JUDGMENT - KHARCHE S.T., J.: - This first appeal invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure takes an exception to the judgment dated 7-3-1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in Land Acquisition reference Case No. 38 of 1983 under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), whereby the respondent-State was directed to pay compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre, though the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per acre. Brief facts are as under: 2. The appellant is owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 289, admeasuring 14.2 acres (5.9 H.R.) situated at village Belkhed in Akot Tahsil. The respondent-State Government has acquired 3.9 acres land out of that agricultural land by starting the acquisition proceedings. A notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 31-8-1979 and was published in the Government Gazette on 13-9-1979. The appellant was served and thereafter he had appeared and filed his statement of claim whereby compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre was claimed. He had also adduced the evidence in the nature of sale instances during the course of enquiry held by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (S.L.A.O.). On consideration of the evidence and material available, the S.L.A.O. passed the award on 15-3-1983 and directed payment of compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per acre. The compensation was computed on the basis of that award and it was also paid to the appellant which was accepted by him under protest. Thereafter, be being aggrieved by the award, filed reference under section 18 of the Act before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. The appellant had examined as many as six witnesses and relied on sale instances which was made during the period 1970 to 1981. The respondent did not adduce any oral evidence. The trial Court, on consideration of the evidence and on hearing the parties had reached the conclusion that the appellant would be entitled to receive compensation @ Rs. 6,000/- per acre and consequent with that, he directed the respondent-State to pay the compensation accordingly. The contention of the respondent-State was that the award passed by the trial Court was perfectly correct as he had taken into consideration the sale instances, and after scrutinizing the real material before him. 6,000/- per acre and consequent with that, he directed the respondent-State to pay the compensation accordingly. The contention of the respondent-State was that the award passed by the trial Court was perfectly correct as he had taken into consideration the sale instances, and after scrutinizing the real material before him. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court has come up before this Court by filing this appeal. 3. Mr. Kaptan, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that though agricultural land has been acquired, it had a potential use of non-agricultural, because the land has been acquired for the purpose of Gaothan. He contended that as many as six sale instances were relied on by the appellant and these sale instances are dated 18-2-1970 duly proved through the evidence of Shankar (P.W. 2) dated 2-11-1971 and 18-2-1970 duly proved through the evidence of Devida (P.W. 3), dated 30-4-1979 duly proved through the evidence of Ramdas Raut (P.W. 5) and the last sale instance dated 28-2-1980 has been proved through the evidence of Ramdas Yenkar (P.W. 6). He contended that though the small pieces of land were sold by the vendors by virtue of the afore sale instances, fact remains that those sale instances ought to have been taken in to consideration for determining the potential value of the land under acquisition. He contended that taking into consideration the topography of the land and the general trend of rise in the prices of the land, the Reference Court ought to have taken into consideration that the land acquired had a potentiality of being developed as an urban land and those sale instances could not have been discarded on the sole reason that they are much prior to the date of notification published under section 4 of the Act. He contended that those pieces of lands which were sold during the period 1970 to 28-2-1980 were situated nearby the acquired land and this evidence was more than sufficient to award compensation @ Rs. 15,000/- per acre. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the Reference Court deserves to be modified suitably. In support of these submission he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma)1, 1998(2) S.C.C. 385 . 4. Mr. 15,000/- per acre. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the Reference Court deserves to be modified suitably. In support of these submission he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma)1, 1998(2) S.C.C. 385 . 4. Mr. Deopujari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State contended that two witnesses Ramdas Raut (P.W. 5) and Ramdas Yenkar (P.W. 6) admitted in their cross-examination that the potential value of the land acquired was not more than Rs. 100/- per guntha and the land under acquisition unless developed, would not have been of any use for the non-agricultural purpose and therefore, the Reference Court was perfectly justified in granting compensation at the enhanced rate of Rs. 6,000/- per acre and no interference into the finding of the fact recorded by the Reference Court is warranted. 5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that the appellant is the owner of agricultural land out of which 3.9 acres land has been acquired by the respondent-State for public purpose i.e. for Gaothan. It is also admitted position that the acquisition proceedings were started in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the notification under section 4 of the Act was duly published on 31-8-1979. The appellant had filed his statement of claim before the S.L.A.O. And also adduced the evidence of sale instances in support of his contentions. The S.L.A.O. awarded compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per acre which was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/- per acre by the Reference Court. 6. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma, 1998(2) S.C.C. 385 , the Honble Supreme Court observed in para 6 that : "The general trend in the prices of land is on the rise and the judicial notice of the same had been taken by the High Court correctly and therefore, cannot be challenged. Puttur is an urban area and the lands in question are abutting the main road leading from Tirupathi to Arkonam via Puttur and the acquired land was in the heart of Puttur town. Puttur is an urban area and the lands in question are abutting the main road leading from Tirupathi to Arkonam via Puttur and the acquired land was in the heart of Puttur town. To the north of the land in question there is a famous Venkateswaraswamy Temple and to the immediate south, the famous Tiruthani, one of the abodes of Lord Subrahamanyaswamy. Therefore taking into consideration the topography of the land, we may safely proceed on the basis that the High Court had correctly noted the situation of the land in question which was the potentiality of being developed as urban land. Ext. B-30 is a sale-deed dated 9-8-1976, the transaction having taken place prior to eight months from the issue of the preliminary notification for acquisition of land in the present case. Having found that the piece of land referred in Ext. B-30 is situated very close to the lands that are acquired under the notification in question the reference Court and the High Court relied upon the said document and, in our view, rightly. 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". 7. On close scrutiny, it would reveal that such is not the present case and the observations of the Honble Supreme Court cannot be straightway made applicable to the facts and the circumstances of the present case. The land which is acquired by the State is basically in agricultural land though it has been acquired for the purpose of Gaothan, it is not possible to accept that the said land has a potentiality of the value of the urban land. The land which is acquired by the State is basically in agricultural land though it has been acquired for the purpose of Gaothan, it is not possible to accept that the said land has a potentiality of the value of the urban land. The Reference Court has recorded the finding that the evidence adduced by the appellant regarding sale instances was in respect of smaller pieces of land though they are situated in the proximity of the land which is being acquired those sale instances are much prior to the date of notification under section 4 of the Act. What is relevant to note is that the appellant has examined as many as six witnesses to prove the comparable sale instances out of which two sale instances i.e. the sale instances dated 7-1-1981 (Exh. 22) and 28-2-1980 (Exh. 31) cannot be taken into consideration because those sale transactions were made after the publication of notification under section 4 and therefore, are liable to be discarded. 8. So far as the sale instances dated 18-2-1970, 2-1-1971 and 7-1-1981 which are said to have been duly proved through the evidence of Shankar (P.W. 2), Devidas (P.W. 3). The witnesses Ramdas Raut (P.W. 5) and Ramdas Yenkar (P.W. 6) clearly admitted in their cross-examination that they had purchased the piece of land by making payment of excessive price during the year 1978 to 1981 or even thereafter there were transaction of sale and purchase of 4 to 6 acres of agricultural land. The witnesses also admitted in their cross-examination that the price of the land which they had purchased was at the most Rs. 100/- per guntha. If these admissions of the witnesses are taken into consideration, then it would clearly reveal that the potential value of the land under acquisition was not more that Rs. 100/- per guntha. But, considering the topography of the land, and the purpose for which the land is being acquired, the Reference Court allowed the enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- per acre. 100/- per guntha. But, considering the topography of the land, and the purpose for which the land is being acquired, the Reference Court allowed the enhancement of compensation to the extent of Rs. 6,000/- per acre. It is also equally significant to note that though the witnesses admitted in their cross-examination that during the year 1972 to 1978 or even thereafter there were 4 or 6 transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural land, the appellant had chose not to produce the sale-deeds of those sale instances, which would have been nearer and earlier to the date of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Act. Non-production of those sale instances would go a long way to suggest that the potential value of the land acquired was not more than Rs. 6,000/- per acre as is awarded by the Reference Court and even adverse inference under section 114(g) of the Evidence Act can be drawn that if those sale-deeds would have been produced it would have been unfavourable to the appellant. Thus, on close scrutiny, this Court is of the considered opinion that the award passed by the Reference Court is perfectly legal and correct and no interference in to the same is warranted and that there is no merit in the appeal which deserves to be dismissed. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no costs. Appeal dismissed. -----