JUDGMENT P.C.Verma, J.- This appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant against the judgment and award dated 12.03.1977 passed by District Judge, Nainital in Land Acquisition Case No. 24 of 1976, Smt. Ahmadi Begum versus The Collector, Nainital, whereby the reference made by the Collector, Nainital under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was allowed partly and the claimant was held entitled for compensation of Rs. 4,94,406.00 for the acquired land and Rs. 3,960.00 for the trees and solatium at 15% on these amounts (total a sum of Rs. 5,73,120.00 instead of Rs. 3,45,694.14 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer) alongwith interest @ 4% per annum on the increased amount of compensation from the date of possession till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to this appeal, are that the State of U.P. has acquired 3 (three) acres of land for the construction of building of Tourist Transit Camp. The acquiring body was the Regional Tourist Officer, Nainital. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made on 18.02.1975 and notification under Sec. 6(1) was made on 30.07.1975. The acquired land belonged to the claimant Smt. Ahmadi Begum and was known as 'Dharampur Lodge' within the Municipal limits of Nainital. The Special Land Acquisition Officer calculated the award at the rate of Rs. 5.05 per sq. ft. and there from deduction of 25% has been made because the acquired land measures a vast area; another deduction of 15% has been made because the land has rocks and the land will have to be leveled; another deduction of 1 % has been made because the acquired land has pits in it and these pits will have to be filled in. In this manner the Special Land Acquisition Officer worked out the compensation to Rs. 2,96,643/-. The trees in the acquired land had been valued at Rs. 3,960/-. On these amounts solatium of 15% had been granted. Thus a total sum of Rs. 3,45,694.14 had been awarded to the claimant by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his impugned award dated 26.03.1976. 2,96,643/-. The trees in the acquired land had been valued at Rs. 3,960/-. On these amounts solatium of 15% had been granted. Thus a total sum of Rs. 3,45,694.14 had been awarded to the claimant by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his impugned award dated 26.03.1976. Aggrieved against the said award claimant-.Smt. Ahmadi Begum filed an objection before the Collector, Nainital on the grounds, inter alia, that the District Land Acquisition Officer, Nainital has erred in not properly assessing the value of the land acquired in his award and that the land acquired has wrongly been classified and grossly undervalued and the valuation given in the award is quite unreasonable and beyond the actual facts. The whole property of the applicant is situated within the heart of the Nainital town and the portion which has been acquired is the cream of all the lands. The locality where the land is acquired is a very well developed locality. The Collector made a reference to the District Judge under Sec. 18 of the Act for decision and determination according to law. 3. Before the District Judge it was contended by the claimant that the acquired land is very close to the main market of Nainital and the Land Acquisition Officer has not properly assessed its value. The land was approved by the Tourist Department for the construction of a three star hotel of the claimant and when the claimant's work was in progress the Tourist Department started acquisition proceedings. The situation of the land is very good. It has surrounded by hotels, offices, schools and the Kumaon University campus is within a radius of 1 to 2 furlongs. According to the claimant, the market rale of the land is Rs. 15/- to Rs. 20/- per sq. ft. The claimant had also alleged that the acquired land has a stone quarry and a sum of rupees one lac should be awarded as compensation for that quarry. The compensation paid for the trees by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is also unreasonable. According to the claimant a sum of Rs. 9000/- should be paid to her as compensation for the trees. The deductions made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer have also been questioned by the claimant. 4. The Opp. The compensation paid for the trees by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is also unreasonable. According to the claimant a sum of Rs. 9000/- should be paid to her as compensation for the trees. The deductions made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer have also been questioned by the claimant. 4. The Opp. party/State of U.P. contested the claim before the reference court by filing its written statement contending that the claimant is not entitled to any enhanced compensation. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned District Judge framed the following issues : 1. Whether the compensation paid for the land is unfair and inadequate ? If so, what is the fair amount of the compensation? 2. Whether the compensation paid for the trees is unfair and inadequate ? If so, what is the fair amount of compensation? 