JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this appeal preferred under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State of M. P. has called in question the legal sustainability of the award passed by the First Addl. District Judge, Sidhi in MJC No. 3/82. The facts which are essential to be stated for disposal of the appeal are that the State of M. P. issued a notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for brevity 'the Act') for acquisition of certain land situated in village Muthigava and Padra. The said notification was issued on 14-5-1979. In pursuance of the said notification and after following due procedure, certain land belonging to Tilakraj Singh, the original claimant, was acquired. The said land which situated in village Muthigava Chouhan Tola at Khasra No. 317, 323, 324, 326, 322, 325, 327, 327 admeasuring 0.50 decimal, 0.11 decimal, 0.50, 0.11, 0.19, 0.07, 0.34 decimal respectively. In respect of Mouja Khasra No. 339, 340, 341, 335 admeasuring 0.30, 30.58, 1.02 and 0.10 decimal respectively were acquired. The Land Acquisition Officer, the Collector under the Act, proceeded to determine the compensation and accordingly fixed Rs. 2000/- per acre. The land owner along with his son late Urmila Prasad filed an application for enhancement of the amount and sought reference under section 18 of the Act as a consequence of which the matter was referred to the Civil Court. It was pleaded by the land owner before the reference Court that the land which had been acquired were irrigated; that the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer was absolutely grossly low that the valuation of the land could not have been less than 10 rupees per square feet and that the standing crops which was deposited on the land were not taken into consideration while determining the valuation. 2. To substantiate the claim, the claimant/applicant examined certain witnesses and brought certain documents on record. The reference Court did not take into consideration the objection filed by late Urmila Singh as Tilakraj Singh was not the legal representative of said Urmila Singh and confined the adjudication to the land of late Tilakraj Singh. 3. 2. To substantiate the claim, the claimant/applicant examined certain witnesses and brought certain documents on record. The reference Court did not take into consideration the objection filed by late Urmila Singh as Tilakraj Singh was not the legal representative of said Urmila Singh and confined the adjudication to the land of late Tilakraj Singh. 3. The reference Court took into consideration certain facts, namely, that the acquired land is in proximity of certain land which have been developed; that the sale deeds which are marked as exhibits P/l to P/3 clearly show that the land situated in the vicinity were sold at higher price; that there is material evidence on record that there is a rest house behind the acquired plot; that the sale deed contained in Ex. P/6 shows that on 15-10-1977 2003 Sq.ft of land was purchased by one Maharaj Singh at the rate of one rupee per sq.ft.; that there is a guest house built in the nearby area; that the land is situated on the Rewa road which is one of the main roads; that the State had not produced any contradictory evidence with regard to mentioning of roads in the sale deeds; that the acquired land situated in Muthigava is adjacent to the municipal area of Sidhi Municipality; that the determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer was not in consonance with the sale deeds; and that the land owner had sustained loss in respect of the standing crops of the land. Being of this view, the reference Court enhanced the valuation to Rs. 20,000/- per acre and granted solarium at 30% along with interest of 15%. 4. Assailing the said award in question, it is submitted by Mr. S. K. Yadav, learned Government Advocate, that the determination of price by the reference Court is exorbitant and not permissible in law. It is contended by him that the reference Court has determined the price on the basis of sale deeds which are in respect of small parcels of lands. It is highlighted by him that the evidence which has been appreciated by the reference Court in regard to fixation of the price is neither just nor proper. It is also urged that when the basic factor, namely, determination of small patches of land is done is erroneous, the whole award is to be set aside. 5. Combating the aforesaid submission, it is contended by Mr. It is also urged that when the basic factor, namely, determination of small patches of land is done is erroneous, the whole award is to be set aside. 5. Combating the aforesaid submission, it is contended by Mr. P. R. Bhave, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that the determination by the Land Acquisition Officer was grossly low and the intervention by the reference Court cannot be found fault with. It is contended by him that all the sale deeds that have been stated are not relatable to small parcels of land. It is also submitted that situation of land is also to be taken into consideration and when the original land owner had brought material on record which have not been rebutted by the State, there is no error committed by the reference Court warranting interference. 6. Before we proceed to appreciate the rival submissions putforth at the bar and scrutinise the oral and documentary evidence, it is condign to notice certain decisions in the field. 7. In the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Shardaben, (1996) 8 SCC 93 , the Apex Court ruled that the burden is always on the claimants to prove by adducing credible and reliable evidence that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and the lands are capable of fetching higher market value. In that context, their Lordships further expressed that it is the duty of the Courts to closely scrutinise the evidence and apply the test of a prudent and willing purchaser i.e. whether he would be willing to purchase in open and normal market conditions of the acquired lands and then determine just and adequate compensation. 