Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 204 (KAR)

Chairman, BLDE Association v. Kasturibai

2004-03-12

RAM MOHAN REDDY, S.R.NAYAK

body2004
JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy, J.--M.F.A. No. 356 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 32 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 356 of 2003; M.F.A. No. 357 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 27 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 357 of 2003; M.F.A. No. 358 of 2003; M.F.A. CROB No. 26 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 358 of 2003 are filed by the beneficiary and cross-objections by the landowners and M.F.A. Nos. 460 to 462 of 2003 are by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'LAO') calling in question the legality and validity of the common judgment and award dated 25-9-2002 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 145 of 1991; 144 of 1991 and 146 of 1991 on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur (for short, the 'Civil Court'). 2. 19 acres 18 guntass in R.S. No. 138; 30 acres 32 guntass in R.S. No. 139 and 19 acres 30 guntas in R.S. No. 143 of Bhutnal Village, Bijapur Taluk (for short, the 'acquired lands') were acquired by the State in exercise of its 'eminent domain' power under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'Act') to wit, for purpose of construction of BLDE hospital, college and staff quarters, by issuance of preliminary notification, under Section 4(1) of the Act, published in the Karnataka Gazette, dated 25-2-1988. The LAO, after conducting Award enquiry passed an award dated 31-3-1990 determining the market value at Rs.10,000/- per acre on the basis of sale statistics secured from the Office of the Sub-Registrar, concerned. The landowners, being dissatisfied with the said Award sought for reference of their claims for enhanced compensation. On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Civil Court, recorded the evidence of one of the landowners as P.W. 1, marked documents as Exs. P. 1 to P. 23, the evidence of one witness for the beneficiary as D.W. 1 and marked documents as Exs. D. 1 to D. 10. The Civil Court appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary and in particular, placing reliance on Awards, Exs. P. 19, 20, 21 and 22 (P. 19 judgment and award dated 30-8-1985 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 243 of 1983, 977 of 1982 and 978 of 1982; P. 20 judgment and award dated 17-4-1998 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 280 and 281 of 1988; P. 21 judgment and award dated 15-12-1998 passed in L.A.C. Nos. P. 19, 20, 21 and 22 (P. 19 judgment and award dated 30-8-1985 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 243 of 1983, 977 of 1982 and 978 of 1982; P. 20 judgment and award dated 17-4-1998 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 280 and 281 of 1988; P. 21 judgment and award dated 15-12-1998 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 1287, 1288 and 1289 of 1986 and P. 22 judgment and award dated 10-3-1997 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 340, 344, 332, 333, 335 and 338 of 1985) determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.76,000/- per acre. The beneficiary and the LAO being aggrieved by the said determination under the impugned judgment and award have filed the appeals while the landowners have filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.1,06,000/- per acre. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya for Sri B.L. Acharya, Advocate for the beneficiary, Sri K.P. Asokumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for LAO, learned Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S. Patil and Sri B.S. Patil, Advocate for the landowners, perused the impugned judgment and award and the original records. 4. The learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya would contend that the Civil Court committed an illegality in placing reliance on the Awards at Exts. P. 19; P. 20; P. 21 and P. 22 as also Ex. P. 23, the judgment in M.F.A. No. 1467 of 1987, dated 25-3-1994 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court to hold that the lands acquired therein, were comparable lands, though, they are situated nearer to the city, closer to the fort wall and within the developed area of Mahal-bagayat, while the acquired lands are situated outside the municipal limits and on the outskirts of Bijapur city. The learned Senior Counsel elaborating on the said contention, would point out with reference to the enlarged map of Ex. P. 14, being a map of the comprehensive development plan of Bijapur City (henceforth, for brevity referred to as 'CDP'), produced as an additional document along with I.A. I, which was allowed by an order dated 8-1-2004 of this Court, the exact location of the lands acquired under awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22, in comparison to the location of the acquired lands. In the alternative, he would contend, that, if the market value fixed under the Awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22, in comparison to the location of the acquired lands. In the alternative, he would contend, that, if the market value fixed under the Awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22 are to be considered for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands, in that event, the same needs to be scaled down, in view of distance, the location and lesser non-agricultural potentialities, after admitting 5% escalation, per year, as allowed by this Court in its judgment at Ex. P. 23. He would also contend that the method employed by the Civil Court in determining the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.76,000/- by adding escalation of 10% per year to the market value of the lands acquired under each of the awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22 and thereafter taking an average of the same, is hitherto an unknown procedure, more so, when the landowners themselves placed reliance on Ex. P. 16-sale deed dated 3-7-1986 conveying the lands measuring 2 acres 5 guntas in R.S. No. 871/16/1A of Bhutnal Village for a total sale consideration of Rs.48,000/-. However, he would hasten to admit, veritably that, the acquired lands were within the Bijapur Planning area and had non-agricultural potentiality. In addition, he sought to contend that the landowners were invested with occupancy rights during 1981, by the Land Tribunal, which did not permit alienation of the acquired lands for a period of 15 years therefrom, and the scope of enquiry ought to have been restricted to the consideration of the interest of the landowners in accordance with Section 21 of the Act. Dilating on the said contention, Sri B.V. Acharya took us through the provisions of Section 45 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, 'KLR Act') and Form 10, being the certificate of registration of a tenant as an occupant imposing the conditions/restrictions for transfer. The learned Senior Counsel would also, term as perverse, the rejection by the Civil Court of the sale deeds at Exs. D. 4 to D. 9 on the premise that the parties to the transactions were not examined, which, was contrary to the provisions of Section 51A of the Act and placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah, AIR 2001 SC 1117 . D. 4 to D. 9 on the premise that the parties to the transactions were not examined, which, was contrary to the provisions of Section 51A of the Act and placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer Vs. V. Narasaiah, AIR 2001 SC 1117 . According to the learned Senior Counsel, the acquired lands were agricultural lands notified in the CDP as falling within the Green Belt Zone and Exs. D. 4 to D. 9, were contemporaneous Sale Deeds, conveying agricultural lands comparable both in terms of locus and time which could form the basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands. In addition, he would contend that in respect of the agricultural lands in R.S. No. 103/3A of Bhutnal Village of Bijapur Taluk, measuring 2 acres 2 guntas; 1 gunta and 1 acre acquired under Preliminary notifications dated 9-6-1980, 25-2-1982 and 31-3-1984 respectively for construction of by-pass road to N.H. 13 on the outskirts of Bijapur, the very same Civil Court, fixed the market value of the said lands at Rs.46,000/- per acre, by its judgment and award dated 9-10-2002, in L.A.C. No. 1664 of 1983, and batch, produced as additional document, along with I.A. No. I in these appeals, however, failed to apply the same yardstick while determining the market value of the acquired lands. Lastly, he would contend that the acquired lands cannot be converted to non-agricultural purposes without seeking the change of land user under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as the same are notified by the authorities to lie in the Green Belt Zone and cannot be put to use for non-agricultural purposes immediately. 5. Sri K.P. Asokumar, learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that a method, unknown to law, is adopted by the Civil Court, in determining the market value of the acquired lands, by taking an average of the market value in each of the Awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22 relating to acquisition of lands from the years 1977 to 1984. He would also contend that if the market value determined at Rs.46,000/- per acre in the Award at Ex. P. 19 to P. 22 relating to acquisition of lands from the years 1977 to 1984. He would also contend that if the market value determined at Rs.46,000/- per acre in the Award at Ex. P. 21 is taken into consideration and scaled down, having regard to the location of the acquired lands and its relatively less potentiality, the acquired lands would admit of a market value of Rs.30,000/- per acre which would also correspond to the market value of the lands conveyed in Ex. P. 16, sale deed, dated 3-7-1986 after addition of an escalation of 10% per annum for a period of two years, that is, upto the date of preliminary notification dated 25-2-1988. 6. Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for cross-objectors/landowners soliciting an answer to the question of enhancement of market value of the acquired lands to Rs.1,06,000/- per acre, invited our attention to a sketch at Ex. P. 9, showing the acquired lands, being, adjacent to the lands in R.S. Nos. 105 and 106 of Bhutnal village, abutting N.H. 13, and Ex. P. 10, a residential layout in R.S. No. 105/2, approved in the year 1981, a portion of which is conveyed under Ex. P. 15, sale deed, about 3 years prior to the Preliminary Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, of the acquired lands. He would further contend that Ex. P. 15 is the contemporaneous transaction, the most proximate in terms of location and time when compared with the acquired lands, being the best available, appropriate, dependable basis for determination of market value which, the Civil Court brushed aside, on the ground that the said sale deed related to a small plot of 216 sq. mtrs. Amplifying his contention, he would contend that if the sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- for an area of 216 sq. metres is taken, then the value per acre of land would be Rs.1,31,185/- effecting a deduction of 40%, as the potentiality of the land is not in dispute, the market value per acre would be Rs.78,711/-. Adding Rs.23,610/- being 10% escalation every, year, in land value for a period of three years, the market value per acre of land will be Rs.1,02,311/-. In addition, he would also draw our attention to the observations recorded by the LAO in his award at Ex. Adding Rs.23,610/- being 10% escalation every, year, in land value for a period of three years, the market value per acre of land will be Rs.1,02,311/-. In addition, he would also draw our attention to the observations recorded by the LAO in his award at Ex. D. 10, to the effect, that, the acquired lands are situated at a distance of 1 to 1 1/2 kms. from the municipal limits, adjacent to N.H. 13; that the city of Bijapur is extending in the direction of the acquired lands, said to be valuable; having regard to the residential layout of houses already existing in the vicinity of the acquired lands, to contend, that the Civil Court committed a grave irregularity in not considering the aforesaid admitted facts germane for determining the market value of the acquired lands. We would also contend that Exs. P. 16; P. 19 to P. 22; Exs. D. 4 to D. 9, sale deeds, are all with regard to agricultural lands not possessing the same non- agricultural potentiality as that of the acquired lands, which, the Civil Court failed to take into consideration while determining the market value. He would further contend that the lands conveyed under the sale deeds at Exs. P. 17 and P. 18, dated 23-6-1986 by the Karnataka Housing Board are a pointer to the development of the city on Bijapur- Sholapur, N.H. 13 and potentiality of the acquired lands, located in the vicinity, as also a dependable basis for determination of the market value of the acquitted lands. 7. Countering the contentions put forth by the beneficiary of the acquired lands, the learned Senior Counsel would contend that the grant of occupancy rights and conditions imposed in Form 10 under the KLR Act are irrelevant, since, under Section 44(2)(a), the landlords of the tenanted lands are divested of all their rights over the acquired lands, which are invested in the tenants, the present landowners. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Booda Poojary Vs. Smt. Thoma Poojarthi and others, AIR 1993 Kant 39 . In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Booda Poojary Vs. Smt. Thoma Poojarthi and others, AIR 1993 Kant 39 . The contention of the beneficiary that the change of land user from the Green Belt Zone, is necessary, under Section 14 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, the learned Senior Counsel would point out to Section 109 of the KLR Act and contend that law permits the use of the agricultural lands by an educational institution, such as, the beneficiary without the need to seek change of land user under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. The learned Senior Counsel would place reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 SC 2532 , for the proposition that under Section 51A of the Act, a certified copy of the sale deed is admissible in evidence, without having to examine the parties to the documents for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands and contends that the certified copies of the sale deeds at Exs. P. 15; P. 17 and P. 18 are admissible in evidence. 8. Sri B.S. Patil, learned Counsel for the cross-objectors would strenuously contend that the Civil Court ought to have taken into consideration the admitted non-agricultural potentiality of the acquired lands for building purposes which was also established both by the oral evidence and the document being the registered sale deed Ex. P. 15, in addition to the observation of the LAO in the Award at Ex. D. 10 to the effect that Bijapur city was extending mainly towards Bhutnal Village and in that view of the matter, the acquired lands had non-agricultural potentiality. The learned Counsel would also contend that though the landowners secured occupancy rights from the Land Tribunal, the imposition of a 15 year ban on alienation is for the benefit of the tenant while the State, did not retain to itself any rights over the acquired lands. 9. The learned Counsel would also contend that though the landowners secured occupancy rights from the Land Tribunal, the imposition of a 15 year ban on alienation is for the benefit of the tenant while the State, did not retain to itself any rights over the acquired lands. 9. Countering the contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya that the consequence of breach of terms and conditions of occupancy certificate is one of forfeiture of the lands to the State, since the landowners did not secure absolute right, Sri B.S. Patil would contend, is only speculative and a specious plea. The award dated 9-10-2002 in L.A.C. No. 1664 of 1983 and batch, produced by the appellants-beneficiary along with LA. No. I as an additional document, though not admitted by Sri B.S. Patil as a dependable basis, alternatively, would contend that the market value determined by the Civil Court at Rs.46,000/- per acre for the lands acquired therein under the preliminary notification dated 9-6-1980, to which if 10% appreciation, per year, is added for a period of 8 years, the market value of the acquired lands would be more than Rs.76,000/- per acre. He would place reliance upon the judgment in the case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib, AIR 2002 SC 1558 , wherein in almost similar circumstances, the Apex Court approved of the application of appreciation in value of land at 10% per annum, for every subsequent year, from the date of acquisition, to the market value determined in the earlier notification. In addition, learned Counsel also placed reliance on a judgment dated 14-8-2003 of this Court passed in The Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Almatti v. Chandrashekhar Sidramappa Heralagi, M.F.A. No. 1409 of 2003, etc., DD: 14-8-2003, along with Cross Objection 77 of 2003 and other connected matters, with regard to, the principles laid down for determining the market value of lands, situate, in Mahal Bagayat of Bijapur City. The learned Counsel would also adopt the contentions advanced by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel. 10. By way of reply, Sri B.V. Acharya would point out that lands conveyed under Exs. The learned Counsel would also adopt the contentions advanced by Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel. 10. By way of reply, Sri B.V. Acharya would point out that lands conveyed under Exs. P. 6 and P. 17 sale deeds executed by the Karnataka Housing Board are not comparable with that of the acquired lands since the same relate to small commercial sites, subject-matter of auction, in a developed locality. According to him, even Ex. P. 15-sale deed which is, of a small extent of land in Sy. No. 105/2 relates to converted lands adjoining N.H. 13 and therefore, they cannot form a dependable basis for the purpose of determination of market value of the large extent of the acquired lands. Having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mudakappa Vs. Rudrappa and others, AIR 1994 SC 1190 , the learned Senior Counsel would contend that under Section 48A of the KLR Act, all that the landowners acquired under the statute, is a creation of a direct relationship with the State, as a tenant. 11. Having heard the learned Counsels for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and award and the original records of the Reference Court, the following three questions arise for determination in these appeals: 1. Whether the rejection by the Civil Court, of the certified copies of the sale deeds Exs. D. 4 and D. 9 produced by the appellant-beneficiary without having examined the parties to the transactions is contrary to Section 51A of the Act? 2. Whether the claimants, as registered occupants of the lands have only a restricted right, title and interest, as tenants, and therefore, entitled to compensation to the extent of such right over the acquired lands, as contended by the appellant-beneficiary? 3. What is the just and correct market value of the acquired lands? 12. The facts emerging from the records and bearing on the decision in these appeals may be summarized thus: The acquired lands measuring 70 acres comprised in R.S. Nos. 138, 139 and 143 of Bhutnal, Bijapur Taluk are located on the outskirts of the Municipal limits of Bijapur, adjoining the lands in R.S. Nos. 105 and 106 about N.H. 13 towards Sholapur. These facts are evident from the C.D.P. of Bijapur, produced by the appellant-beneficiary along with I.A. No. 4 for additional documents and also from the sketch Ex. 138, 139 and 143 of Bhutnal, Bijapur Taluk are located on the outskirts of the Municipal limits of Bijapur, adjoining the lands in R.S. Nos. 105 and 106 about N.H. 13 towards Sholapur. These facts are evident from the C.D.P. of Bijapur, produced by the appellant-beneficiary along with I.A. No. 4 for additional documents and also from the sketch Ex. P. 9 marked on behalf of the claimants. The LAO in his award dated 31-8-1990 as at Ex. D. 10, while, determining the market value of the acquired lands has recorded his observations that the lands are situated at a distance of 1 to 1 1/2 kms. from the Municipal limits adjacent to N.H. 13, with residential layouts and houses existing in the vicinity. He therefore, opines that the lands are very valuable more so, since the city of Bijapur is fast growing in the direction of the acquired lands. The sale deeds, Ex. P. 17, dated 23-6-1986 and Ex. P. 18 (relating to auction held on 16-5-1985), executed by the Karnataka Housing Board, conveying, the commercial sites formed in its layout located in Mahalbagayat, on Sholapur road, Bijapur, in favour of the auction purchasers is in the direction of the acquired lands. The approval, in the year 1981, of a residential layout in R.S. No. 105/2 of Bhutnal, is evidenced by the plan at Ex. P. 10. The sale deed Ex. P. 15, dated 10-4-1985 conveying a portion of non-agricultural lands in R.S. No. 105/2 admeasuring 216 sq. metres, for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/-, located adjacent to the acquired lands and abutting N.H. 13 is evident by the schedule described in the sale deed and the enlarged sketch of Ex. P. 14 the C.D.P., as well as the sketch Ex. P. 9. 13. In order to appreciate the various contentions of the parties and the relevant documents placed before the Civil Court, on which the parties rely upon are: "(a) Ex. P. 9 is the sketch showing the location of the acquired lands with reference to the adjacent lands in R.S. Nos. 105 and 106 and N.H. 13. The sketch is prepared by the Officer of the Survey Department of Bijapur City; (b) Ex. P. 9 is the sketch showing the location of the acquired lands with reference to the adjacent lands in R.S. Nos. 105 and 106 and N.H. 13. The sketch is prepared by the Officer of the Survey Department of Bijapur City; (b) Ex. P. 10 is the photostat copy of the layout and plan in R.S. No. 105/2 of Bhutnal village, Bijapur, approved on 15-6-1981 by the Member Secretary, Planning Authority, Bijapur for formation of residential sites in the said survey number. The said plan also provides for a site plan, indicating the exact location of the said R.S. No. 105/2 to be adjacent to N.H. 13 and also the acquired lands; (c) Ex. P. 11 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 30-10-1992 conveying 108 sq. metres of non-agricultural lands in R. Sy. No. 105/2 of Bhutnal Village for a sale consideration of Rs.16,000/-; (d) Ex. P. 12 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 21-6-1994 conveying 216 sq. metres of non-agricultural lands in R. Sy. No. 105/2 of Bhutnal Village for a total sale consideration of Rs.18,000/-; (e) Ex. P. 14 is the photostat copy of the CDP of Bijapur city. The beneficiary, along with an I.A. for production of additional documents in its appeals, produced the CDP marking the location of immovable properties, subject-matter of the documents at Exs. P. 15, P. 16, P. 19, P. 20, P. 21 and P. 22; (f) Ex. P. 15 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 10-4-1985 conveying a plot measuring 216 sq. metres out of R.S. No. 105/2 for total consideration of Rs.7,000/-and located on the East of the acquired lands; (g) Ex. P. 16 is the registered sale deed dated 3-7-1986 conveying 2 acres 5 guntas of agricultural lands in R. Sy. No. 871/10 of Mahal Bagayat for a total consideration of Rs.48,000/- and located on the west of Bijapur city; (h) Ex. P. 17 is a copy of the rectification deed to the conditional sale deed of auction site executed on 6-6-1986 conveying a site found in R.S. Nos. 42, 43 and 47 of Mahal Bagayat by Karnataka Housing Board, Sholapur Road, KHB Colony, Bijapur; (i) Ex. P. 17 is a copy of the rectification deed to the conditional sale deed of auction site executed on 6-6-1986 conveying a site found in R.S. Nos. 42, 43 and 47 of Mahal Bagayat by Karnataka Housing Board, Sholapur Road, KHB Colony, Bijapur; (i) Ex. P. 18 is a copy of the rectification deed to the conditional sale deed of auction shop site No. 6 of Karnataka Housing Board Colony executed on 6-6-1986 conveying the site formed in R.S. Nos. 42, 43 and 47 of Mahal Bagayat, Sholapur Road, KHB Colony, Bijapur; (j) Ex. P. 19 is the copy of the judgment and award dated 30-8-1985 passed in L.A.C. Nos. 243/83; 977/82 and 978/82 by the n Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur, in respect of agricultural lands in R.S. Nos. 426/1A/1; 425; and 488/1 of Mahal bagayat measuring 3-30 guntas; 4-13 guntas; and 10 guntas fixing the market value at Rs.15,000/-; Rs.17,000/-and Rs.15,000/- per acre respectively acquired under Preliminary notification dated 30-1-1973 for the Water Supply Scheme and are located to the South of the city as noticed in the CDP Ex. P. 14. A co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 1467 of 1987 by its judgment dated 25-3-1994 as at Ex. P. 23 enhanced the market value of the lands acquired therein and the subject-matter of L.A.C. Nos. 243 of 1983; 977 of 1982 and 978 of 1982 to Rs.30,000/- per acre; (k) Ex. P. 20 is the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 17-4-1998 of the II Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur passed in L.A.C. Nos. 280 of 1988 and 281 of 1988 in respect of agricultural lands in Sy. Nos. 104 and 105 of Mahal Bagayat measuring 5 acres 15 guntas and 9 acres 26 guntas respectively acquired under the preliminary notification dated 16-10-1975 for underground Drainage of Bijapur, fixing the market value at Rs.39,700/- per acre. As per the CDP, the lands are located to the North of the city; (l) Ex. P. 21 is the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 15-12-1988 of the II Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur passed in L.A.C. Nos. 1287 of 1986, 1288 of 1986 and 1289 of 1986 in respect of agricultural lands in Sy. Nos. As per the CDP, the lands are located to the North of the city; (l) Ex. P. 21 is the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 15-12-1988 of the II Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur passed in L.A.C. Nos. 1287 of 1986, 1288 of 1986 and 1289 of 1986 in respect of agricultural lands in Sy. Nos. 1051/A/4; 1051/A/2 and 1051/A/2 respectively of Mahal Bagayat measuring 28 acres each totalling to 60 acres under a preliminary notification dated 5-1-1984 for Karnataka Industrial area Development Board fixing the market value at Rs.46,000/- per acre. These lands are located to the North East of the city as noticed from CDP; (m) Ex. P. 22 is the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 10-3-1987 of the II Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur passed in L.A.C. Nos. 340 of 1985; 332 of 1985, 333 of 1985; 335 of 1985 and 338 of 1985 in respect of agricultural lands in Sy. Nos. 239/A; 223/1A; 223/1A, 227/A and 234/A of Mahal Bagayat measuring 1 acre 3 guntas; 1-12 guntas and 1-04 guntas; 22 guntas and 16 guntas respectively under a preliminary notification dated 15-7-1982 for the purpose of by-pass road fixing the market value at Rs.46,000/- per acre. These lands are located on the East of the city of Bijapur as found in the CDP; (n) Ex. P. 23 is the certified copy of the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.F.A. No. 1467 of 1987, dated 25-3-1994 in respect of 7 acres 30 guntas of land in R.S. Nos. 426/1A-1 and 426/1B of Mahal Bagayath of Bijapur taluk, acquired under the preliminary notification dated 27-10-1977 fixing the market value of the lands acquired therein at Rs.30,000/- per acre, modifying the award of the Reference Court fixing the market value at Rs.20,000/- per acre". 14. The document Ex. D. 1 is an extract of the mutation register which records that the claimants-landowners are registered occupants of the acquired lands, having been granted occupancy rights in the year 1980, by the Land Tribunal, under Section 48A of the KLR Act and issued with occupancy certificates dated 24-10-1980 in Form 10 under Rule 21 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules, 1974 (for short 'KLR Rules, 1974'). 15. Exs. D. 4 to D. 9 are registered sale deeds conveying agricultural lands of Bhutnal village. 15. Exs. D. 4 to D. 9 are registered sale deeds conveying agricultural lands of Bhutnal village. The details of which are set out in a tabular form as under: Exhibit Sy. No. A - G Total Date of Value per Number consider- sale acre in Rs. tion in Rs. D-4 165 7 acres 25,000 1-8-1987 3571/- D-5 21/1 3-02 15,500/- 7-7-1987 5081/- D-6 88/3A 2-23 20,000/- 16-4-1987 7766/- D-7 66/1A 4-03 15,500/- 9-6-1988 3803/- D-8 66-1B 4-03 15,500/- 9-6-1988 3803/- D-9 64 4A 16,000/- 16-7-1988 4000/- The location of the lands covered by Exs. P. 15, P. 22 and Exs. D. 4 to D.9 are discernable from the CDP. The Appellant-beneficiary filed I.A. No. 1, in these appeals, for additional documents and produced the judgment and award dated 9-10-2002 of the II Additional Civil Judge, Bijapur passed in L.A.C. No. 1664 of 1983; 388 of 1984 and 1 of 1989 fixing the market value at Rs.46,000/- per acre for agricultural lands of Bhutnal Village in R.S. No. 103/A/2, measuring 2 acres 2 guntas; 1 acre and 1 acre, acquired under three separate preliminary notification dated 3-7-1980; 18-3-1982 and 26-4-1984, respectively, for the purpose of construction of by-pass road to N.H. 13 and which are located on the eastern side of N.H. 13. 16. Point No. 1.--The grievance of the appellant-beneficiary is that quite contrary to Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Civil Court rejected the certified copies of the sale deeds at Exs. D. 4 to D. 9 on the ground that the vendor or vendee were not examined to prove the said transaction. Section 51A reads as under: "51-A. Acceptance of certified copy as evidence.--In any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), including a copy given under Section 57 of that Act may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document". 17. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as also canvassed by the Counsel for the cross-objection is that Section 51A does not make it obligatory for the parties to examine, either the vendor or the vendee of the sale deeds in order to prove the transaction. 17. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as also canvassed by the Counsel for the cross-objection is that Section 51A does not make it obligatory for the parties to examine, either the vendor or the vendee of the sale deeds in order to prove the transaction. The learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya placed reliance on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of V. Narasaiah, wherein his lordship Thomas, J., speaking for the Bench of three Judges observed thus: "13. If the position regarding admissibility of the contents of a document which is a certified copy falling within the purview of Section 57(5) of the Registration Act, 1908 was as adumbrated above, even before the introduction of Section 51A in the L.A. Act, could there be any legislative object in incorporating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It must be remembered that the State has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the State may have to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. The practice had shown that for the State Officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale deeds and then to examine them in Court for the purpose of proving such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51A was introduced in the L.A. Act. When the section says that certified copy of a registered document "may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document" it enables the Court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence. 14. The words "may be accepted as evidence" in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the Court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the Court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the Court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. 14. The words "may be accepted as evidence" in the section indicate that there is no compulsion on the Court to accept such transaction as evidence, but it is open to the Court to treat them as evidence. Merely accepting them as evidence does not mean that the Court is bound to treat them as reliable evidence. What is sought to be achieved is that the transactions recorded in the documents may be treated as evidence, just like any other evidence, and it is for the Court to weigh all the pros and cons to decide whether such transaction can be relied on for understanding the real price of the land concerned". 18. This judicial pronouncement was followed in a later decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh, on which, the learned Senior Counsel for the cross-objectors, placed reliance, in support of his supplication that the certified copies of the sale deeds at Exs. P. 11, P. 12, P. 15, P. 1? and P. 18 could be accepted as evidence of transactions, without, recording the oral evidence of the parties to the said transactions. 19. In the light of the clear judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court, the Civil Court, fell in error in rejecting the certified copies of the sale deeds produced by the parties, as inadmissible only on the ground that the parties to the documents were not examined. In view of Section 51A of the Act, the certified copy of the sale deed registered in accordance with the Registration Act, 1908, could be accepted as evidence without examining the parties to the transaction. Of course, it is open to the Court to reject the transaction itself as being mala fide or sham in the event it being challenged before it. In these appeals and cross-objections, none of the parties have questioned the certified copies of registered sale deeds produced by them before the Civil Court and which are marked. 20. Point No. 2.--In order to answer this point, it will be necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the KLR Act as also the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in order to ascertain the rights that the claimants-landowners possess over the acquired lands. 20. Point No. 2.--In order to answer this point, it will be necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the KLR Act as also the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court in order to ascertain the rights that the claimants-landowners possess over the acquired lands. It is the plea of the appellant-beneficiary that the claimants have only a right of being registered occupants of the acquired lands, being lessees, under the State Government and do not possess absolute right, title and interest, while, in opposition the landowners claim to be vested with all the rights of ownership over the acquired lands. 21. The law, as regards, agrarian reforms of the year 1974, in the State of Karnataka, is well-settled in catena of judgments of the Apex Court, which, we may summarise as under: (a) In respect of agricultural land which was tenanted prior to 1-3-1974 and which stood vested in the State Government on that date, the person so claiming as a tenant had to file an application in Form 7 for grant of occupancy rights. If, the Land Tribunal, which is the Competent Authority, to consider that application, held that he was a tenant of the said land as on 1-3-1974, it has to grant the occupancy rights. The result of such adjudication by the Tribunal was to confer the right of ownership on the tenant. (b) From a conjoint reading of Sections 19, 20, 58, 60 and 62 read with Section 44 of the KLR Act indicate that on and from 1-3-1974, the tiller of the soil should alone be entailed to remand in possession and should personally cultivate the land. The pre-existing right, title and interest of the landowners stood extinguished and the land stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The KLR Act confers ownership rights on the tenant in the manner prescribed thereunder. If he either ceases to cultivate the land or leases to others or contravenes the grant, the conferment of ownership of the land stands terminated. (c) The broad scheme of the provisions mentioned and set out above, was that there was not only to be a ceiling of the holding of the land, the system of leasing of land was to be abolished and cultivating tenant was to be invested with the rights of ownership. (c) The broad scheme of the provisions mentioned and set out above, was that there was not only to be a ceiling of the holding of the land, the system of leasing of land was to be abolished and cultivating tenant was to be invested with the rights of ownership. The amendment in the year 1974 to the KLR Act, was keeping in mind the concept of welfare of the State which appears to be a main object. The provisions of Chapter III of the KLR Act, deals with the "conferment of ownership on tenants". Section 45 occurring in this chapter, in particular, deals with conferring of rights on the tenant subject to certain conditions. Section 45 of the Act, 1961 reads as under: "45. Tenants to be registered as occupants of land on certain conditions.--(1) Subject to the provisions of the succeeding sections of this Chapter, every person who was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant or where a tenant has lawfully sublet, such sub-tenant shall with effect on and from the date of vesting be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of the lands of which he was a permanent tenant, protected tenant or other tenant of sub-tenant before the date of vesting and which he has been cultivating personally. (2) If a tenant or other person referred to in Sub-section (1).