ORDER : S.N. Variava and H.K. Sema, JJ. - All these appeals can be disposed of by this common order. In respect of the land in question, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 30th June, 1992. This notification pertains to 27 acres, 12 cents in Survey Nos.685, 686, 723, 724, 725 and 726/1 of Lakshmipuram Village, Kurnool District. The land was being acquired for the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited for the purposes of establishment of L.P. Gas filing plant. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre vide Award no.4/92 dated 31st October, 1992. Being dissatisfied, the claimants filed a reference. 2. The Reference Court, by its order dated 30th December, 1995, fixed compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre for the land in Survey Nos.725 and 726/1; at the rate of Rs. 90,000/- per acre for the land in Survey Nos.724 and 685 and at the rate of Rs. 70,000/- per acre for the land in Survey Nos.723 and 686. The Reference Court passed the said order on the basis that the only comparable instance of sale was a sale deed dated 20th September, 1991 which had been marked as Exhibit B-4. That Sale Deed was for 50 cents in Survey Nos.742 and 743/1, Lakshmipuram Village which had been purchased at the rate of Rs. 90,000/-. This land was 200 feet away from the National Highway and a 30 feet wide road had been provided free of charge for access to the land from the National Highway. 3. It must be mentioned that the Reference Court had also before it two other Sale Deeds, being Exhibit Nos.B-1 and B-3 in respect of which the vendor and vendee had been examined. Exhibit B-1 was a Sale Deed dated 4th June, 1990 for only 0.25 cents in Survey No.94 of Dupadu Village which had been purchased at the rate of Rs. 75,000/-. Apart from the fact that this was a very small piece of land, it was at a distance of 100 meters from Dupadu Railway Station and had a Silver Factory on the land adjoining to it. Thus, this was not a comparable instance and was rightly not considered by the Reference Court. 4. The other Sale Deed Exhibit B-3, was dated 18th December, 1991. Thus, this was not a comparable instance and was rightly not considered by the Reference Court. 4. The other Sale Deed Exhibit B-3, was dated 18th December, 1991. It was in respect of 1 acre 80 cents of land in Survey Nos.134, 136 and 137 of Dinnedevarapadu Village which had been purchased for Rs. 4,00,000/-. This land was at a distance of = kilometre from the acquired land. The Reference Court excluded this on the basis that it was at some distance and in different villages whereas Exhibit B-4 was in the same village and very close to the acquired land. 5. The Reference Court rightly held that Exhibit B-4 was the most comparable instance. The Reference Court noted that the land in Exhibit B-4 was very close to the Highway and would thus have a higher value than lands which were further away from the Highway. The Reference Court also considered the fact that the Sale Deed in Exhibit B-4 was of 20th September, 1991. It, therefore, increased the price by Rs. 20,000/- (as the Notification was of 1992); deducted 33% towards development charges and arrived at a figure of Rs. 1,35,000/- for the land abutting the Highway. The Reference Court held that land which was further away from the Highway necessarily had to have a lower value and accordingly gave the lower values set out herein above. 6. The appellant being aggrieved by the increase and the claimants wanting a further increase, filed appeals to the High Court. The High Court ignoring the fact that different lands, in different Survey Nos., not identically located had been acquired proceeded to hold that the acquired land was a compact block having a road frontage of 1000 feet (300 meters) on the Highway. If such lands are to be considered as compact blocks then in all acquisitions there would only be compact blocks. On this erroneous reasoning the High Court decided that all the lands must have the same price. 7. The High Court overlooked the fact that Survey Nos.685, 686, 732 and 724 had no frontage on the Highway at all. The High Court also came to the conclusion that there were only three comparable Sale Deeds, namely, Exhibits, B-1, B-3 and B-4. The High Court then proceeded to exclude Exhibit B-3 on the footing that it was in some other village. The High Court also came to the conclusion that there were only three comparable Sale Deeds, namely, Exhibits, B-1, B-3 and B-4. The High Court then proceeded to exclude Exhibit B-3 on the footing that it was in some other village. Even though Exhibit B-3 was being excluded on the ground that it was in some other village, the same reasoning was not applied to Exhibit B-1. To be remembered that lands in Exhibit B-1 were also in some other village and were in fact further away from the acquired lands than the land in Exhibit B-3. The High Court then increased the prices mentioned in Exhibits B-1 and B-4 by Rs. 20,000/- and averaged the two prices to arrive at the figure of Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre. 8. On this basis, the High Court awards the rate of Rs. 2,70,000/- per acre for the entire acquired land. In so awarding, the High Court makes no deductions for development charges. 