8. In this regard, we may also usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Hootiyar Singh v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 3 SCC 766 wherein the Apex Court expressed the view that the Court must not indulge in the feats of imagination but, sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser in open market and to put a question to itself whether as a prudent purchaser it would offer the same price in the open market as is to be determined? To put it differently, the same is the real and acid test. 9. To put it differently, the same is the real and acid test. 9. In the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Kumari Devi, (1990) 8 SCC 577, it has been held that when 13.75 acres of land was offered for sale in an open market, no prudent man would have credulity to purchase that land on square foot basis. Similar view has also been expressed in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v. Narottambhai Morarbhai, (1996)11 SCC 159 . 10. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the decision rendered in the case of G. Narayan Rao v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 10 SCC 607 wherein it has been ruled that it must be established, as a fact, that the potential purpose does exist on the date of notification, the prevailing conditions in the market, the existence of the construction of building activities in the neighborhood and that the other lands in the neighborhood possess similar conditions. 11. Yet in another decision rendered in the case of Kanwar Singh v. Union of India, (1998) 8 SCC 136 , it has been held that the amount of compensation for the land acquired depends on the market value of land on the date immediately before the notification under section 4 of the Act or when same land is acquired and offer of compensation is made through an award. In the case of Hansali Walichqnd v. State of Maharashtra (1998)2 SCC 388 , the Apex Court ruled that the land have future potential on account of its location cannot be ignored and realised potential is not the sole pivotal factor. It is worth noting here that in the case of Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma (1998)2 SCC 385 , it has been held that when no sales of comparable land were available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect of small 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 etc. 12. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Union of India v. Mangat (Dead) by LRs. 12. In this regard, we may usefully refer to the decision rendered in the case of Union of India v. Mangat (Dead) by LRs. and others, (2000) 10 SCC 609 , wherein it has been held that market value of land which abuts on the national highway would be much more than the land which is away from it. 13. Recently, in the case of Kasturi v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 , it has been held that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value though yet to be developed. It is well settled in law that while dealing with fixation of price in Land Acquisition matters some element of guesswork is necessary. But that has to be based on some foundation. It must spring from the totality of evidence in entirety that has been brought on record. To put it differently, the guesswork must have a reasonable connection with the facts brought on record. 14. Keeping in view the aforesaid enunciation of law, we have to appreciate the evidence brought on record. It is noticeable that the original land owner had adduced oral evidence and got certain sale deeds as exhibits. In oral evidence, the witnesses have categorically and unequivocally stated with regard to the situation of the land of the claimant. The said evidence has not been shaken from any angle. It can be concluded that the land was situated adjacent to municipal area, near National highway and in a close proximity with the developed area. The sale deeds which have been brought on record clearly show that certain transactions have taken place which were of high valuation. The sale deeds were entered into prior to the date of issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. 15. True it is, the said sum of the sale deeds are in respect of small tracts of land but the functionaries of the State Government have not brought any other sale deed on record to destroy the evidentiary value of the same. One may not accept that the price i.e. value in respect of the land in question will be the governing factor. But one thing that is noticeable is that certain patches of land of the landowner were acquired. In view of this, an acceptable guesswork has to be done. The reference Court has fixed the price at Rs. One may not accept that the price i.e. value in respect of the land in question will be the governing factor. But one thing that is noticeable is that certain patches of land of the landowner were acquired. In view of this, an acceptable guesswork has to be done. The reference Court has fixed the price at Rs. 20,000/- per acre. The same, to us, appears to be excessive and we have no hesitation in holding that the guesswork that has been done is not on proper foundation. If the oral and documentary evidence are appreciated in proper perspective, we are inclined to think that the price should be Rs. 12,000/- per acre. To us, the said price appears to be reasonable. So far as the determination of loss of standing crops and other things are concerned, there is no perversity of approach and in fact it is based on material on record. There is no warrant to interfere. 16. In view of the aforesaid, we modify the award and fix the price at Rs. 12,000/- per acre and direct the reference Court to calculate the final amount on the same line. All other statutory amount and interest would be payable to the respondents/claimants as per law. 17. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed in part. However, the parties shall bear their respective costs of this appeal.