P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) ONE A. Satyaseela Reddy, the appellant herein, aggrieved by the order and decree made in O. P. No. 2228 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dated 14-3-1989 had preferred the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter in short referred to as the Act for the purpose of convenience ). ( 2 ) THE Tahsildar-cum-Land Acquisition officer, Kurnool in pursuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act issued in R. C. K. 950/83, dated 10-6-1983 of collector, Kurnool published in District gazette extraordinary dated 18-6-1983 acquired Ac. 5-53 cents of land of the appellant-claimant in Survey No. 339/2b of ulchala village for the purpose of providing house sites to the Schedule Caste members of the said village after holding due enquiry and awarding a rate of Rs. 10,000. 00 per acre as compensation vide award No. 3/83/84, dated 26-10-1983. Dissatisfied with the adequacy of compensation awarded, a reference was sought under Section 18 of the Act by virtue of protest letter dated 13-12-1983. The appellant-claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 30,000. 00 per acre. But, however, at present, the appellant is claiming compensation at the rate of rs. 40,000/-per acre. ( 3 ) THE appellant-claimant had examined himself as R. W. 1 and one D. Vijayabhaskar reddy, attestor of certain transactions of sale relied upon was examined as R. W. 2. Ex. B-1 to Ex. B-6 were marked on his side. One M. Sreenivasa Murthy, the concerned land Acquisition Officer, was examined as p. W. 1 and Ex. A-1 - Plan of the land acquired was marked. ( 4 ) THE learned II Additional Subordinate judge, Kurnool, after framing the point for consideration and on appreciation of evidence of P. W. 1, R. Ws. 1 and 2 and also ex. A-1 and Ex. B-1 to Ex. B-6 had arrived at the conclusion that the appellant-claimant is entitled to the market value at the rate of rs. 18,000/- per acre, besides statutory benefits. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the same the appellant herein had preferred the present appeal. ( 6 ) SRI E. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant, had submitted that the learned II Additional subordinate Judge, Kurnool had totally erred in awarding compensation at the rate of rs. 18,000/- per acre, besides statutory benefits. ( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the same the appellant herein had preferred the present appeal. ( 6 ) SRI E. Ayyapu Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellant, had submitted that the learned II Additional subordinate Judge, Kurnool had totally erred in awarding compensation at the rate of rs. 18,000/- per acre and should have awarded compensation at the rate of rs. 40,000/- per acre as claimed by the appellant. The learned counsel also submitted that the potentiality of the land also should have been taken into consideration while fixing the compensation. The learned counsel also had pointed out to the evidence of both R. W. 1 and R. W. 2 and had also drawn our attention to Ex. B-2 and ex. B-3 and also Ex. B-4 to Ex. B-6 in this regard. The learned counsel further maintained that the distance and proximity in time between Ex. B-2 and Ex. B-3 and the notification, and the increase of price should have been taken into consideration while fixing the market value, and in that view of the matter, fixation of compensation at the rate of Rs18,000/- per acre only on the strength of Ex. B-3 cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also submitted that the potentiality of the land should have been taken as an additional factor while deciding the compensation. While elaborating these submissions, the learned counsel also had drawn our attention to the findings recorded by the learned Judge in this regard and also pointed out that though Ex. B-4 to Ex. B-6 are the post notification sales, such sale statistics also can be relied upon and can be looked into for the purpose of deciding the just compensation. The learned counsel had drawn our attention to the findings recorded by the learned Judge in this regard at paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order. B-4 to Ex. B-6 are the post notification sales, such sale statistics also can be relied upon and can be looked into for the purpose of deciding the just compensation. The learned counsel had drawn our attention to the findings recorded by the learned Judge in this regard at paras 7 and 8 of the impugned order. Strong reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Special Deputy collector, Land Acquisition, Nuzvid v. D. Krishna Murthy and also on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona ( 7 ) PER contra, the learned Government pleader for Appeals had taken us through the findings recorded by the learned Judge and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Judge was well justified in not placing reliance upon the post notification sales. The learned government Pleader had also pointed out that the comparable sale under Ex. B-2 and ex. B-3 are of a short proximity in time. The learned Government Pleader had also referred to Ex. B-3 in particular and submitted that in view of the fact that the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued just a few months ahead of Ex. B-3, the learned judge had arrived at correct conclusion in fixing the market value placing reliance on Ex. B-3. The learned Government pleader had also pointed out that the sale transactions relating to small extents of land cannot be made the basis while fixing the compensation in relation to acquisition of larger extents of land. The learned government Pleader while