9. When different lands, with different Survey numbers, belonging to different owners and having different locations are acquired, they cannot be considered to be a compact block. Land having a frontage on the Highway will always have a better value than other lands. The farther the lands from the Highway the lesser the value. Thus, in cases like this where large pieces of land having different locations are acquired, a system of belting would have to be applied. 10. We also fail to understand as to how the High Court could have considered land in Exhibit B-1 to be comparable lands particularly when it was excluding lands in Exhibit B-3. It was submitted that the High Court had taken lands in Exhibit B-1 into consideration because it was within the same Gram Panchayat of Village Lakshmipuram. The High Court does not say so. It must also be noted that the land in Exhibit B-1 was much further away from the acquired land than the land in Exhibit B-3. The land was a very small piece of land i.e. only 0.25 cents. It was only 100 meters away from the Railway Station and next to a Silver Factory. Obviously, the high price paid for this land was due to these factors. In our view, the Reference Court had correctly not taken this land into consideration. The High Court clearly erred in taking this land into consideration. 11. It was only 100 meters away from the Railway Station and next to a Silver Factory. Obviously, the high price paid for this land was due to these factors. In our view, the Reference Court had correctly not taken this land into consideration. The High Court clearly erred in taking this land into consideration. 11. Therefore, the only comparable sale instance is land in Exhibit B-4. This land is in the same village. It is in close proximity of the acquired land. Once such a comparable sale instance is available, that must be the price which must be taken into account. The sale is of September, 1991 and the Notification was issued in 1992. Thus, the increase given, both by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court, of Rs. 20,000/- over the sale price is reasonable. This shows that the value of land, abutting the Highway is Rs. 2 Lacs per acre on the date of the Section 4 Notification. From that development cost have to be deducted. 12. The reasoning of the High Court that no development cost need not be deducted because adjoining lands are developed is clearly erroneous. Merely because adjoining lands are developed does not mean that on the acquired land, which admittedly was agricultural land, there was no development required. If development cost at the usual rate @ 33% is deducted, the Reference Court was right in arriving at the figure of Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre in respect of the land which was abutting the Highway i.e. Survey Nos.725 and 726/1. In our view, the Reference Court was also right that the lands which were not abutting the Highway and which fell behind could not have the same value. 13. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 385 . In that case, the land was acquired for the purposes of developing small plots and allotting those plots to public. It was for this reason that it was held that some plot holders may prefer plots which were near from the Highway whereas others may prefer plots which were far away from the Highway. It is on that footing that it was held that merely because certain lands were away from the Highway they need not have a lower value. It was for this reason that it was held that some plot holders may prefer plots which were near from the Highway whereas others may prefer plots which were far away from the Highway. It is on that footing that it was held that merely because certain lands were away from the Highway they need not have a lower value. This reasoning can have no application to the present case. 14. In the present case, the land was acquired for the purposes of a L.P. Gas Plant. The acquisition is not for purposes of reselling, after development, to individuals. In cases like this what has to be seen is what the owner would have got if he sold his land. The land which is near the Highway would definitely get a higher price than land which is away from the Highway. Land which is further back from the Highway would definitely get a still lower price. 15. In our view, the Reference Court had correctly taken these factors into consideration and fixed the price correctly. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned judgment and restore that of the Reference Court. We accordingly fix the price at Rs. 1,35,000/- per acre for Survey Nos.725 and 726/1; Rs. 90,000/- per acre for Survey Nos.724 and 685 and Rs. 70,000/- per acre for Survey Nos.723 and 686. 16. Clarified that the claimants would also be entitled to all statutory benefits available under the Act. The appeals stand disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs.