1. This is an appeal against the order and decree dated 31.12.2002, passed by District Judge Baramulla upon a reference made to him under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter called the Act), by the Collector (ACR) Baramulla. 2. It appears that Collector Land Acquisition issued notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquisition of the land measuring 44 kanals and 18 1/2 marlas for construction of satellite market at Kanipora Baramulla on 22.4.1999. The notification under Secs. 6 & 7 was issued by the Government on 28.7.1999, and notification under Sec. 9, 9(a) being issued on 19.8.1999, the land owners in order to show what was the market value produced and relied upon five sale deeds before the Collector. The Collector Land Acquisition also visited the spot and in his tentative award fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 3.00 lacs per kanal for the land measuring 14 kanals and 10 marlas which was admittedly on the National Highway and at the rate of Rs. 2.00 lacs per kanal for the other land measuring 30 kanals and 8 1/2 marlas. This tentative award, on being approved by the Government, was made the Final Award. The respondents are the owners of the land measuring 14 kanals and 10 marlas situated on the Highway. They did not accept the rate fixed for assessment of compensation for their land by the Collector, so moved an application before the Collector for making a reference to the District Judge in terms of Section 18 of the Act. The respondents claimed compensation at the rate more than 6 lacs per kanal on the ground that the land being on the National Highway possessed great potential for being used commercially and was in fact being used by them for running a Band-saw and joinery mill and they had also installed a trolly in the structure raised by them which carried the market value of about 75 lacs. By the acquisition thus they claimed that they have lost their business too. However, the appellate Collector supported his award. Learned trial court framed 8 issues for determination, out of the pleadings of the parties. Out of which issue No.(vi) is material which reads as follows:- "(vi)- Whether the value of the land was Rs. 06 lakhs per kanal at the time of taking over the possession? OPA." From the evidence ld. However, the appellate Collector supported his award. Learned trial court framed 8 issues for determination, out of the pleadings of the parties. Out of which issue No.(vi) is material which reads as follows:- "(vi)- Whether the value of the land was Rs. 06 lakhs per kanal at the time of taking over the possession? OPA." From the evidence ld. trial court noticed the following features emerging therefrom:- (i) that by virtue of the sale deeds executed by Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Wani in favour of Bashir Ahmed Dar the rate of land in the year 2000 was Rs. 4.50 lakhs per kanal in the vicinity. But this land is not situated on the road side; (ii) that by virtue of the sale deed EXPM/2 the land in the vicinity in the early year 1999 was valued at Rs. 3.50 lakhs per kanal. This land is in the vicinity of the acquired land but not on the road side; (iii) The witnesses adduced by the applicants have established that the acquired land is situated on the road side of the National Highway and it serves as access to the remaining acquired land in the same transaction. (iv) It is established by the evidence that the applicants land values more than the other acquired lands or the land which has been sold in terms of sale deeds EXPM and EXPM/2. (v) The acquired land in question has higher value because of its commercial and residential status. This evidence has further established that the applicants land values 06 to 07 lakhs of rupees per kanal. The costs of poplar trees and compensation for dismantling of the structures also the not been considered. This fact is borne out by the award itself passed by the Collector on 15.4.2000. It is admitted in the award that the applicants land is situated on the national highway and it has both commercial and residential values. (vi) In addition to this oral and documentary evidence the applicants have produced two attested photostat copies from the records of Divisional Commissioner Kashmir and Deputy Commissioner Baramulla pertaining to assessment of value of the migrant lands. These documents marked as A&B on record indicate that the authorities have valued migrant lands in the same vicinity at Rs. 4.50 lakhs per kanal in the year 2000. These documents marked as A&B on record indicate that the authorities have valued migrant lands in the same vicinity at Rs. 4.50 lakhs per kanal in the year 2000. These documents are unrebutted proof of the fact that the land values at Rs.4.50 lakhs in this vicinity at Khowajabagh Baramulla. The note worthy fact is that this land also is not situated on the National Highway. It implies that the acquired land values more than the above noted migrant lands also." And the trial court while deciding issue No. 6 held: (i) Value of land in the vicinity of the acquired land situated far from the national highway assessed by Government is Rs. 4.50 lakhs/kanal. Acquired land will cost firstly this value of Rs. 4.5 lakhs/kanal; (ii) Enhanced value because of commercial/roadside location @ 15% more than the other assessed lands by the Govt; within the same locality, which amounts to Rs. 67,500 per kanal. Thus the value equals to Rs. 5.17,500 per kanal. (iii) Solatium @ 15% per kanal which shall include compensation for future inconvenience, change of business (already granted) amounts to Rs. 77625/kanal. As such the total cost of land equals to Rs. 5,95,125 kanal; (iv) The applicants shall be entitled to receive statutory interest @ 10% per annum for the unpaid portion of compensation from the date when possession of acquired land was taken over by the Department." 