3. Whether there were any quarries in the land acquired? If so, what compensation is payable in respect of them? 4. To what relief, if any, is the applicant entitled? 6. The claimant adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of her case. The claimant relied upon the exemplar sale deed, which are copy of sale deed dated 9.5.1974 executed by Smt. Rewati Jeishi in favour of Sri Anwar Khan and another in respect of 160 sq. ft. of land of 'Deena Lodge' for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-, copy of sale deed dated 11.7.1974 executed by Smt. Kalawati in favour of Ishwar Sahi Sarecn in respect of 2000 sq. ft. land of 'Garden House' for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/- and copy of sale deed dated 06.02.1974 executed by Thakur Dass in favour of Sri Bhupal Singh in respect of 4505 sq. ft. of land of 'Rohilla Lodge' for consideration of Rs. 24,000/-. 7. The Opp. party/State has also relied on two of above mentioned sale deeds executed by Smt. Rewati Joshi and Kalawati respectively. Besides this, the Opp. party/State has filed two other sale deeds as exemplars, which are copy of sale deed dated 14.5.1974 executed by Mukul Chandra Sah in favour of Jwala Datt in respect of 146 sq. ft. land of 'Pilgrim Lodge' for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- and copy of sale deed dated 20.8.1974 executed by Brij Mohan Mehra in favour of Rakesh Sah in respect of 2378 sq. ft. land of 'Balrampur House' for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. 8. ft. land of 'Pilgrim Lodge' for a consideration of Rs. 1000/- and copy of sale deed dated 20.8.1974 executed by Brij Mohan Mehra in favour of Rakesh Sah in respect of 2378 sq. ft. land of 'Balrampur House' for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. 8. The reference court after appreciating of the evidence of parties held on issue No.1 that the acquired land is a huge stretch and measures three acres and relied on the exemplar sale deed dated 20.8.1974 filed by the State, it was held that deduction of 25% was rightly made for the largeness of the acquired land. The reference court further held that the deductions of 15% each, one for the reason that there are rocks in the land and another on the ground that certain pits in the acquired land will have to be filled in, are unfair and unreasonable and these deductions should not be made. The District Judge further held on issue No.2 that the compensation paid for the trees is fair and adequate. On the basis of evidence, it was further held in Issue No.3 that there are no quarries in the acquired land and no compensation is payable on this count to the claimant. Thus, the District Judge enhanced the amount of compensation and awarded accordingly. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and award the claimant has come up in this appeal on the grounds, inter alia, that the exemplars filed by the appellant regarding the valuation of land could not be taken into account as the land in dispute has large area. Further the exemplars were in respect of the part of land in dispute and they were in respect of same quality of land but the reference court grossly erred in not taking into account the sale deeds filed by the. appellant as also the court below erred in not awarding the compensation in respect of the trees and in holding that the evidence of P.W.3-Sri M.A. Khan could not be relied upon. That the reference court also erred in not awarding the compensation in respect of stone quarry. The stone quarry did exist on the piece of land and the said valuation should have been taken into consideration in awarding the compensation. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. That the reference court also erred in not awarding the compensation in respect of stone quarry. The stone quarry did exist on the piece of land and the said valuation should have been taken into consideration in awarding the compensation. 10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the courts below including the Special Land Acquisition Officer erred in not awarding the compensation in respect of the land acquired as per Circle Rate fixed by the Collector. He has placed reliance on the provisions of Section 75 and 47-A of the Stamps Act as well as U.P. Stamp Rules, which shall be dealt with in the following paragraphs. The main points for determination in this appeal whether the circle rate fixed by the Collector for the purpose of realizing the stamp duty on the sale of land would be the proper method to determine the just and proper compensation? And whether the sale instances relied upon by the Reference Court is not indicative of the proximity of the land under acquisition and the market value of the land as awarded by the Reference Court is not just and proper? 11. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon Section 75 and Section 47-A (as introduced in U.P. in 1969 Act - U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942-Rule 340A(2)-Power of Collector to fix the circle rates. It has been vehemently submitted on the behalf of the claimant/appellant that the compensation with regard to the market value of the land under acquisition should have been awarded on the basis of the circle rates fixed by the Collector. 