acquired land in the absence of there being any evidence to show with regard to the similarity, comparability and proximity of the land involved in Ex. P. 4 and the lands in question. With regard to the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, he contended that the explanation offered by the appellant/lao is quite satisfactory and reasonable and hence the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. ( 4 ) ON the facts and in the circumstances of the case, I am fully satisfied that the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal has been reasonably and satisfactorily explained on behalf of the appellant/lao. Hence, accepting the explanation offered for the delay in filing the appeal by the appeliant/lao, the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I. A. No. 1 of 2002 is accordingly allowed. Hence, accepting the explanation offered for the delay in filing the appeal by the appeliant/lao, the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. I. A. No. 1 of 2002 is accordingly allowed. ( 5 ) NOW the question for consideration is whether the Court below was right in confirming the market value of the acquired lands determined by the reference Court at Rs. 34,000/- per acre? ( 6 ) THE Court below while confirming the Award of the reference"7. COURT has observed in the course of its impugned judgment as under: there is no dispute regarding nature, extent and identity of the acquired land. It is not in dispute that the acquired land and many other lands were acquired for the purpose of formation of house sites and distribution of the same to weaker section of society. In the General Award passed by the Special Land acquisition Officer, it is specifically mentioned that these acquired lands are situated just by the side of Nanjangud-Kollegal main road and that the lands are fertile lands with black soil. It is also very clear from the General Award that there were coconut trees in some of the acquired lands. These circumstances clearly indicate that these acquired lands were not only fertile lands but also had non- agricultural potentiality for being used as house sites. Obviously for this reason, these lands were identified for formation of house sites for weaker section of the society. 8. P. W. 1 in his evidence has stated that the land of one shivappa of Teramballi which is a village adjacent to Kunthur village was sold for Rs. 40,000/- per acre in 1975. Ex. P. 3 is the copy of the sale deed pertaining to the said sale. The evidence of p. W. 1 shows that the land covered under Ex. P. 3 is hardly 1 k. m. away from the acquired lands. P. W. 1 has also stated that madeshwara Sugar Factory is situated hardly 1/2 k. m. away from the acquired land. Thus, the circumstance clearly indicate that the acquired lands were worth much more than Rs. 12,000/- per acre as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 9. P. W. 1 has produced Ex. P. W. 1 has also stated that madeshwara Sugar Factory is situated hardly 1/2 k. m. away from the acquired land. Thus, the circumstance clearly indicate that the acquired lands were worth much more than Rs. 12,000/- per acre as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 9. P. W. 1 has produced Ex. P. 4 which is the copy of the judgment passed by the competent Court in LAC No. 200 of 1983 pertaining to a similarly situated land by which the Court had determined the market value of a similarly situated land at Rs. 40,000/- per acre. Though the land covered under Ex. P. 4 is situated in nearby village, the evidence of P. W. 1 positively shows that the land covered therein and the acquired land of the present case are similarly situated land having similar fertility and potentiality. Under such circumstances, the learned Reference court accepted Ex. P. 4 as a relevant piece of evidence for determining the market value of the land covered under this reference. After taking into consideration that the preliminary notification of acquisition of the land covered under Ex. P. 1 which was published in 1987 and the preliminary notification of acquisition pertaining to the case on hand, the learned Special land Acquisition Officer proceeded to deduct 15% of the amount determined under Ex. P. 4 while fixing the market, value of the acquired land of the present case. After appreciation of the entire evidence obtaining in the case, I hold that the learned reference court was legally justified in holding that the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 34,000/- per acre, as on the date of preliminary notification of acquisition, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and award. As I find no force or merit in this appeal, the appeal is entitled to fail". ( 7 ) THUS, it is clear from the above observations that the acquired land and the other lands acquired under the same notification and for the very same purpose were found to be situated by the side of a main road and all those lands were found to be fertile and also they had non-agricultural potentiality for being used as house sites. Obviously for that reason alone, the lands in question were identified and acquired for the formation of house sites. Obviously for that reason alone, the lands in question were identified and acquired for the formation of house sites. The very fact that the lands in question were acquired for the formation of house sites for the weaker section of the society would show that they had the potentiality of non-agricultural lands. Besides this, the lands in question were found to be fertile lands with black soil. Ex. P. 3, sale deed copy relied upon by the claimant showed that a land of the adjoining village was sold at Rs. 40,000/- per acre in the year 1975. The land in question was situated at a distance of hardly about one kilometre from the lands sold under the sale deed, Ex. P. 3. Furthermore, the claimant had also relied upon Ex. P. 4, the copy of the judgment and award passed by the reference Court in respect of a similarly situated land awarding compensation of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. But, however having regard to the facts and attending circumstances in the case, the Courts below determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs. 34,0007- per acre. In my view under certain circumstances, as in this case, post-notification transactions can be relied upon in determining the value of the acquired land. In the instant case it was found on facts by both the Courts below that the land in question was similar to the land involved in Ex P. 4. Under the circumstances, the Courts below were right in taking Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 as a guide for arriving at the market value of the acquired land. Though the land involved in Ex. P. 4 was found to be similar to the lands in question, the Courts below however did not adopt the same market value for the acquired land for the reason that it was a post-notification award and accordingly fixed the market value of the acquired land at a reduced rate of Rs. 34,000/- per acre. That is to say the Courts below de-escalated the value by 15%. It has to be mentioned that it is not possible to determine the market value with mathematical precision and the assessment of compensation in such matters is bound to involve some amount of guess-work. In the instant case as I could gather, Exs. 34,000/- per acre. That is to say the Courts below de-escalated the value by 15%. It has to be mentioned that it is not possible to determine the market value with mathematical precision and the assessment of compensation in such matters is bound to involve some amount of guess-work. In the instant case as I could gather, Exs. P. 3 and P. 4 were only taken as a guide and not a basis for determining the market value of the acquired land having regard to the fact that the lands in question were similar in all respects to the lands involved in Exs. P. 3 and P. 4. But, however on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Courts below reduced the market value of the acquired land to Rs. 34,000/- per acre and they did not adopt the market value of the acquired land as per Ex. P. 4. I do not find that the judgment under appeal suffers from any such serious illegality so as to call for interference by this Court in the second appeal. The approach of the Courts below on the facts and in the circumstances of the case cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal. On the other hand, it appears to be quite reasonable and fair. Hence, no interference with the decision rendered by the Courts below is called for by this court in this second appeal filed by the appellant/lao. It has to be pointed out that in 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 can be entertained by this Court within the limits prescribed by Section 100 of the CPC and it is not open to the appellant/lao to demand reappraisal of the evidence by this Court on the ground that the Courts below have erred in their view of the evidence in the matter of assess ment of compensation. Therefore, having given my anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, I find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this miscellaneous second appeal. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) IN the result, therefore, this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant/lao is hereby dismissed. Therefore, having given my anxious consideration to the entire matter in issue, I find that no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this miscellaneous second appeal. Hence, it is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. ( 8 ) IN the result, therefore, this miscellaneous second appeal filed by the appellant/lao is hereby dismissed. But in the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. --- *** --- .