3. Learned A.A.G. counsel for the appellants argued that the trial court has erred in placing reliance on the sale deeds and permission letter of Divisional Commissioner for determining the market value as these had no proximity with the time of acquisition. The sale deeds were sham transactions crated for enhancement of the value while the land mentioned in the permission of Divisional Commissioner was situated in a different area having different potential. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no such error is there in the judgment of the trial court. 4. Land owners whose land is acquired by the State under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act are entitled to receive compensation for their land at market value which was prevailing at the time of issuance of notification under Sec. 6. Market value would mean the value which a willing purchaser is ready to pay for the land in the normal conditions. Market value would mean the value which a willing purchaser is ready to pay for the land in the normal conditions. In the proceedings under Sec. 18 before the District Judge claimants are required to prove the fact of such market value like any other fact is proved in a suit. 5. A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it the Court either believes that it exists or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man might under the circumstances of the particular case act upon the supposition that it exists (sec. 3 of Evidence Act). What was the market value of the land acquired on the date of issuance of notification under Sec. 6 can be proved by instances of sale of similar kind of land in the vicinity and proximate in time with the relevant date. 6. For proving the nature of the land and what could the probable market value, the respondents-land owners led the evidence which has remained almost unrebutted. Learned trial court decided the issue No. 6 by saying that value of the land in the vicinity of the acquired land situated far from the National Highway assessed by the Government is Rs.4.5 lacs/kanal but acquired land being on the National Highway in a commercial area would have enhance value by 15% which comes to Rs. 67,500 per kanal, thus totalling to Rs. 5,17,500 per kanal. Learned trial court has assessed the compensation on the rate so fixed. 7. From the perusal of the evidence of the land owners, which has remained unchallenged, it appears that it has clearly been established by the proof of the instances of sales that the price of the land at a distance from the National Highway was between 4.50 and 3.50 lacs. The learned trial court has also taken into consideration two order copies of the Deputy Commissioner Baramulla and Divisional Commissioner Srinagar respectively for fixing the basic rate of land prevalent in the vicinity, the authenticity of which has not been disputed. The first one is an official letter written by Deputy Commissioner Baramulla to the Divisional Commissioner Srinagar recommending for the grant of permission for sale of migrants land at the rate of Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal and 2nd letter is the permission granted by Divisional Commissioner for the sale of the land again at the rate of Rs. The first one is an official letter written by Deputy Commissioner Baramulla to the Divisional Commissioner Srinagar recommending for the grant of permission for sale of migrants land at the rate of Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal and 2nd letter is the permission granted by Divisional Commissioner for the sale of the land again at the rate of Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal. The lands which were permitted to be sold are admittedly situated near the land in issue. On the basis of the sale instances proved by the land owners and the two above-said permissions of sale, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the rate of the land in the area could be Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal. 8. The contention of learned A.A.G. is that these permission letters were dated 11.3.2000 and 27.6.2000 and could not be taken into consideration being not proximate in time to the notification under Sec. 6 of the Act because the prevailing market price at the time of issuance of notification under Sec. 6 was to be determined. The notification under Sec. 6 was issued on 28.7.1999 9. In my view the instances relied upon by the learned trial court are quite proximate and do not relate to such a distant time which could not be taken into consideration in the circumstances of the case. The appellants had not shown any other instances of sale of land having taken place on the date of issuance of notification under Sec. 6. If the instances of sales transactions relied upon by the land owners were t he only sales which had taken place within the few months from the date of notification, such sale instances could very well be relied upon for determining the market value. Learned trial court therefore, has rightly relied thereon for fixing the value at Rs. 4.50 lacs per kanal in and around the area in which land acquired is situated. 