12. For just decision of the case, the provisions of the relevant rules and the sections aforementioned are necessary to be reproduced hereunder: Rule 340-A of U.P. Stamp Rules (a) Every Collector shall biennially supply to the District Registrar and such other officers as the State Government may specify, a copy of the statement showing classification of soil, circle rate and the average price of land appertaining to each such classification situate in every Pargana, corporation or local body of his district. (b) xxxxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxxxx 13. (b) xxxxxxxxxxx (c) xxxxxxxxxxx 13. Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act reads as under: Under-valuation of instrument (1)(a) :- If the market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument, on which duty is chargeable on market value of the property as set forth in such instrument is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, immediately after presentation of such instrument, and before accepting it for registration and taking any action under Section 52 of the said Act, require the person liable to pay stamp duty under Section 29, to pay the deficit stamp duty as computed on the basis of the minimum value determined in aacordance with the said rules and return the instrument for presenting again in accordance with Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908. 14. Sub-Section (2) of Section 47-A provides that on receipt of a reference under Sub-Section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and after holding an inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject of such instrument, and the proper duty payable thereon. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant next contended that as far as the State of U.P. is concerned, for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty as per charging section proviso of Section 3 of the Act as applicable in the State of U.P. should not be read in isolation but harmoniously/with Schedule 1-B of the Act, which is applicable to the State of U.P. Section 47-A as applicable to the State of U.P. lays down a procedural law and the same is not a charging section as interpreted by the Apex Court Judgment in the case of "Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others [(1994)4 Supreme Court Cases 595]". 16. It was submitted that the rules framed under rules 340, 340-A and 341 guide the activity of an authority to make the purpose contemplated under the Stamp Act, hence, the same would be mandatory as it regulates the purpose of the Act. 17. 16. It was submitted that the rules framed under rules 340, 340-A and 341 guide the activity of an authority to make the purpose contemplated under the Stamp Act, hence, the same would be mandatory as it regulates the purpose of the Act. 17. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that for the purpose of calculating the market value as contemplated under Section 23 of the Act which para-materia spirits and attracts the provisions of the Rules contained under Chapter 15 of the Stamp Rules, hence the rates fixed by the Collector under the Rules of the Stamp Act would be as a reasonable basis for the calculation of the value of the land sought to be acquired under Section 4 of the Act 24. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/State has placed reliance upon the Apex Court judgments cited below: 1. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan Dist. Badaun through its Secretary Vs. Bipin Kuinar & another etc. [JT 2004 (1) SC 344 = (2004) 2 S.C.C. Page-283]. 2. Ramesh Chandra Bansal and others Vs. District Magistrate/Collector Ghaziahad & Others (1999) 5 Supreme Court Cases 62. 3. "State of Punjab V. Mahabir Singh, [(1996) 1 S.C. C., page 609]. 4. Jawajee Nagnatham Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. and others [(1994)4 Supreme Court Cases 595]. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the counsel for the respondent strongly placed reliance on the judgment reported in "(1994) 4 S.C.C. 595", In the said judgment of Jawaji Nagnathan, the Apex Court while dealing with Section 23 of the Act as well as Section 47-A of the Stamp Act (as enacted by the AP. State Legislature). In para 4 and 5, the Apex Court has taken Section 47-A (as applicable in Andhra Pradesh) to be the charging section and has not taken into consideration the proviso of section-3 of the Act and has proceeded on the basis that since the basis Valuation Basic Register having no statutory sanction cannot be read in evidence for enhancement of market value. In the judgment, it was observed that the Basic Valuation Register was prepared in the official capacity by the Revenue Department or its Registering Officer of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, it cannot be taken as an evidence for calculation of the compensation under the Act. In the judgment, it was observed that the Basic Valuation Register was prepared in the official capacity by the Revenue Department or its Registering Officer of Andhra Pradesh. Hence, it cannot be taken as an evidence for calculation of the compensation under the Act. As remarked in para-5, it seems that it was not brought to the knowledge/notice of the Apex Court that Section 47-A as applicable in Andhra Pradesh, apart from it, the proviso of section-3 was also not considered because the fact that Section 47-A excludes schedule 1-B of the Act which includes Article-23 for the conveyance prepared under Section 3 of the Act, hence the ratio propounded by the said judgment would not be applicable. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant further contended that for the reasons mentioned hereinafter, the ratio of Jawajee Nagnatham case (Supra) will not be applicable so far as it relates to the State of U.P. for the following reasons: (a) In the State of Andhra Pradesh the contents of basic valuation register were based upon the wisdom of the Registering Officer and as such since it was not having a statutory force or originating from the provisions of the Act of the Rules it was not binding. (b) Another reason for not accepting the basic valuation register as to be the basis of the reasons before the Apex Court no other provisions or Rules having statutory force has been brought to the notice of the court. (c) The basic valuation register was declined to be accepted as it was a unilateral decision of the Registering Officer of fixing the valuation of the land, hence, it was not binding. (d) As before the Apex Court in the judgment rendered, it was not placed as to the source of power granted to the authorities for the preparation of the Basic Valuation Register. 20. In the instant case, the crucial question before us to be decided is whether the circle rates fixed by the Collector indicate the market value for the purpose of Section 23 of the Act or they are guidelines? 21. The counsel for the respondent has also relied upon~ the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal (Supra) in which the Apex Court in para-5 observed as under: "The object of the Indian Stamp Act is to collect proper stamp duty on an instrument or conveyance on which such duty is payable. 21. The counsel for the respondent has also relied upon~ the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal (Supra) in which the Apex Court in para-5 observed as under: "The object of the Indian Stamp Act is to collect proper stamp duty on an instrument or conveyance on which such duty is payable. This is to protect the State revenue. It is a matter of common knowledge that in order to escape such duty by unfair practice, many a time under valuation of a property or lower consideration is mentioned in a sale deed. The imposition of stamp duty on sale deeds is on the actual market value of such property and not the value described in the instrument. Thus, an obligation is cast on the authority to properly ascertain its true value for which he is not bound by the apparent tenor of the instrument. He has to truly decide the real nature of the transaction and value of such property. For this, the Act empowers an authority to charge stamp duty on the instrument presented before it for registration. The market value of a property may vary from village to village, from location to location and even may differ from the sizes of the area and other relevant factors, this apart there has to be some material before such authority as to what is the likely value of such property in that area. In its absence, it would he very difficult for such registering authority to assess the valuation of such instrument. It is to give such support to the registering authority that Rule 340-A is introduced. Under this, the Collector has to satisfy himself based on various factors mentioned therein before recording the circle rate, which would at best be the prima facie rate of that area concerned. This is merely a guideline, which helps the registering authority to assess the true valuation of a transaction in an instrument. This gives him material to test prima facie whether the description of valuation instrument is proper or not. Under Section 47-A introduced by the U.P. Act 11 of 1969 conveys how a registering authority is to deal in a case where there is divergence in the valuation between what is described in an instrument and in the circle rate." 22. This gives him material to test prima facie whether the description of valuation instrument is proper or not. Under Section 47-A introduced by the U.P. Act 11 of 1969 conveys how a registering authority is to deal in a case where there is divergence in the valuation between what is described in an instrument and in the circle rate." 22. From a bare reading of Section 47-A as introduced by the U.P. Act 11 of 1969 of the Stamp Act, 1899 with Rules 340-A of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1942, it is clear that the circle rate fixed by the Collector is not final but iris only a prima facie determination of rate of the area concerned only to give guidance to the Registering Authority to test prima facie whether the instrument has properly described the value of the property. The circle rate under this rule is neither final for the authority nor to one subjected to pay the stamp duty. So far sub-sections 1 and 2 are concerned, they are very limited in their application as they only direct the registering authority to refer to the Collector for determination in case the property is under valued in such instrument. The circle rate does not take away the right of such person to show that the property in question is correctly valued as he gets an opportunity in case of under valuation to prove it before the Collector after reference is made. This also marks the dividing line for the exercise of the powers between the registering authority and the collector. 