commenting on ex. B-4 to Ex. B-6 had contended that the principle relating to placing reliance on post notification sales can be applied only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. Strong reliance was placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasl and also in State of U. P. v. Maj. Jitender Kumar in this regard. ( 8 ) HEARD both the counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, kurnool, in this regard. ( 9 ) THE factual matrix, in short, had already been narrated supra, which needs no repetition. Jitender Kumar in this regard. ( 8 ) HEARD both the counsel and perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, kurnool, in this regard. ( 9 ) THE factual matrix, in short, had already been narrated supra, which needs no repetition. The purpose of acquisition of the land in question is for providing house sites to the Scheduled Caste members of ulchala village and after holding due enquiry, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 10,000. 00 per acre and appellant- claimant being dissatisfied with the same, by virtue of a protest letter, got the matter referred under Section 18 of the Act. It is pertinent to note that though the appellant- claimant claimed compensation at the rate of rs. 30,000/- per acre at the stage of award enquiry, subsequent thereto and at present he is claiming compensation at the rate of rs. 40,000/- per acre. ( 10 ) THIS is a case where the appellant- claimant had relied upon Ex. B-2 and Ex. B-3 pre-notification sales and Ex. B-4 to ex. B-6 post notification sales. Ex. B-2 is a sale transaction of the year 1980 and ex. B-3 is dated 10-11-1982. Ex. B-2 transaction dated 19-6-1980 is for an extent of Ac. 0-08 1/2 cents in Survey No. 311/2 and if the sale consideration recited in Ex. B-2 is taken as the basis, the rate per acre would be Rs. 17,647. 00. Likewise, Ex. B-3 dated 10-11-1982, which, in fact is more close in proximity of time was relied upon while fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,000. 00 per acre. Ex. A-1 and Ex. B-1 are the plan and sketch showing the lands acquired respectively. These were filed only with a view to show the location of the land or the topography, which may not throw much light in fixation of the compensation. The post notification sales Ex. B-4 dated 10-6-1985; ex. B-5 dated 21-5-1985 and Ex. B-6 dated 24-7-1985 are in relation to small extents of land. These were filed only with a view to show the location of the land or the topography, which may not throw much light in fixation of the compensation. The post notification sales Ex. B-4 dated 10-6-1985; ex. B-5 dated 21-5-1985 and Ex. B-6 dated 24-7-1985 are in relation to small extents of land. In fact, the learned Judge had discussed in detail at para 8 of his order even about these post notification sales and had recorded the findings and reasons why the learned Judge was not inclined to rely upon the sale consideration recited in the said documents especially in view of sudden increase and steep rise of consideration shown in the said documents. ( 11 ) BE that as it may, the main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is that the post notification sales Ex. B-4 to Ex. B-6 could have been taken into consideration and if these documents are taken as the basis, the fixation of compensation at Rs. 18,000. 00 per acre is definitely on the lower side and hence the appellant-claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation to rs. 40,000/- per acre and at any rate of some more enhancement. ( 12 ) IN Chimanlal (2 supra), the Apex court while dealing with the methodology of determination of market value of land and the factors to be borne in mind held:" (1) Determined as on the crucial date of publication of the modification (sic. notification) under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant ). (2) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (3) In doing so by the instances method the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (4) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of Land ). (3) In doing so by the instances method the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (4) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of Land ). (5) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (6) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (7) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deducted by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (8) A balance-sheet plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would be. (9) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deducted by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. The exercise indicated in clause (1) to (10) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: plus factors 1. Smallness of size. 2. proximity to a road. 3. frontage on a road. 4. nearness to developed area. 5. regular shape. 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition. 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. Minus factors 1. largeness of area. 