S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE appeal and cross objection filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the owner of the acquired land are directed against the same Judgment and award dated 20. 09. 1983 passed in L. A. C. No. 163 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Belgaum (for short Civil Court) determining the market value at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre. ( 2 ) THIS case has had a chequered career spanning for more than four decades. 5 acres, 4 guntas of land comprised in Sy. No. 33 of Kilabnur village, Ramadurga taluk, Belgaum District which land is hereinafter shortly referred as the schedule land, was acquired by the State for a public purpose, to wit: for formation of house sites to the members of weaker-sections of the Society by exercising eminent domain power vested in the State, by issuing Section 4 (1) notification dated 30. 06. 1960 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for short the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry and placing reliance on the sales statistics by his award dated 28. 12. 1968 determined the market value of the schedule land at the rate of Rs. 1,640/- per acre. The owner of the schedule land being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer sought reference of his claim under Section 18 of the Act to the Civil Court for higher rate of compensation. On such reference being made, the Civil Court placing reliance on Ex. P5 which is a Sale deed dated 26. 02. 1965 under which a plot of land admeasuring 148 sq. yards was sold to one Sri. Solunke for Rs. 4,000/-, determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per gunta, that is to say, Rs. 40,000/- per acre by its Judgment and award dated 20. 09. 1983. The Land Acquisition Officer calling in question the market value determined by the Civil Court and further contending that there was no valid reference under Section 18 of the Act and, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned award filed M. F. A. No. 739 of 1984 in this Court. The owner of the schedule land also being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation filed cross objections. The owner of the schedule land also being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation filed cross objections. ( 3 ) THIS Court by its Judgment and award dated 31. 05. 1991 set-aside the impugned award and remanded the reference to the Civil Court to find out in the first instance whether there was valid reference of the claim under Section 18 of the Act and then to decide the merits of the matter. After the remand, the Civil Court held an enquiry initially with regard to maintainability of the reference and found that there was no valid reference by its Judgment and order dated 21. 11. 1994, and the validity of that order was called in question by the owner of the schedule land. This Court by its Judgment and order dated 23. 09. 1998 affirmed the above finding of the Civil Court. That lead to the owner of the schedule land preferring SLP (Civil) 1360 of 2000 to the Supreme Court. Before the Apex Court, on behalf of the State and State Authorities, a statement was made that after perusal of the relevant records, it was found that in fact there was a valid reference under Section 18 of the Act at the behest of the owner of the schedule land. In that view of the matter, the Apex Court by its Judgment and order dated 1. 5. 2000 allowed the Civil appeal of the owner and set-aside the order passed by this Court as well as that of the Civil Court and remanded the proceedings to this Court for a final decision on the question of the market value of the property. That is how, the appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and the Cross Objections filed by the owner of the schedule land are placed before us for hearing and determination of the compensation to be payable to the owner of the schedule land. ( 4 ) WE have heard Sri. Asokumar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for Land Acquisition and Sri. S. P. Shankar, learned Sr. Counsel for the cross-objector. ( 5 ) LEARNED Govt. Advocate would contend that having regard to the admitted facts and the evidence on record, determination of the market value at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre is highly excessive and cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) SRI. S. P. Shankar, learned Sr. S. P. Shankar, learned Sr. Counsel for the cross-objector. ( 5 ) LEARNED Govt. Advocate would contend that having regard to the admitted facts and the evidence on record, determination of the market value at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre is highly excessive and cannot be sustained. ( 6 ) SRI. S. P. Shankar, learned Sr. Counsel for the owner, on the other hand would contend that the Civil Court has made unjustified and illegal deduction towards developmental charges and determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- per acre, and that the rate fixed by the Civil Court in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record cannot be regarded as just and reasonable compensation. According to him, the Civil Court ought to have deducted only 20% and or at the most 1/3rd of the value fetched for the land covered under Ex. p5 towards developmental charges having regard to the fact that the schedule land is a fairly large extent of land compared to the land conveyed under Ex. p5. ( 7 ) SRI S. P. Shankar would also point out that of 5 acres 4 guntas of land, admittedly, even before the acquisition, the owner had converted the schedule land to an extent of 2 acres and that fact was completely ignored by the Civil Court in decision-making. Sri. Shankar, in support of his contention, would place reliance on the decisions of the Apes Court in COMMISSIONER of Income Tax, Haryana -v- M/s Krishna Copper steel rolling mills ( AIR 1992 SC 421 ), Bhagawathula -v- Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition officer ( AIR 1992 SC 2298 ), Visakhapatnam municipality, (AIR (2003) 1 SCC 354 Kasturi -v- State of Haryana, Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer -v- V. Narasaiah ( AIR 2001 SC 1117 ). ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for decision is whether the market-value determined by the Civil Court is excessive as contended by the learned Govt. Advocate or unreasonable and inadequate as contended by Sri. S. P. Shankar, learned Sr. counsel for the owner. ( 9 ) NO objection is taken by the learned Govt. Advocate or Sri. S. P. Shankar as regards the Civil Court placing reliance on ex. P5 document. It is obviously because it is nobodys case that except Ex. Advocate or unreasonable and inadequate as contended by Sri. S. P. Shankar, learned Sr. counsel for the owner. ( 9 ) NO objection is taken by the learned Govt. Advocate or Sri. S. P. Shankar as regards the Civil Court placing reliance on ex. P5 document. It is obviously because it is nobodys case that except Ex. P5 there existed any other sale transaction which is comparable in terms of locus and time for determination of the actual market-value of the schedule land as on the date of Section 4 (1) notification. It is well settled that in the absence of a comparable sale transaction in terms of locus and time, the Deference Court can place reliance on sales transactions involving lands situate in the same vicinity or the same village which are proximate in terms of time to the date of Section 4 (1) Notification for determination of market-value. ( 10 ) AS already pointed out, in this case Section 4 (1) notification was issued on 30. 06. 1960, whereas, Ex. P5 came into existence on 20. 02-1965, that is to say, roughly after 5 years. It is trite that while determining actual market value of an acquired land under the Act what should go into decision-making and what should be eschewed has been specified by Act itself under Section 23 and 24. The Apex Court while dealing with determination of market-value of large extent of land for public purpose by placing reliance on comparable conveyance but involving plots or small bits of land has laid down certain norms and guidelines. We don not wish to burden our Judgment with large number of pronouncements of the Apex Court, this Court and other High Courts. Suffice it to state that Apex Court in a catena of decisions in the past four and half decades has formulated principles, norms and guidelines for determining the market value of compulsorily acquired lands by the State in exercise of its eminent domain power under the Act or any other enabling statute. One of the principles discernible from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court is that while determining quantum of compensation for large extent of land, price paid or compensation determined by the Court for small parcels of land do not offer any comparable basis. One of the principles discernible from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court is that while determining quantum of compensation for large extent of land, price paid or compensation determined by the Court for small parcels of land do not offer any comparable basis. At the same time, it is also discernible from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that in the absence of any better evidence or transaction or conveyance involving comparable extent of land, even transaction involving conveyance of small block or parcel of land which is comparable in terms of proximity of time and locus can be a valid basis for determination of market-value. ( 11 ) THE Supreme Court in ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL V. COLLECTOR VARANASI ( AIR 1988 SC 943 ) 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 S. 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 advantage 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. ( 12 ) THIS Court in Jade basappa (dead) by Lrs. and Others V. Assistant Commissioner and land acquisition officer, hospet, bellary district (1995 (6) Kar. L. J. 130), 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. L. J. 130), 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 land owner 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. ( 13 ) SMT. K. S. Shivadevamma and Others V. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Davanagere and Another, [1992 (4) Kar. L. J. 428 (DB): ILR 1992 Kar. 3740 (DB)], a Division Bench of this Court held: it is clear that, if reasonably the land acquired has a potentiality for urban use, said benefit should be extended to it while awarding compensation. Lands in the outskirts of an expanding city has every tendency to become ripe for building use in course of time. Court has to make a reasonable exercise to find out the market value by reference to the existing material, unless the material on record is absolutely useless to find out the value of similar lands. If the value of comparable land, is of small size, appropriate deduction has to be made after applying the said rate, when a hypothetical building layout is imagined to work out the market value of the acquired land. A few decisions also indicate that, Court may take note of the value of land which may not be in the very locality but, situated in a nearby locality, provided, it is comparable to the acquired land with regard to the potentiality. If the available market-rate is of some recent past, appropriate escalation rate may be applied to estimate the rate as on the date of the preliminary notification. No doubt, the entire exercise by the Court would be indirectly guided by the Courts own judicial sense as to what would have been a reasonable value for the land in question, at the relevant point of time. No doubt, the entire exercise by the Court would be indirectly guided by the Courts own judicial sense as to what would have been a reasonable value for the land in question, at the relevant point of time. ( 14 ) THIS Court in ALISAB (Since deceased) by L. Rs. V. Assistant Commissioner and land acquisition officer, bellary (1995 (6) Kar. L. J. 686, dealing with factors to be considered in determining the compensation and onus of fixing fair compensation observed thus.