23. In the light of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the cases of Ramesh Chand Bansal (Supra); as well as "State of Punjab Vs. Mohabir Singh (supra) Jawaji Nagnatham (Supra) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan {JT 2004 (1) SC 344} (Supra), the guideline value either preparation or circulation or alteration or enhancement is an indicative price which the registering authority may take into consideration to come to the prima facie view whether the instrument has been under valued and if such view is arrived at, he has to refer the same' to the collector for determination. The registering officer has to register the instrument and refer the document to the Collector for determination of the market value and the stamp duty payable thereof. The registering officer has to register the instrument and refer the document to the Collector for determination of the market value and the stamp duty payable thereof. Therefore, the guideline value, either preparation or drafting or revision or circular issued, is of no consequence in so far as the person who is liable to pay the stamp duty, as whenever the registering 'authority comes to the conclusion that the instrument stands under valued, he has to complete the registration and forward the same to the collector for adjudication. The collector has to follow the procedure, afford opportunity and thereafter determine the market value as well as the stamp duty payable on the instrument. The guideline value is also not binding on the collector as he has to fix the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance or settlement or any other instrument falling under Section 47-A independently and fix the market value as held by the Apex Court. 24. We are further fortified in our view as already held by the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal (Supra) that the circle rate fixed by the collector is not final but is only a prima facie assessment and it is open to both the authority or the person seeking to enhcrt,lce the actual market value as per Section 23 of the Act. The circle rate fixed by the Collector is only a guideline and would only serve as prima facie material available before the authority or Court. The value of the property always varies from place to place and it depends upon the location of the property and other facts also. No absolute higher or minimum value can be predetermined. 25. The circle rate fixed by the Collector is only a guideline and would only serve as prima facie material available before the authority or Court. The value of the property always varies from place to place and it depends upon the location of the property and other facts also. No absolute higher or minimum value can be predetermined. 25. The argument of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant that the circle rate ought to have been taken for determining the market value of the land under acquisition under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act has no force in view of the Apex Court Judgment in the case of Ramesh Chand Bansal (supra) as in that case the Apex Court has dealt with the provisions of Section 47-A as well as Rule 340-A of the Indian Stamps Act as applicable in the State of U.P. We may also mention that the Apex Court in the case of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswan (J.T. 2004 (1) SC 344) has held "that the market value ought to be determined on the basis of sale deeds of comparable lands. Market Value cannot be determined on the basis of a basic valuation register maintained by the registering authority for collection of stamp duty. On facts held that the reference court erred in fixing the value on the basis of the valuation register maintained by the registering authorities for collection of stamp duty." 26. Having considered the entire controversy from all the four comers in the light of the aforesaid case laws, we hold that the reference court rightly adopted the method for determining the marked value for the purpose of awarding compensation on the basis of sale instances to arrive at the value of the land correctly. The market value ought to have been determined on the basis of sale deeds of the comparable lands. The market value cannot be determined on the basis of circle rates fixed by the collectors under Rule 340-A of the Stamp Rules and under Section 47-Aof the said Act. The circle rate fixed by the Collector under this Section is only for the collection of stamp duty. The market value cannot be determined on the basis of circle rates fixed by the collectors under Rule 340-A of the Stamp Rules and under Section 47-Aof the said Act. The circle rate fixed by the Collector under this Section is only for the collection of stamp duty. Circle rate would not be a basis to determine the market value mentioned there under and in instrument brought for registration and it would not be a basis to determine the market value under Section 23 of the Act of the land acquired in area. Evidence of bona fide sales between willing vendor and vendee of the lands acquired or situated near about that land possessing same or similar potential value would furnish basis to determine market value. The burden of proof is always on the claimant to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of the Act of Notification published in the State Gazette under Section 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same land or neighboring land possessing similar potential value between willing vendor and willing vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court. Hence, in view of the Apex Court judgment, this point is decided against the claimant/appellant. 