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, taken the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 100 (sic. 1000) sq. yards cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 square yards or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. " ( 13 ) IN D. Krishna Murthy (1 supra), a division Bench of this Court also held that the post notification sale can be taken into consideration if they are proximate in time, genuine and the acquisition has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in the development prospects. ( 14 ) IT is no doubt true that the post notification sale also can be taken into consideration provided where there is evidence to the effect that there was not upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. ( 14 ) IT is no doubt true that the post notification sale also can be taken into consideration provided where there is evidence to the effect that there was not upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. In the present case, the increase of the price as reflected under the consideration recited in Ex. B-4 to Ex. B-6 is definitely very high and abnormal. Apart from it, these are in relation to small extents of land. ( 15 ) IN Administrator General of West bengal (3 supra), while dealing with the said principles, the Apex Court had observed:" It is trite proposition that prices fetched of small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tract of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. B. C. Dutta; AIR 1971 SC 2015 ; Mirza nausherwan Khan v. Collector and (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad, (1975) 2 SCR 184 ; ( AIR 1974 SC 2247 ); padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 1 SCR 329 : ( AIR 1977 SC 580 ) smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, (1984) 2 SCR 900 : ( AIR 1984 SC 892 ). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small- developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purpose; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid-out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying-out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realisation of the price; the profits on the venture etc. , are to be made. In brig. , are to be made. In brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar improvement Trust, (See (1982) I SCC 419 : ( AIR 1982 SC 940 ) this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together come up to as much as 53%. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of the large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the retail price of land and the latter the wholesale price. The sale transaction at Ext. 24 was an year later. Such subsequent transactions which are not proximate in point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for purposes of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were not fluctuations in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value. This Court in State of up. v. Maj. Jitender Kumar, (See AIR 1982 SC 876 (877) observed: ". . . . . . . . . . . . It is true that the sale deed ext. 21 upon which the High Court has relied is of a date three years later than the Notification under Section 4 but no material was produced before the court to suggest that there was any fluctuation in the market rate at Meerut from 1948 onwards till 1951 and if so to what extent. In the absence of any material showing any fluctuation in the market rate the High Court thought it fit to rely upon Ex. 21 under which the housing Society itself and purchased land in the neighbourhood of the land (in) dispute. On the whole we are not satisfied that any error was committed by the High Court in relying upon the sale deed Ex. 21. . . . . . . " but this principle could be appealed to only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. The burden of establishing this would be squarely on the party relying on such subsequent transaction. 21. . . . . . . " but this principle could be appealed to only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. The burden of establishing this would be squarely on the party relying on such subsequent transaction. In the present case appellant did not endeavour to show that between the date of preliminary notification i. e. 4-7-1959 and the date of Ext. 24 i. e. 18-8-1960 there was no appreciation in the value of land in the area. Therefore, Ext. 24 cannot be relied upon as affording evidence of the market value as on 4-7-1959. We cannot accept the argument that the price indicated in ext. 24 should be accepted after allowing an appropriate deduction for the possible appreciation of the land values during the period of one year. Apart from other difficulties in this exercise, there is no evidence as to the rate and degree of appreciation in the values of land so that the figure could be jobbed backwards from 14-7-1960 to 4-7-1959. " ( 16 ) IN the present case as already referred to supra, Ex. B-2 dated 19-6-1980 and Ex. B-3 dated 10-11-1982 sale transactions of near proximity in time had been taken into consideration as comparable sales for the purpose of determining the market value while fixing the compensation. Apart from this aspect of the matter, Ex. B-4 to Ex. B-6 post notification sales of small extents of land had been considered, but the sale consideration recited therein had not been taken as a guiding factor in view of the facts and circumstances, which had been explained in detail at para 8 of the impugned order. The reasons recorded are self-explanatory and hence the said finding relating to the post notification sales needs no disturbance at our hands. ( 17 ) VIEWED from any angle, we do not see any reason to disturb the finding recorded by the learned Judge, since they are well considered findings based on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence in detail. ( 18 ) HENCE, we do not see any merit in the appeal and accordingly the appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ( 18 ) HENCE, we do not see any merit in the appeal and accordingly the appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ( 19 ) HOWEVER, it is made clear that the appellant-claimant is entitled to interest on solatium also apart from all other statutory benefits in accordance with the provisions of the Act.