S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 22-2-1999 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge at Mysore (for short 'the Civil Court' ). Hence, both the appeals were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment. M. F. A. No. 2435 of 2000 is directed against the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 486 of 1996 whereas M. F. A. No. 2469 of 2000 is directed against the judgment and award passed in LAC No. 487 of 1996. The appellant in both the appeals is the same person and he is the owner of the acquired land. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: the State of Karnataka in exercise of eminent domain power acquired 4 acres 39 guntas of land comprised in Survey Nos. 66/2 and 67 situate in Srirampuram Village, Mysore Taluk for a public purpose, to wit, for formation of Varuna Nalla by issuing Section 4 (1) notification dated 20-1-1993 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'the act') and the same was published in the Official Gazette on 3-2-1994. ( 3 ) THE Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'the LAO') after conducting award enquiry passed the award on 26-4-1995 determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 74,500/- per acre basing on sales statistics. The appellant received the compensation awarded by the lao under protest and made applications under Sections 18 of the Act, to refer the matter to the Civil Court for enhancement of compensation. ( 4 ) ON reference, the Civil Court placing reliance on Ex. P. 3 determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 76,000/- per acre. Ex. P. 3 is the certified copy of the judgment and award passed by the same Civil court in LAC No. 372 of 1991 determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 44,990/- per acre with regard to 1 acre 10 guntas of land of srirampura Village acquired under Section 4 (1) notification dated 26-5-1986. ( 5 ) THE appellant-landowner, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Civil Court has come up with the above appeals seeking compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. 44,990/- per acre with regard to 1 acre 10 guntas of land of srirampura Village acquired under Section 4 (1) notification dated 26-5-1986. ( 5 ) THE appellant-landowner, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Civil Court has come up with the above appeals seeking compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri Thimmanna Bhat Devathe, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Aso Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Land Acquisition. The first and foremost contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Civil Court has committed an apparent irregularity and illegality in misreading Ex. P. 1 sale deed. The learned Counsel would point out that under Ex. P. 1 which is a registered sale deed dated 7-1-1993, 3 acres of dry land of Srirampura village was sold for Rs. 6,60,000/- in favour of P. W. 2, but, quite curiously, the Civil Court has stated that the said property was sold for Rs. 85,800/- in favour of P. W. 2 as if the stamp duty of Rs. 85,800/- paid on the document is the sale consideration without bothering to read the Ex. P. 1 document wherein it is clearly stated that the property was sold for rs. 6,60,000/-, that comes to Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre. Learned Counsel would contend that Ex. P. 1 sale deed is dated 7-1-1993 and, therefore, it is proximate in point of time as well as locus because the land in this case was acquired by issuing Section 4 (1) notification dated 3-2-1994. Learned Counsel would contend that the Civil Court's placing reliance on Ex. P. 3 document is neither justified nor warranted. ( 7 ) SRI Aso Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for Land acquisition, on the other hand, would support the award passed by the civil Court and would maintain that in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding comparability of the acquired land with the land covered by Ex. P. 1 sale deed, there was nothing wrong on the part of the civil Court in determining the market value on the basis of Ex. P. 3. P. 1 sale deed, there was nothing wrong on the part of the civil Court in determining the market value on the basis of Ex. P. 3. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties, the only question that arises for our consideration and decision is whether the compensation awarded by the Civil Court is just and proper and, if not, what shall be the just compensation for the acquired land. ( 9 ) IN awarding compensation under the Act, the methods of valuation may be (i) opinion of experts, (ii) the price paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase of the lands acquired or the lands adjacent to the lands acquired and possessing similar advantages, and (iii) a number of years purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired, popularly called 'capitalization method'. ( 10 ) ). In M. S. Nanjappa v The Special Land Acquisition Officer, City improvement Trust Board, a Division Bench of this Court held:"for the determination of the market value of the acquired property, transactions relating to sales of properties contiguous to the acquired property which took place not only before the date of the preliminary notification but also sufficiently proximate to the preliminary notification even if the transactions are subsequent transactions, should constitute the guiding factor. No bona fide sale transaction can be excluded from consideration merely on the ground that the transaction was entered into subsequent to the date of the preliminary notification. But, when depending upon a subsequent transaction, the Court should not overlook enhanced value attributable to the acquisition or to a general increase in the market prices". ( 11 ) WHAT the Court has to consider is the transaction of sale of similar lands at about the time of the preliminary notification. The market value of an acquired land on the date of Section 4 (1) notification has to be ascertained in each case with due regard to the conditions of time and facts which effect transactions between a willing seller and intending buyer. In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as proximate and not a mathematically accurate method. ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v collector, Varanasi, observed thus. In any case, the decision at best is to be regarded as proximate and not a mathematically accurate method. ( 12 ) THE Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal v collector, Varanasi, observed thus. "the determination of market value of a piece of land with potentialities for urban use is an intricate exercise which calls for collection and collation of diverse economic criteria. The market value of a piece of property, for purposes of Section 23 of the Act, is stated to be the price at which the property changes hands from a willing seller to a willing, but not too anxious a buyer, dealing at arms length. The determination of market value, as one author put it, is the prediction of an economic event, viz. , the price outcome of a hypothetical sale, expressed in terms of probabilities. Prices fetched for similar lands with similar advantages and potentialities under bona fide transactions of sale at or about the time of the preliminary notification are the usual, and indeed the best, evidences of market value. Other methods of valuation are resorted to if the evidence of sale of similar lands is not available". ( 13 ) THIS Court in Jade Basappa (dead) by L. Rs and Others v Assistant commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Hospet, Bellary District, held:"the approach of the Courts while dealing with the case of an agriculturist,. . . . . . , is to average and round off the figure, the acceptance always being on a little higher side rather than on the lower side. The object has not been to end up with the State paying more money, but to take note of the fact that whatever amount that the landowner seeks is a one-time compensation, the computation of which must never be grudgingly done because even a generous compensation is more than offset by the real land value in the hands of the acquirer, and that consequently the lands have always a tremendous potential both for actual financial yield and capital appreciation". ( 14 ) IN the premise of the rules and norms governing the determination of the actual market value of the acquired land on the date of section 4 (1) notification, we are constrained to observe that the Civil court has committed a serious illegality in determining the market value on the basis of Ex. P. 3. ( 14 ) IN the premise of the rules and norms governing the determination of the actual market value of the acquired land on the date of section 4 (1) notification, we are constrained to observe that the Civil court has committed a serious illegality in determining the market value on the basis of Ex. P. 3. Further, the Civil Court has also misread the consideration for selling 3 acres of land under Ex. P. 3 document as rs. 85,800/ -. Whereas, the consideration passed on to the vendor under that document is Rs. 6,60,000/- which comes to Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre, the Civil Court laboured under a wrong impression that the said land was sold for Rs. 85,800/- taking the stamp duty paid on the instrument as the consideration. It cannot be gainsaid that Ex. P. 1 sale deed is proximate both in point of time as well as in the point of locus. We say this because, the land in this case was acquired by issuing Section 4 (1) notification dated 3-2-1994 whereas Ex. P. 1 is dated 7-1-1993. It cannot be said that Ex. P. 1 is a created document to claim higher rate of compensation. Under Ex. P. 1, a relatively large extent of 3 acres of land of Srirampura Village which situate adjacent to the acquired land has been sold at the rate of Rs. 6,60,000/- Ex. P. 1 document is proved by examining P. W. 2 who is the purchaser of the land. Further, the said land belongs to one Mr. A. Mohamed Jaffer S/o. Late Ghouse Saheb. It is not as if the owner of the acquired land in this case was the owner of the land covered by Ex. P. 1 also. It is well-settled that when a comparable sale transaction is available which is proximate in point of time and locus, such a sale transaction is undoubtedly a dependable basis to determine the market value of the acquired land. As pointed out supra and having perused the original records placed before us, we are fully satisfied that Ex. P. 1 sale deed is a genuine and bona fide sale transaction between the parties and that could be a valid basis for determining the market value of the acquired land as the same being proximate in point of time as well as locus. P. 1 sale deed is a genuine and bona fide sale transaction between the parties and that could be a valid basis for determining the market value of the acquired land as the same being proximate in point of time as well as locus. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,20,000/- per acre, but, he has restricted the claim to Rs. 2,00,000 per acre in these appeals. In the result and for the foregoing reasons we allow the appeals with costs and set aside the impugned awards with costs and award compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs) per acre. We also further direct that the appellant-owner is entitled to all other statutory benefits in accordance with law. Advocate's fee is fixed at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- in each appeal. --- *** --- .