-- (i) holds land partly as owner and partly as tenant but the area of the land held by him as owner is equal to or exceeds a ceiling area he shall not be entitled to be registered as an occupant of the land held by him as a tenant before the date of vesting; (ii) does not hold and cultivate personally any land as an owner, but holds land as tenant, which he cultivates personally in excess of a ceiling area, he shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant to the extent of a ceiling area; (iii) holds and cultivates personally as an owner of any land the area of which is less than a ceiling area, he shall be entitled to be registered as an occupant to the extent of such area as will be sufficient to make up holding to the extent of a ceiling area. (3) The land held by a person before the date of vesting and in respect of which he is not entitled to be registered as an occupant under this section shall be disposed of in the manner provided in Section 77 after evicting such person". 22. In this context, we may usefully notice the observations of the Apex Court in the case of H.S. Srinivasa Raghavachar Etc. Etc. Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1518 , which in the circumstances is apposite: "It is now well-recognized by the leading economists everywhere that in the absence of common ownership of land and in the existing system of economic relation, the greatest incentive for maximum production is the feeling of identity and security which is possible only if the ownership of the land is with the tiller. It is obviously in recognition of this principle that 'landlordism' was not to be totally done away with by the amendment of Section 5 of the Act, by the omission of Sections 14 and 16 and by the amendment of Section 44. If between a landlord who did not himself personally cultivate the land and a tenant who so cultivated the land, the Legislature preferred the cultivating tenant, we are unable to hold that such preference is not part of a programme of agrarian reform pursuant to the directive principles contained in Article 39(b) and (c)". 23. The laudable object of the amendment of the year 1974 to the KLR Act, in common parlance, known as "land for the tiller" sought to it that all rights of the landlords of tenanted lands stood divested and invested in the tiller. Of course, it is true that the grant of occupancy rights is subject to the condition of non-alienation for a period of 15 years and failure to cultivate land personally for three consecutive years would entail in eviction, which however, could be condoned for sufficient reasons. The certificate of registration of a tenant as an occupant issued in Form 10 under Rule 21 of the Rules, 1974 and Section 55(1) of the Act, 1961 does not contain any clause by which the State Government withheld to itself any right, title or interest in the acquired lands, but has retained only a right to determine the grant in the event the registered occupant commits breach of the conditions stated therein. The acquired lands, in the present case were subject-matter of grant of occupancy of favour of the claimants-landowners, by the Land Tribunal, under Section 48A of the Act, 1961, in the year 1980 as is evident from the extract of the mutation register at Ex. D. 1. These lands are acquired by the State through its authorities in exercise of its 'eminent domain' power, well-within the non-alienation period of 15 years, that too, at the behest of the appellant-beneficiary by issue of preliminary notification dated 25-2-1988. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the claimant-landowners had committed a breach of the terms set out in the occupancy certificate. The claimants-landowners, cannot be, mulcted of their rights to compensation, as absolute owners of the acquired lands. Having given our anxious consideration to the conditions incorporated in Form 10, we are of the considered opinion that the plea of the appellant-beneficiary is speculative and a specious plea which deserved to be rejected. 24. One another circumstance to be noted is that the appellant-State did not retain or claim any rights over the compensation for the acquired lands, when the State made its offer at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per acre, payable to the claimants-landowners, through its LAO by his award dated 31-3-1990, nor is it the plea of the State in its Appeals. In the premise of the aforesaid established facts, the appellant-beneficiary cannot be heard to plead for the State. 25. The Counsel for the cross-objectors placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Booda Poojary, which approved the view expressed by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in Appi Belchadthi v. Sheshi Belchadthi 1982(2) Kar. L.J. 665 (DB), in support of their contention that the effect of the amendment of the year 1974 to the KLR Act was to divest the right, title and interest of the landowners of the tenanted lands as on 1-3-1974 and to invest the same in the tenants. We however, notice that the question in these appeals before us, was not directly or substantially in issue, in the aforesaid decisions and has no application to the facts of these cases. 26. We however, notice that the question in these appeals before us, was not directly or substantially in issue, in the aforesaid decisions and has no application to the facts of these cases. 26. Point No. 3.--While on the question of determination of the market value of the acquired land, we refer to the judgment in the case of The Land Acquisition Officer and Assistant Commissioner Vs. Fredrick Noronha (Deceased) by L.Rs and Others, (2004) 3 KarLJ 388 , of a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, wherein one of us, Sri S.R. Nayak, J., speaking to the Bench, observed thus: "9. Before dealing with the above question, we may usefully notice the principles governing valuation of the lands acquired for non-agricultural purposes. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act stipulate factors that need to be taken into account and those that need to be eschewed while determining compensation payable to the owners of the acquired land. The Apex Court in a catena of decisions over the past four and half decades and more have evolved principles and norms for determination of compensation of the lands compulsorily acquired by the State in exercise of its eminent domain power under the Act or under any enabling statute. One of the principles discernible from the pronouncements of the Apex Court is that while determining compensation for larger extent of land, price paid for or compensation determined by the Court for smaller parcels of land do not provide a safe and dependable basis. At the same time, it is also discernible by the pronouncements of the Supreme Court that in the absence of any better evidence, even transactions involving conveyance of smaller extents of land or blocks of land which are comparable in terms of point of time and the locus would become relevant". In the said case, reference was made to the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. "10. The Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. 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. "10. The Supreme Court in Administrator General of West Bengal Vs. 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 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 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". 11. This Court in Jade Basappa Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, ILR (1995) KAR 2474 , 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". 12. K.S. Shivadevamma Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, ILR (1992) KAR 3740 , 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. 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 Court's own judicial sense as to what would have been a reasonable value for the land in question, at the relevant point of time". 13. 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 LAO 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. 