DEVINDER GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS batch of appeals filed under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) arise out of a common Award dated 7-4-1999 passed in l. A. O. P. 90 of 1997 and batch by the Senior civil Judge, Atmakur answering the reference petitions filed under Section 18 of the Act against Award No. 16/90-91 dated 24-1-1991 passed by the Special Deputy collector, (LA), S. R. B. C, Nandyal, determining the amount of compensation payable to various claimants for the acquired land situated in Ramapuram village in the revenue Mandal of Owk, Kurnool District. ( 2 ) ON 9-2-1990 a requisition was sent by the Executive Engineer, Srisailam Right bank Canal Division No. 3. , Owk to acquire land "for burrow area for formation of embankment for improvements to thimmaraju Tank Bund . On 16-7-1990 draft notification and draft declaration proposals were submitted by Special Deputy Collector (LA), SRBC, Nandyal to the Special collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool for approval. Draft notification was approved by the Government on 11-10-1990 and notification under Section 4 (1) was published on 5-11 -1990 expressing the intention of the government to acquire Ac. 44. 43 cts. of land situated in Ramapuram village, Mandal Owk, kurnool District, "for burrow area for formation of embankment and for improvements to Thimaraju Tank Bund". The special Deputy Collector (LA) made his award No. 16/90-91 on 24-1-1991 offering compensation to claimants categorising the acquired land into two categories, based upon certain sale transactions. The LAO in his award referred to as many 62 sale transactions and placed reliance only on one sale transaction dated 29-6-1989 by which an extent of Ac. 5. 76 cts. of land was sold for rs. 18,4407- at the rate of Rs. 3201. 58 per acre. The entire acquired land covered by these appeals was placed in Category-ll and the market value of the same was fixed at rs. 5,000/- per acre. The lands covered by category-l were valued at Rs. 3,500/- per acre. The reason for fixing the market value at Rs. 5,000/- per acre in respect of the lands covered by category-ll is that the lands were- found to be nearer to the road having potentiality for being utilized for commercial purposes for establishment of granite polishing units. The lands covered by category-l were valued at Rs. 3,500/- per acre. The reason for fixing the market value at Rs. 5,000/- per acre in respect of the lands covered by category-ll is that the lands were- found to be nearer to the road having potentiality for being utilized for commercial purposes for establishment of granite polishing units. The Reference Court by the impugned awards dated 7-4-1999 enhanced the amount of compensation by assessing market value at Rs. 15,000/- per acre uniformally for the entire acquired land thereby doing away with the categorization made by the LAO. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the Reference court, the present appeals have been preferred by the Government on the ground that the award of the Reference Court is excessive. ( 3 ) THE Reference Court treated o. P. No. 93 of 1997 as the lead case. Claimants examined two witnesses and placed reliance upon the sale transaction ex. A-1 dated 6-7-1990 by which an extent of ac. 1. 03 cts. of land was sold by P. W. 2 for rs. 16,320/-, who deposed that the land solc by him is similar to the land which was acquired and was located at a distance of one furlong from the acquired land. The LAO was examined as R. W. 1 No documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. Reference Court relying upon ex. A-1 sale transaction and the evidence of p. Ws. 1 and 2 came to the conclusion that ex. A-1 can be taken as a comparable sale in arriving at the market value of the land and accordingly enhanced the compensation uniformally at Rs. 15,000/- per acre. ( 4 ) WE have duly considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel for the parties. ( 5 ) EXCEPT relying on the award of the land Acquisition Officer, there is no material relied upon by the appellant. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not a relevant piece of evidence, which can be relied upon to assess market value. It can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence when other evidence is led. In this connection, we may refer to the observations made by supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao1 the High Court has relied upon the oral evidence adduced by the claimants in support the claim. It can be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence when other evidence is led. In this connection, we may refer to the observations made by supreme Court in Special Deputy Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao1 the High Court has relied upon the oral evidence adduced by the claimants in support the claim. It is not in dispute, as even pointed out by the Land acquisition Officer, that there is colony and railway shed etc. near the acquired lands. But the question is: Whether on the date of notification, the lands possessed of potential value and were fit for use as building site? On the basis of the evidence adduced before the land Acquisition Officer and the contents of the award, which is always part of the record and material evidence, it is difficult to accept the contention of Shri Sudhir Chandra that the lands possessed of potential value for being used for building purpose. Except a small fraction of land, the lands are agricultural lands. To make them fit for construction, even according to the conservation estimate, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- per acre would be required. So no prudent purchaser in open market would be willing to purchase the said lands at the rate of Rs. 23. 50 per sq. yard and then spend Rs. 60,000/- per acre to level up the same. It would be figment of imagination to believe that a prudent builder would do that. The High Court, therefore is clearly in error in treating the lands as fit for building purpose and on that basis determining the compensation after giving the deduction. ( 6 ) THE Reference Court while evaluating the land took into consideration the potentiality that the entire acquired land being nearer to the road (Tank Bund) was useful for being utilized for polishing slab units. This being the situation of the acquired land as noticed by Land Acquisition officer in his award also, the Reference Court is perfectly justified in doing away with categorization. The LAO had categorized land on the basis of its use for agriculture purposes i. e. . fertility. When potentiality of the land is for establishing polishing slab units, fertility has no relevance. There is no other material shown to us justifying interference with the assessment of market value fixed by the Reference Court. ( 7 ) THE appeals are accordingly dismissed. fertility. When potentiality of the land is for establishing polishing slab units, fertility has no relevance. There is no other material shown to us justifying interference with the assessment of market value fixed by the Reference Court. ( 7 ) THE appeals are accordingly dismissed. Interest on solatium and enhanced market value if not paid will be paid to the claimants. Parties are directed to bear their respective costs.