10. Learned trial court has further enhanced the value by 15% per kanal for the reason that the land in question was on the National Highway where potential of the land for being used commercially was higher. 11. 4.50 lacs per kanal in and around the area in which land acquired is situated. 10. Learned trial court has further enhanced the value by 15% per kanal for the reason that the land in question was on the National Highway where potential of the land for being used commercially was higher. 11. Learned A.A.G. for the appellant has contended that learned trial court was swayed to hold that the land in issue had higher commercial value than the lands sold in the vicinity, simply because the land in issue is situated on the National Highway, whereas in fact there being heavy vehicular traffic and pollution the land is not fit to be used either for commercial or for residential purposes. Therefore, according to the learned A.A.G. the trial court was not justified in fixing higher price of the land on the assumption that land had a potential for being used commercially or for residential purpose. 12. The objection raised can be answered in the words of appellate (Collector) himself who in his award has observed as follows:- "Undersigned also visited the spot. It was found that khasra Nos. 2493/476, 2004/1481, 2005/1481, 1483, 1697, 2601/1700 and 1482, total area 14 kanals 10 mls is situated on National Highway and have higher residential, potential commercial value. There is also a band-saw mill in the said Khasra Nos. and in the said earning mill is effecting due to acquisition of land, therefore, due to acquisition the land owners of said khasra Nos. inferiously effecting his other movable property i.e. measuring 30 kls 08/2 mls have been converted into Nehri awal due to irrigation canal in the year 1968. The location of land which situated on National Highway leading Baramulla-Srinagar road cannot be under estimated as the land is paddy growing and has high agriculture value, because of its potential value. The land can be used for commercial/residential use in Baramulla town." 13. This apart, it has also been cogently proved that in the land acquired the respondents were running a Band-saw mill etc. They have lost their business because of acquisition of land. No compensation was awarded by the Collector on that count and learned District Judge has also not awarded any amount for the reason that it has not been established by the respondents/land owners as to how much loss they suffered. They have lost their business because of acquisition of land. No compensation was awarded by the Collector on that count and learned District Judge has also not awarded any amount for the reason that it has not been established by the respondents/land owners as to how much loss they suffered. since they have not appealed against the judgment and award of the District Judge, the question of granting compensation in this behalf cannot arise but this fact, at least, establishes that the land acquired was being used for carrying commercial activity immediately before it came to be acquired. It cannot be disputed by any reason that the land having commercial potential carries higher market price than the non-commercial one. Learned trial court has enhanced the value by 15% on account of said potential of the land. In AIR 1976 SC 2219 their Lordships held: "Market value means the price that a willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value the disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to by should be disregarded. There is an element of guess work inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land." In AIR 1972 SC 1417 it has been observed as follows:- "The compensation payable to the owner of the land is determined by a reference to the price which a seller might reasonably accept to obtain from a willing purchaser, but as this may not be possible to ascertain with any amount of precision the authority charged with the duty to award compensation is bound to make an estimate judged by an objective standard. The land acquired has therefore, to be valued not only with reference to its condition at the time of the declaration u/s 4 of the Act, but its potential value also must be taken into account." 14. Learned District Judge has properly appreciated the evidence and has drawn conclusions which are in tune with law. His assessment of the compensation in my view cannot validly be faulted with. Learned District Judge has properly appreciated the evidence and has drawn conclusions which are in tune with law. His assessment of the compensation in my view cannot validly be faulted with. The appeal of the appellants, therefore, is without any merit and accordingly is dismissed.