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 placed on the figures which the State comes out with". Following the said decision, Sri S.R. Nayak, J., observed thus: "14. In deciding what shall be the actual market value of the acquired land, the Court, whether it is Reference Court or the Appellate Court, would be well-advised to remind itself that the question as to what is the market value of the acquired land in whatever form and at whatsoever behest, a dispute may be brought before the Court, it is essentially a question of fact and such question should be answered by the Court on the basis of the substantive legal evidence placed before it. It is trite that such question could not be answered formulae ignoring the merits of individual cases". 27. Keeping in mind the aforestated principles, we now proceed to appreciate the evidence both oral and documentary, laid before Reference Court, to determine the market value of the acquired lands. The lands are undisputedly are acquired by the State at the behest of the beneficiary for the purpose of construction of a hospital complex including medical college and staff quarters. There is no controversy about the acquired lands having non-agricultural potentiality, located on the outskirts of the city of Bijapur and within the Bijapur planning area. The LAO in his award Ex. D. 10 has recorded his observation that the acquired lands are situated at a distance of 1-1 1/2 kms. from the municipal limits, adjacent to N.H. 13, that is Bijapur to Solapur and that the city of Bijapur is extending in the direction of the acquired lands. The LAO in his award Ex. D. 10 has recorded his observation that the acquired lands are situated at a distance of 1-1 1/2 kms. from the municipal limits, adjacent to N.H. 13, that is Bijapur to Solapur and that the city of Bijapur is extending in the direction of the acquired lands. His further observations are that the acquired lands are very valuable having regard to the residential layout and houses already existing in the vicinity. It is not denied that the area around the city of Bijapur is fast developing and the acquired lands have the required potentiality of being a part of the hub of activity of Bijapur. 28. The oral evidence of P.W. 1 that the adjoining lands in S. No. 105 are converted into non-agricultural purposes, formed into a layout and plots are conveyed to different persons and that the area is developed with buildings, schools, colleges, hospital, Banks etc., are supported and corroborated by the documents produced and marked as Exhibits P. 1 to P. 23 and more so, the documents at Exs. P. 9 and P. 10, the approval for formation of the layout, the sale deed Ex. P. 15, dated 10-4-1985 and the observations of the LAO in his award. In contrast, we have the evidence of R.W. 1, the witness on behalf of the beneficiary who states that the adjoining lands in Bhutnal village do not command a high price and are in fact conveyed for a very low price by relying on the sale deeds at Exs. D. 4 to D. 9. 29. The beneficiary, in its appeals, produced, as and by way of additional evidence, the judgment and award dated 9-10-2002 passed in L.A.C. No. 1664 of 1983 and batch by the Reference Court fixing the market value at Rs.46,000/- per acre as on 9-6-1980; 25-2-1982 and 31-3-1984 the dates of preliminary notifications in respect of the lands in R.S. No. 103/3A of Bhutnal Village measuring 2-02 guntas; 19 guntas and 1 acre respectively, not having any non-agricultural potentiality, located on the east of N.H. 13, shown in the C.D.P. acquired, for the purpose of construction of by-pass road to N.H. 13. The basis of this market value is the judgment and award dated 31-3-1984 of the Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 340 of 1985 in respect of lands in R.S. Nos. The basis of this market value is the judgment and award dated 31-3-1984 of the Reference Court in L.A.C. No. 340 of 1985 in respect of lands in R.S. Nos. 239/A and other lands acquired for the purpose of construction of by-pass to N.H. 13 by preliminary notification dated 15-7-1982, the market value of which was fixed at Rs.46,000/- per acre for agricultural lands which did not have non-agricultural potentiality, and confirmed in an appeal before this Court, in M.F.A. No. 2617 of 1999. The acquired lands in the present case are admittedly located on the western side of N.H. 13, having non-agricultural potentiality as accepted and admitted by the LAO. 30. The sale deeds Exs. P. 11 and P. 12, dated 30-10-1992 and 21-6-1994 convey 108 sq. mtrs. and 216 sq. mtrs. respectively in Sy. No. 105/2 of Bhutnal Village are out of the approved layout as at Ex. P. 10 and located adjoining the lands in question abutting N.H. 13. These sale transactions are post preliminary notification, indicative of increased potentiality of the acquired land. 31. The sale deed at Ex. P. 16 relates to the sale of agricultural lands in R.S. No. 871/10 of Mahal Bagayat, for a sale consideration of Rs.48,000/- for 2 acres 05 guntas of land. The lands being located on the west of Bijapur city and far away from the acquired lands, cannot be considered as a contemporaneous transaction for determining the market value of the acquired lands. 32. The sale deeds at Exs. P. 17 and P. 18 convey commercial sites auctioned by the Karnataka Housing Board during the year 1986 and 1980 respectively, in the Mahal Bagayat layout formed beside the Bijapur-Solapur N.H. 13, and being in a highly developed layout. These two documents could point out that ever since 1980, the development of Bijapur city is in the direction of Bhutanal on Bijapur-Solapur N.H. 13, onwards, which corroborates the observations of the LAO in his award at Ex. D. 10. 33. We find considerable force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya that the lands involved and subject-matter of judgments and awards at Exs. D. 10. 33. We find considerable force in the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya that the lands involved and subject-matter of judgments and awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22 are situated in different direction of Bijapur city in the layout known as Mahal Bagayat and nowhere near the acquired lands and cannot constitute a valid and dependable basis for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. 34. The sale deeds at Exs. D. 4 to D. 9 relied upon by the LAO and the beneficiary convey agricultural lands in Bhutnal Village. It is not in dispute that these lands are neither adjacent to the acquired lands nor have non-agricultural potentiality. 35. Thus, in our considered opinion, the sale deeds at Exs. P, 11, P. 12, P. 16 to P. 18; Exs. D. 4 to D. 9; the previous judgments and awards of the Reference Court at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22; the judgment and award dated 9-10-2002 in L.A.C. No. 1664 of 1983 produced as additional document by the beneficiary in this appeal before this Court; do not constitute, most comparable instances, providing the index of market value, particularly, with reference to the proximity of time or situation. The Reference Court was not justified in taking the average of the market value determined in the judgments and awards at Exs. P. 19 to P. 22 as the basis for arriving at the market value of the acquired lands. 36. The lands in S. No. 105/2 adjoining the acquired lands abutting N.H. 13 are converted to non-agricultural purposes and approved for formation of a residential layout during the year 1981, as is evident from the documents at Exs. P. 9 and P. 10. The registered sale deed, executed on 10-4-1985, conveying a portion of converted land measuring 216 sq. mtrs, from out of S. No. 105/2 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- as at Ex. P. 15 is prior in time, that is, 3 years before the issuance of the preliminary notification of the acquired lands and which transaction could be a dependable basis for determination of the market value of the acquired lands. The witness R.W. 1 did not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid facts nor prove any negative factors or dissimilarity between these lands and the acquired lands. 37. The witness R.W. 1 did not dispute the correctness of the aforesaid facts nor prove any negative factors or dissimilarity between these lands and the acquired lands. 37. In this context, it is useful to notice the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Harisingh Thakur and Another Vs. The Collector, Raigarh, AIR 1979 SC 472 , wherein it is held that the question, was whether the land had potential value as building sites or not is primarily one of fact, depending upon several factor, such as, its condition and situation, the user under which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put to its suitability for building purposes, its proximity to residential, commercial and industrial areas and educational, cultural or medical institutions, existing amenities like water, electricity and drainage and the possibility of their future extension, whether nearby town is a developing or prospering town with prospects of development schemes and the presence or absence of proviso to building activity towards the lands acquired or in the neighbourhood thereof. 38. In the facts of this case, the observations of the LAO as recorded in his award, coupled with the oral testimony of P.W. 1, there is overwhelming evidence to the effect that the acquired lands have high potentiality for urban use. The other evidence namely, the sale deeds at Exs. P. 11 and P. 12 when compared with Ex. P. 15-sale deed also indicate that there is an increase in the market price of the lands, in the vicinity of the acquired lands. 39. We find considerable force in the contention of Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the landowners, that Ex. P. 15-sale deed is the most proximate in terms of location, time and is the contemporaneous sale transaction in comparison with the acquired lands. The said sale deed is the best available, dependable basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands, though, the said sale relates to a small plot of converted land. In the absence of any other contemporaneous sale transaction placed before the Reference Court either by the beneficiary of the LAO, there is no hard and fast rule that the value of such small extent of land conveyed under the registered sale deed, cannot form or constitute a legal and valid basis for determining the market value of large extent of land. Therefore, the proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold, is not and cannot be an absolute proposition and it is permissible to take into account the price fetched by small plots of land in certain circumstances. We are fortified by a decision in the case of The Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittoor Vs. Smt. L. Kamalamma (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. K. Krishnamachari and Others, (1998) 1 AD SC 424 , wherein the Apex Court, at para 8 of its judgment held thus: "Further when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions, such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains, expenses involved in formation of a layout, lump sum payment as also the waiting period required for selling the sites that would be formed". 40. Undoubtedly, the acquired lands admit of non-agricultural potentiality and taking the value of small plot of land carved out of S. No. 105/2, converted for non-agricultural purposes, conveyed under the registered sale deed Ex. P. 15, as valid and legal basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands, the question is, what is the deduction to be effected towards development costs and charges. 41. The facts that the acquired lands are in the Green Belt Zone, as notified in the CDP of Bijapur city, contiguous to the converted lands in S. No. 105/2 which the Bijapur Development Authority permitted the formation of a residential layout, as is evident from Ex. P. 10, are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the beneficiary is an educational institution and the lands are acquired, at its behest, for being put to use for construction of medical college, hospital, quarters for its employees etc. Since the acquired lands are agricultural lands necessarily will have to be converted for non-agricultural use under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 as also change of land user under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. Since the acquired lands are agricultural lands necessarily will have to be converted for non-agricultural use under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 as also change of land user under the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. In the established facts, noticed supra, the Court would not be justified in not deducting any sum towards development costs and charges. We think that a deduction of 50% of the market value towards development costs and charges in the facts, circumstances of the case and evidence on records, would meet the ends of justice, though the learned counsel for the landowners would persuade us to justify a deduction of 40%. 42. The Preliminary Notification acquiring the lands is dated 25-2-1988 and the sale deed Ex. P. 15 is dated 10-4-1985, approximately three years prior in time to the preliminary Notification. Having concluded that there is good deal of developmental activities taking place around the acquired lands and the facts that there is evidence to indicate increase in market price of land during the relevant years and taking the price fixed under Ex. P. 15 sale deed dated 10-4-1985, as base value, it would be reasonable to grant appreciation in value of land at 10% per annum for every subsequent year. 43. The sale consideration under Ex. P. 15 sale deed is Rs.7,000/- for an extent of 216 sq. metres and the value per acre of land will be Rs.1,31,185/-. Deducting 50% towards development costs and charges, the value per acre will be Rs.65,593/-. To this Rs.19,678/- being the escalation in land value, for a period of 3 years, at 10% for every year, if added, the market value per acre of land will be Rs.85,271/-. Accordingly, we determine the market value of the acquired land at Rs.85,271/- per acre. 44. In the result and for the reasons set out supra, M.F.A. Nos. 356 to 358 of 2003 filed by the beneficiary and M.F.A. Nos. 460 to 462 of 2003 filed by the LAO are dismissed with no order as to costs. M.F.A. Cross Objection Nos. Accordingly, we determine the market value of the acquired land at Rs.85,271/- per acre. 44. In the result and for the reasons set out supra, M.F.A. Nos. 356 to 358 of 2003 filed by the beneficiary and M.F.A. Nos. 460 to 462 of 2003 filed by the LAO are dismissed with no order as to costs. M.F.A. Cross Objection Nos. 32 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 356 of 2003, 27 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 357 of 2003 and 26 of 2003 in M.F.A. No. 358 of 2003 are allowed in part, with costs, the impugned judgment and award is set aside and we declare the market value of the acquired lands as Rs.85,270/- per acre, the landowners being entitled to receive the compensation with all statutory benefits and interest thereon. 45. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs.1,500/- in each of the cross-objections.