27. Now we come to the point as to whether the sale instance relied upon by the Reference Court is not indicative of the proximity of the land under acquisition and the market value determined by the learned Reference Court is not adequate. 28. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that from the side of the claimant, three sale instances were relied upon-(l) Copy of sale deed dated 09.05.1974 executed by Smt. Rewati Joshi in favour of Shri Anwar Khan and another which is in respect of 2160 sq. ft of land of "Dina Lodge" for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-. It shows that the land of "Dina. Lodge" under the sale deed were sold at the rate of Rs. 6.94 per sq. ft. (2) Copy of sale deed dated 11.07.1974 executed by Smt. Kalawati in favour of Shri Ishwar Sahi Sareen in respect of 2000 sq. ft. of the land situated in "Garden Lodge" for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Thereby, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 7.50 per sq. ft. 6.94 per sq. ft. (2) Copy of sale deed dated 11.07.1974 executed by Smt. Kalawati in favour of Shri Ishwar Sahi Sareen in respect of 2000 sq. ft. of the land situated in "Garden Lodge" for a consideration of Rs. 15,000/-. Thereby, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 7.50 per sq. ft. (3) Third is the copy of sale instance dated 07.02.1974 executed by Thakur Das in favour of Shri Gopal Singh in respect of 4505 sq. ft. land of "Rohilla Lodge" for a consideration of Rs. 24,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs. 5.32 per sq. ft. 29. From the side of claimant, P.W.3 M.A. Khan has been examined to substantiate the contention of the claimant. This witness is the general power of attorney of the claimant and each her grandson. According to him, the land under acquisition is situate at a distance of 1-1 :½ Furlong from Mallital Market on Nainital-Kaladhungi Motor Road. This witness has not stated a single word. about the proximity of the land under acquisition vis-a-vis the land under the sale instances relied upon by the claimant/appellant. Moreover, the date of the land under these sale instances hinges between Rs. 5.32 per sq. ft. and Rs. 7.50 per sq. ft. 30. We have scrutinized the sale instances filed on record from the side of the claimant. From a perusal of these three sale instances, it is evident that the land under sale deeds is nearer to Mallital Market, Nainital. 31. Now, we come to the sale deeds relied upon from the side of the State. They are (1) copy of sale deed dated 14.05.1974 executed by Mukul Chandra Sah in favour of Jwaladhar in respect of 146 sq. ft. of "Pilgrim Lodge" for a consideration of Rs. 1,000/- (exhibit A-2 on record). It shows that the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 6.84 per sq. ft. The area of the land under this sale instance is so small that it fetched a good price. It was also mentioned in the sale deed that the land in question had already been encroached upon by the vendee and for that reason it was sold to him. Therefore, we are of the view that the sale instance too cannot be an exemplar. The Reference Court was justified in ignoring this sale deed. 32. It was also mentioned in the sale deed that the land in question had already been encroached upon by the vendee and for that reason it was sold to him. Therefore, we are of the view that the sale instance too cannot be an exemplar. The Reference Court was justified in ignoring this sale deed. 32. Another sale deed relied upon by the State is marked as exhibit A-4. Under the sale deed dated 20.08.1974, 2378 sq. ft. land of Balarampur House was sold for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/-. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was admittedly issued on 18.02.1975 followed by notification under 6(1) of the Act which was published on 30.07.1975. Along with the sale deed (exhibit A-4) map exhibit, A-5 was filed on record. 33. It may be mentioned here that in order to determine the market value of the land under acquisition, the Apex Court in the case of H.P. Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi and others [(2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases, page 184] observed that" Land Acquisition Act, 1894-S.23-CompensationMarket value-Determination of-Comparable sales method-Average of comparable sale instances-Held, while computing market value, all proved instances of comparable sales need to he taken into consideration." And in paragraph 5 of the judgment, the Apex Court observed as follows :- "We have heard the parties. In our view, the High Court was absolutely wrong in excluding the two sale instances cited by the appellants. The High Court omitted to notice that the offer of Rs.80,000/- per bigha had not been accepted by the claimants. In any event the offer was for Rs. 80,000/- per bigha as a consolidated amount. The appellants would not then have to pay the solatium and interest amounts. We are told, and it is not disputed that the figure of Rs. 80,000/- per bigha would, if solatium -and interest is deducted, have gone down to less than Rs. 40,000/- per bigha. In our view the approach of the Reference Court was correct. As all sate instances were proved, they were all to be taken into consideration. If all the sale instances are taken into consideration the average would work out to Rs. 1,11,660 per bigha. But as all the sale instances are of small pieces of lands and the acquisition is of the large piece of land, a deduction of 33 1/3% must be made towards development cost. If all the sale instances are taken into consideration the average would work out to Rs. 1,11,660 per bigha. But as all the sale instances are of small pieces of lands and the acquisition is of the large piece of land, a deduction of 33 1/3% must be made towards development cost. Thus the compensation would work out to Rs. 74,444 per bigha". 34. It was submitted on behalf of the State-respondent that the vendor and vendee of the sale-instances were not examined before the Reference Court, therefore, the genuineness of the sale-deeds cannot be relied upon. We have considered the evidentiary value of the sale instances produced before the Reference Court. The submission of the learned counsel for the State-respondent is not tenable. We are of the considered view that Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 permits the production of a certified copy of the registered sale transaction in evidence without examination of the vendor and vendee. The genuineness of such document is rebuttable. The State led no evidence in rebuttal to dispute the genuineness of the sale transactions referred to above. All the three sale instances are certified copies. In the absence of any evidence in rebuttal, the sale instances referred to above were fully admissible in evidence. We are fortified in our view by the Apex Court judgment in the case of "Cement Corpn. Of India Vs. Pulya and others" [(2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 270] wherein while dealing with the scope and evidentiary value of the documents produced under Section 51-A of the Land acquisition Act, the Apex Court referred to its earlier decisions and observed in paragraph 31 as under : "Thus, the reasoning of this Court in Narasaiah case that Section 51-A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document, is the correct position in law. This finding in Narasaiah case is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji RupareI." 35. Having considered all the sale instances on record in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of H.P. Housing Board Vs. This finding in Narasaiah case is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji RupareI." 35. Having considered all the sale instances on record in the light of the Apex Court judgment in the case of H.P. Housing Board Vs. Bharat S. Negi and others (supra), we are of the considered view that principle laid down by the Apex Court in the above case would be the best method to work out the market value of the acquired land. 36. Now the question is as to what will be the average of comparable sale instances for determination of the market value of the land acquired in the instant case. As narrated earlier, the claimant-appellant filed three sale instances and as per copy of the sale deed dated 9-5-1974, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 6.94 per sq. ft. As per sale deed dated 11.7.1974, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 7.50 per sq. ft. and as per the third sale deed, the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 5.32 per sq. ft. On the other hand, the State-respondent has placed reliance on the sale-deed dated 14.5.1974 whereby the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 6.84 per sq. ft. and through the second sale-deed dated 20-8-1974 (Ext. A-4), the land was sold at the rate of Rs. 5/- (approximate) per sq. ft. Thus, taking into consideration all the five sale-instances on record. the average of comparable sale instances comes to 6.94 + 7.50 + 5.32 + 6.84 + 5 = 31.6/5=6.32. Accordingly, we hold that the proper market value of the land under acquisition to be awarded to the claimant-appellant is Rs. 6.32 per sq. ft." 37. Now, it has to be seen as to what should be the reasonable and proper deduction keeping in view the largeness of the land acquired vis-a-vis the sale instances. The learned Reference Court has also dealt with this point its judgment and has observed as under : "The acquired land is a huge stretch and measures three acres. The sale-deed Ex. A-4 is for a comparatively much smaller area of 2378 sq. ft. A deduction of 25% may right be made for the largeness of the acquired land." 38. The learned Reference Court has also dealt with this point its judgment and has observed as under : "The acquired land is a huge stretch and measures three acres. The sale-deed Ex. A-4 is for a comparatively much smaller area of 2378 sq. ft. A deduction of 25% may right be made for the largeness of the acquired land." 38. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the land under acquisition was fully developed area, therefore, no deduction ought to have been made towards development charges. The submission is not sustainable. In our opinion, a deduction of 25% should have been made towards development cost as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kasturi and others Vs. State of Hmyana [(2003) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 354]. In that case it has been observed that: "The appellants herein did not establish that the entire area of 84 acres of land acquired was fully developed having all the facilities such as roads, drains, sewers, water, electricity lines and civic amenities. In order to convert the land in to plots for the purpose of construction of residential and commercial buildings certain area was to be earmarked for the above mentioned purposes in accordance with the law governing in the matter of creating layouts in addition to incurring of expenditure for the development area. Hence the claim of the appellants that there should have been no deduction out of the compensation amount determined for the entire area acquired is unsustainable. May be, the acquired land with potentiality for construction of residential and commercial buildings had some advantages, which aspect is taken note of by the High Court in giving cut of only 20% as against 1/3rd normal deduction." 39. Subsequently, the Apex Court followed the view taken in the aforesaid case in the matter of V. Hanumantha Reddy (Dead) vs. The Land Acquisition Officer and Mnandal R. Officer [2004 (1) L.A.C.C., 631]. The ratio of the above decisions of the Apex Court is fully, applicable to the present case before us. Although the land under acquisition was developed and having potential value but the same was not fully developed having all the facilities such as drain, sewers, water and civic amenities. The ratio of the above decisions of the Apex Court is fully, applicable to the present case before us. Although the land under acquisition was developed and having potential value but the same was not fully developed having all the facilities such as drain, sewers, water and civic amenities. In the facts and the circumstances of the present case, we hold that deduction of 25% on the market value of the will be just and proper, as mentioned earlier. Accordingly, the claimant-appellant is entitled to get compensation towards market value of the land acquired after deducting 25% from the rate of Rs. 6.32/per sq. ft. which comes to Rs. 4.74/- per sq. ft. and the compensation need to be determined at this rate. 40. The learned Counsel for the claimant lastly submitted that there existed stone quarries over the land under acquisition and the learned Reference Court erred in not awarding any compensation in respect of the same. We have gone through the material on record. The learned Reference Court framed issue no.3 on this count. While dealing with this Issue the Reference Court dealt with the evidence of the Power of Attorney of the claimant Sri M.A Khan. It is true that in his statement as P.W-3 he stated in the examination-in-Chief that there existed a strong quarry and from it about 20 Lacs cubic ft. stone fetching income @ 100/- per 100 cubic ft. This' statement of the P.W-3 was not corroborated by any evidence on record. Moreover, neither any account nor any record showing payment of royalty to' Municipal Board was brought on record. The Reference Court has rightly ignored the statement of the witness on this count because he was an interested witness and his testimony was not substantiated by any independent evidence. In our opinion, this finding of the learned Reference Court does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The claim of the claimant on the point of stone quarry was rightly discarded by the Reference Court. No other point was urged or argued before us in this appeal. 41. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case in entirety, we are of the view that the claimant-appellant is entitled to get compensation towards market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs. 4.74/- per sq. ft. and the compensation need to be determined at this rate. 41. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case in entirety, we are of the view that the claimant-appellant is entitled to get compensation towards market value of the land under acquisition @ Rs. 4.74/- per sq. ft. and the compensation need to be determined at this rate. To this extent the impugned judgment and award dated 12-3-1977 passed by the learned Reference Court deserves to be modified. Rest of the findings. regarding solatium and interest of the Reference Court are maintained. Accordingly the appeal is liable to be partly allowed. 42. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and •award is modified to the above extent. No order as to costs.