- it is the onus of the State acting through the Land Acquisition Officer to fix the fair compensation in the first instance. Though the law assumes that the L. A. O. will act correctly, the law also makes provision for revision of the figure awarded, by the Court, and experience has shown that in almost every case, the Courts had even required to intervene by stepping up the compensation. It is true that if the original awarded amount is disputed that the onus lies on the claimant and that on such basic issues as the question as to how must grain or other agricultural produce a particular piece of land yielded in a particular year is concerned, that it is the landowner who is the best person to testify. If one were to take not of the fact that for purposes of obtaining some more money that there would be a natural tendency to exaggerate, a Court will go by the prevailing standards and figures and as far as these are concerned, if independent evidence is not forthcoming then some reliance of a considerable degree will have to be place on the figures which the State comes out with. ( 15 ) HAVING noticed the norms and principles governing determination of market value of an acquired land as on the date of Section 4 (1) notification, let us proceed to look at the facts of the present case in order to appreciate the rival contentions placed before us by the learned counsel for the parties for consideration. ( 16 ) TWO factors which should necessarily go into decision-making are striking in the present case. The first factor is the large extent of land admeasuring, 5 acres, 4 guntas. ( 16 ) TWO factors which should necessarily go into decision-making are striking in the present case. The first factor is the large extent of land admeasuring, 5 acres, 4 guntas. The Court has no other evidence except a conveyance involving only one gunta, four annas of land which extent, in relative terms, could be said to be an insignificant area compared to 5 acres 4 guntas. The second factor is that in terms of proximity of time, we do not have any comparable sale transaction. Thus we are left with no evidence except Exhibit p-5 which came into existence after roughly five years from the date of Section 4 (1) notification under which the schedule land was acquired for the public purpose. However, both the lands do situate in the same village with similar potentialities. Since there is 5 years time gap between the Section 4 (1) notification and the date of Ex. P5, it is just and appropriate to allow necessary deductions from the value fetched for the land under Ex. p5. Even on a nominal basis, if we allow deduction at the rate of 5% p. a. , 25% deduction has to be made from the value fetched for the land covered under Ex. P5 under which 148 sq. yards of land which is equivalent to 1 gunta 4 annas with compound, kattas, pial and walls situate therein was sold for Rs. 4,000/ -. Since the land conveyed under Ex. P5 was a well developed plot of land with structures, in the first instance, the cost of the structure has to be deducted and the Civil Court after such deduction, determined the value of the schedule land as Rs. 3,000/- per gunta. Further, since there is a time-gap of roughly 5 years between the date of Section 4 (1) notification and the date of Ex. p5, deduction at the rate of 5% p. a. as already pointed out supra should be allowed and if it is so allowed, the value of the land on the date of Section 4 (1) notification would be Rs. 2,250/- per gunta. Further, since the market-value large extent of schedule land has to be determined on the basis of Ex. P5 under which a small parcel of land was sold, necessary deduction has to be allowed towards developmental charges. 2,250/- per gunta. Further, since the market-value large extent of schedule land has to be determined on the basis of Ex. P5 under which a small parcel of land was sold, necessary deduction has to be allowed towards developmental charges. Although there is no hard and fast rule with regard to percentage of deduction to be made towards developmental charges, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, we are of the considered opinion that 50% deduction towards developmental charges would be just and proper. In determining the percentage of deduction, we have also taken into account the fact that out of 5 acre 4 guntas of land, 2 acres of land was converted even before Section 4 (1) notification was issued. If 50% is deducted towards developmental charges, the net value of the land would come to Rs. 1,125/- per gunta or Rs. 45,000/- per acre. ( 17 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the appeal of the State with costs and allow cross-objection in part with costs and in substitution of the impugned award passed by the Civil Court, we determine the market-value of the schedule land at the rate of Rs. 45,000/- per acre. Advocates fee is fixed at Rs. 5,000/- each in the appeal as well as in the cross-objection. In awarding costs, we have taken note of the incorrect plea of the State before this Court that there was no valid reference and thus forcing the owners of the acquired land to litigate unnecessarily but at his cost and peril. The State did not treat the owner fairly and reasonably as expected of it. ( 18 ) BEFORE parting with this case, a submission made by Sri. S. P. Shankar, is required to be noticed. Sri. Shankar submitted that the cross-objector/owner is also entitled to statutory benefits on the ground that the award notice was not served on the cross-objector/owner before the cut off date i. e. 30. 03. 1982 and this claim put forth on behalf of the owner of the schedule land was hotly contested by the learned Govt. Advocate. ( 19 ) WE do not find necessary materials or records before us to resolve this factual controversy. 03. 1982 and this claim put forth on behalf of the owner of the schedule land was hotly contested by the learned Govt. Advocate. ( 19 ) WE do not find necessary materials or records before us to resolve this factual controversy. Therefore, we leave open the question with regard to the entitlement of the owner of the schedule land to claim statutory benefits before the Executing Court. ( 20 ) IN view of our Judgment In M. F. A. No. 739 of 1984 and cross objection, this C. R. P. No. 1220 of 1995 does not survive for consideration on merit and, therefore, C. R. P. is disposed of as unnecessary with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .