A. GOPAL REDDY, J :-AS No.43 of 2001 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh through Revenue Divisional Officer (Land Acquisition Officer), Karimnagar and AS No.685/2001 by the claimant are directed against the award dated 19-10-2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar. Hence they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In order to consider as to whether the award and decree under appeals suffers from any infirmities requiring our interference, few relevant facts may have to be noticed. 3. On the requisition made by the Agricultural Market Committee, Gangadhara dated 15-9-1990, an extent of Ac.6-00 of land in S.No.60 situate at Gundi Village, Karimnagar District was acquired for the public purpose of establishment of the market yard at Gundi Village. The draft notification under Section 4(1) and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") were published in A.P. Gazette dated 12-12-1990 and 13-12-1990 respectively and the same were published in the newspapers on 9-1-1992, by invoking urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act dispensing with 5-A enquiry. The possession of the land was taken on 21-10-1991. The claimant in the award enquiry claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the requisite formalities, passed award on 7-1-1993 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per acre in addition to value of the wells and trees separately along with statutory benefits. Being dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant-claimant sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act which has been taken on file by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.P. No.134/1993. The appellant-claimant in support of his claim seeking compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.20. On behalf of the referring officer, Revenue Divisional Officer himself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B.1 to 5. 4. The reference Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, assessed the market value of the acquired land at Rs.10,000/- per acre with solatium and interest and did not grant any further relief so far as the trees and wells. 5. Questioning the enhancement of compensation, Land Acquisition Officer filed AS No.43/2001 and inadequate compensation, the claimant preferred AS No.685 of 2001. 6. 5. Questioning the enhancement of compensation, Land Acquisition Officer filed AS No.43/2001 and inadequate compensation, the claimant preferred AS No.685 of 2001. 6. P.W.1, who is the claimant, stated that the acquired land is useful for house sites and for construction of shops. He has been raising commercial crops like maize, cotton, chilies etc., through the well and bore well water and used to get an annual income of Rs.20,000/- to 25,000/per acre, after excluding the expenses. There are residential houses in the vicinity of the acquired land and he obtained layout permission from the Gram panchayat for making the land sought to be acquired into house plots. The village is situated at a distance of 5 kms from the Mandal Headquarters, as per the certificate covered under Ex.A.2, issued by the Deputy Executive Engineer, R&B. 50 villages and 4 Mandals surround the village where the acquired land is situated. In the year 1981, Agriculture Market Yard was constructed, and Andhra Bank was established apart from Co-operative Bank. In their village, there are 33 KV Sub-station, Telephone Exchange, Veterinary Hospital, five High Schools, 10 mini rice mills, three oil mills, three saw mills and six timber depots apart from RTC Bus-Station Complex. Nearly about 30 buses are flying to their village from several places including Karimnagar, Jagital, Bellampalli, Mancherial, Sircilla etc. The village is well developed and is within the command area of Sreeram Sagar Project. Godowns which have been constructed in the Market Yard have also been let out on a rent of Rs.5,000/- per month for each godown and the cost of the land is not less than Rs.6 lakhs. He filed Exs.A.3 to A.6. P.W.5 is the person who purchased land under Ex.A.6 stated that all the lands covered under Exs.A.3 to A.6 are adjacent to the acquired land. Earlier to the acquisition proceedings, Negotiation Committee headed by Joint Collector was constituted and before it, he claimed Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, but the Joint Collector offered to pay Rs.4,000/- per acre. P.W.5 is the person who purchased land under Ex.A.6 stated that all the lands covered under Exs.A.3 to A.6 are adjacent to the acquired land. Earlier to the acquisition proceedings, Negotiation Committee headed by Joint Collector was constituted and before it, he claimed Rs.1,50,000/- per acre, but the Joint Collector offered to pay Rs.4,000/- per acre. He further stated that the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer prepared report fixing the market value at Rs.1,10,000/-, Rs.37,530/- for the well, Rs.11,201/- for the trees and solatium at 30% which comes to Rs,2,12,619/- and 12% additional market value which comes to Rs.56,698/-, but the Joint Collector did not accept the report submitted by the Land Acquisition Officer and directed him to fix the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The Zilla Parishad Road leading from Karimnagar to Jagital via Ramadugu, Gopalraopet, Pegadpally and Gollapally, touches the acquired land. He sold his own land situated in S.No.57-L to an extent of 187 sq. yards for house site for a consideration of Rs.22,500/- under EX.A-19 dated 1-9-1988, which comes to Rs.5,82,352/-. In the cross-examination, he admitted that an extent of land admeasuring Ac.0-21 guntas in S. No.185 was registered at Rs.3,600/- per acre. He further stated that the land in S. No.185 is a barren land and not useful for agricultural purpose. He denied a suggestion that lands in S. Nos.60 and 185 are similar with regard to fertility and potentiality. He denied a suggestion that the land in S. No.60 and the land covered under Exs.A.3 to A.6 and A.I0 and A.20 are not similar in nature. He admitted that the Negotiation Committee consisting of the Joint Collector, the Joint Director of Agriculture, the Joint Director of Marketing and the Revenue Divisional Officer, visited the village after issuance of 4(1) notification and the Committee offered compensation at Rs.4,000/- per acre, but he did not agree for it. He further admitted that he did not file any documentary evidence to show that he was getting Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- towards agricultural income per year. 7. P.W.2, who purchased 600 sq. yards in S. No.60 from P.W.? under Ex.A-3, certified copy of sale deed dated 8-2-1989 or a consideration of Rs.15,000/-, which comes to Rs.1,21,000/- per acre, stated that the land purchased by him and the acquired land are situated in same survey number, abutting to each other. 7. P.W.2, who purchased 600 sq. yards in S. No.60 from P.W.? under Ex.A-3, certified copy of sale deed dated 8-2-1989 or a consideration of Rs.15,000/-, which comes to Rs.1,21,000/- per acre, stated that the land purchased by him and the acquired land are situated in same survey number, abutting to each other. The land in S. No.185 is situated 2 Kms away from the land purchased by him in S. No.60. He denied a suggestion that land in S. No.60 and the land in S. No.185 are similar in nature and fertility. 8. P.W.3, who purchased 600 yards in S. No.60 for a consideration of Rs.15,000/under Ex.A.4-certified copy of sale deed dated 8-2-1989, which comes to Rs.1,21,000/per acre, stated that the land purchased by him is abutting the land of P.W.1, and are similar in nature. 9. P.W.4 who purchased 265 yards in S. No.59 for a consideration of Rs.8,800/ - which comes to Rs.1,60,725/- per acre under Ex.A-5-certified copy of sale deed dated 29-1-1990, stated that the land purchased by him is situated abutting the land of P.W.1 by intervening a ridge and the land of P.W.1 is good in nature than his land. 10. P.W.5, who purchased an extent of Ac.1-01 1/2 guntas in S. No.62 for a consideration of Rs.1,14,125/-, which comes to Rs.1,10,000/- per acre under Ex.A.6-sale deed dated 3-9-1990, stated that the land purchased by him and the land of P.W.1 are similar in nature and fertility. 11. P.W.6, who attested the sale deed Ex.A.20, stated that one Chittimalla Vijaramma purchased land to an extent of Ac.0-02 guntas for a consideration of Rs.30,258/- from P.W.2. 12. P.W.7, is Ex-Sarpanch of Gopalraopet, who deposed that the land in S. No.60 is fertile and several crops like cotton, chilies, maize have been raising in the said land and the said land is situated abutting the Zilla Parishad Road and there are residential houses in the vicinity of the acquired land and also in S. Nos.59, 56, 57, 60 and 62 and the land in S. No.185 is situated at a distance of 2 Kms from the acquired land. He denied a suggestion that the acquired land is useful for agricultural purpose but not for house sites. 13. He denied a suggestion that the acquired land is useful for agricultural purpose but not for house sites. 13. P.W.8, who purchased Ac.0-21 guntas of land in S. No.185 for a consideration of Rs.19,000/-, stated that the land purchased by him is for the purpose of grazing cattle and is in hillock area and the same is not useful for agricultural purpose. There is no road near by the land purchased by him. The distance between the land purchased by him and the acquired land is 2 Kms and there are residential houses around the acquired land. 14. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, examined himself as R.W.I. He stated that on the requisition made by the Agricultural Market Committee, Gangadhara, for acquisition of Ac.6-00 in S.No.60 for construction of Market Yard at Gundi H/o Gopalraopet, he completed the formalities and passed award basing on the sales statistics obtained from the concerned Sub-Registrar, Gangadhara with effect from 12-12-1987 to 12-12-1990 fixing the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre as against the claim of the claimant at Rs.1,50,000/-. He admitted that the Gundi Gopalraopet Village is at a distance of 5 Kms from the Mandal Headquarter and 18 Kms from District Headquarter. He further admitted that at the time of passing of award, Negotiation Committee called for awardees for finalization of the market value and the awardees have requested for fixation of market value at Rs.1,50,000/-, but the Committee fixed the market value at Rs.4,000/- per acre and the Land Acquisition Officer has adopted Ex.B.1, certified copy of registered sale deed dated 6-7-1988 and fixed the market value. In the cross-examination, he admitted that as per Ex.B.4, S. Nos.57, 59 and 62 are adjoining to S. No.60 which is acquired and is linked with ZP Road. The sale transactions in respect of S. Nos.57, 59 and 62 might be in normal course in the village, but he volunteered that the said land was purchased for house purposes in yard basis. He further admitted that the acquired land is situated nearby S. Nos.57, 59 and 62 rather than S. No.185. He does not know whether the distance between S.No.185 and S. No.60 is about 2 Kms. He further admitted that the acquired land is situated nearby S. Nos.57, 59 and 62 rather than S. No.185. He does not know whether the distance between S.No.185 and S. No.60 is about 2 Kms. In Ex.B.5 award, it is mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer that the village Gopalraopet is covered under command area of the Sriramsagar Project and also mentioned that the commercial crops like maize, cotton, groundnut are being cultivated in that village. As per the request of the awardees, the then Land Acquisition Officer has prepared valuation note and put up before the Negotiation Committee fixing the total compensation at Rs.9,78,041/-, but the Negotiation Committee rejected the same. 15. The question for consideration is: What will be the reasonable compensation which the land under acquisition was capable to secure as on the date of the notification? 16. The juristic concept of compensation is that compensation is equivalent in terms of money of the property compulsorily acquired. The principle for determination of compensation is intended to award to the expropriate owner, the value of the property acquired. 17. In Chimanlal Hargovindas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, (1988) 3 SCC 751 , the Supreme Court laid down the following factors which have to be kept in mind while determining the compensation: (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the A ward of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilized by him for making his valuation cannot be utilized by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the A ward, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. It is not the function of the Court to sit in appeal against the A ward, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant). (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of land). (9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations: (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a commonsense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size largeness of area 2. Proximity to a road. situation in the interior at a distance - - - - from the road. 3. Frontage on a road. narrow strip of land with very small - - - frontage compared to depth. 4. Nearness to developed lower level requiring the area - - - depressed portion to be filled up. 5. Regular shape. remoteness from developed locality 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition - - some special disadvantageous factor - - - which would deter a purchaser. 7. Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Commonsense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 Sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 Sq. yds. or more. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Commonsense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 Sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10,000 Sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a layout, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with commonsense. 18. In M/s. Printers House Private Limited v. Mst. Saiyadan, 1994 (2) SCC 133 = AIR 1994 SC 1160 , the Supreme Court while observing that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, Comparable Sales Method of valuation is preferred than other methods of valuation of land such as Capitalization of Net Income Method or Expert Opinion Method, held as under: “If Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of land is adopted for determining the market-value of an acquired plot of land, it generally holds good for determination of the market-value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots of land is made pursuant to the same preliminary notification. But, if any of the factors, such as, location, shape, size, potentiality or tenure of one plot of acquired land widely differs from the other plot (s) of acquired land (s), then the market-value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined independently of the other (s) even if all of them had been acquired pursuant to the same preliminary notification. The reason is not far to seek since the differential factors relating to different acquired plots greatly affect their value. Hence, if any salient factor of different acquired plots of land, which greatly affects their value is ignored or is not taken into consideration by the Court while determining the market-value of acquired lands, it will have failed to apply the correct principle of valuation adoptable in valuation of different types of acquired lands (Para 8). On Point No.2, namely, did the High Court apply the correct principle of valuation of land in determining the market value of the acquired plots of land by fixing their unit rate by averaging the market value fetched for different lands under the sale deeds and previous awards?, the Supreme Court held thus: “This point relates to making the choice of sales when market value of the acquired land has to be determined by Comparable Sales Method. If a land sold under a sale-deed is comparable with the acquired land, then the Courts will have, ordinarily, recourse to Comparable Sales Method of Valuation to determine the market value of the acquired land, cannot be doubted. What is done under the Comparable Sales Method of valuation of land is to find out the price fetched for sale of land under the saledeed claimed to be comparable sale and take that price as that which the acquired land would have fetched, if its sale had been effected in the open market and determine the market value of the acquired land accordingly. The Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of land is preferred to other known methods of valuation of land since the variety of factors appertaining to the land, which require adjustment by the Court (valuer) in determining the market value of the acquired land, would be the least. The Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of land is preferred to other known methods of valuation of land since the variety of factors appertaining to the land, which require adjustment by the Court (valuer) in determining the market value of the acquired land, would be the least. Where, however, certain factors appertaining to the land in a comparable sale has to be adjusted, it is done by varying the price of the land covered by the sale, i.e., by adding certain amount to the price fetched for the land sold or by deducting a certain amount in such price, depending on the nature of the factor concerned being a plus factor or a minus factor. Whatever it be, the genuineness or authenticity of the sale is a factor which permits no adjustment in price. (Para 14) In Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1980) I SCC 575, Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy speaking for the Bench held that there cannot be any doubt that the best evidence of the market value of the acquired land is afforded by transactions of sale in respect of the very acquired land, provided of course there is nothing to doubt the authenticity of the transactions and accordingly set-aside the judgment of the High Court where it interfered with the award of compensation made by the reference Court on the basis of the transactions of sale in respect of the very acquired land and restored the judgment of the reference Court fixing the market value based upon the said sale transactions. 19. In Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition v. Mangala Gowri, (1991) 4 SCC 218 , the Supreme Court held that for ascertaining the market rate, the Court can rely upon such transactions which would offer a reasonable basis to fix the price. The price paid in the sale or purchase of the land acquired within a reasonable time from the date of the acquisition of the land in question would be the best piece of evidence. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. In its absence the price paid for a land possessing similar advantages to the land in the neighbourhood of the land acquired in or about the time of the notification would supply the date to assess the market value. But exclusion of bona fide and genuine sale transactions in respect of the same land under acquisition and to place reliance on the award of some other land is obviously illegal. 20. In Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi, (1988) 2 SCC 150 , the Supreme Court after referring to its earlier decisions has stated thus: “12. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe bases for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. (See Collector of Lakhimpur v. He. Dutta, (1972) 4 SCC 236 ; Mirza Nausherwan Khan v. Collector (Land Acquisition), Hyderabad, (1975) I SCC 238; Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 1 SCC 330 ); Smt. Kaushalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad, (1984) 2 see 324). The principle that evidence of market value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does not admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical layout could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civil amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. are to be made. In Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, (1982) 1 SCC 419 , this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come up to as much as 53 per cent. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the “retail” price of land and the latter the “wholesale” price. 21. In Kasturi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 , the Supreme Court after extracting the above excerpt and scanning subsequent decisions on the issue upheld the deduction of 20% as against 1/3rd normal deduction and observed thus: “.......In order to convert the land into 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. Maybe, 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". (Para 17) 22. The Land Acquisition Officer who is examined as R.W.1 admitted that transactions in respect of land in S. Nos.57, 59 and 62 are with regard to adjacent land to the acquired land and sale deeds under Exs.A.3 to A.6 were registered in nOm1al course in the village but the lands were purchased by the villagers for construction of house. He also admitted that the Negotiation Committee authorized the Revenue Divisional Officer to fix the market value, who fixed the same at Rs.1,10,000/per acre but since it was not within the purview of the Committee, the same has not been accepted. 23. Under Ex.A.6, registered sale deed dated 3-9-1990, which is three months prior to the draft notification published in the Gazette, to an extent of Ac.1-01 1/2 guntas in S. No.62 was purchased by P.W.5 for a consideration of Rs.1,14, 125/-, which comes to Rs.1,10,000/- per acre. The land sold under EX.A.6 is adjacent to the acquired land. 23. Under Ex.A.6, registered sale deed dated 3-9-1990, which is three months prior to the draft notification published in the Gazette, to an extent of Ac.1-01 1/2 guntas in S. No.62 was purchased by P.W.5 for a consideration of Rs.1,14, 125/-, which comes to Rs.1,10,000/- per acre. The land sold under EX.A.6 is adjacent to the acquired land. Under Exs.A.3 and A.4, an extent of 600 Sq. yards each in S. No.60 was purchased by P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- each, which comes to Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. Exs.A.3 and AA are dated 8-2-1989, nearly 1 year 10 months prior to the issuance of draft notification. Sales effected under Exs.A.3, AA and A.6 are within three years prior to the issuance of 4(1) notification. Curiously, the reference Court has not taken the sale transaction effected during the year 1990 stating that sale transactions took place during the year 1987, 1988 and 1989 i.e., three years preceding to the date of Gazette Notification should be taken into consideration, which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court. 24. It is now fairly well settled that post notification sale deeds can also be taken into consideration for fixing the market value to know the upward trend provided if the said transaction is a fair transaction and not executed with an intention to escalate the prices. Exs.A.3 and A.4 sale deeds are of the year 1989 and under the said sale deeds, land was sold at Rs.1,21,000/- per acre. Even if 10% escalation is added to the value reflected in Exs.A.3 and A.4 for 2 years 11 months, it will work out to Rs.1,60,000/- on the date when the notification was last published. In the instant case, the notification was last published on 9-1-1992, therefore, the said date has to be taken into consideration for fixing the market value as held by the Apex Court in Bhutnath Chatterjee v. State of W.S., (1969) 3 SCC 675 . Even if smaller extents of lands covered under Exs.A.3 and A.4 had been taken into consideration for fixing the market value and after giving necessary deduction of 1/3rd, the market value works out to Rs.1,07,000/- per acre. Even if smaller extents of lands covered under Exs.A.3 and A.4 had been taken into consideration for fixing the market value and after giving necessary deduction of 1/3rd, the market value works out to Rs.1,07,000/- per acre. Ex.A.6 was registered in the year 1990, which is nearly one year four months before the publication of last notification, which, in our view reflects the true market value as on the date of the notification, and the same can be adopted as basis for fixing the market value. Therefore, the reasoning put forth by the reference Court for rejection of the said sale deeds is improper and cannot stand to judicial scrutiny of this Court and contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. 25. The reference Court fell in error that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken EX.B.1 sale deed as proper transaction which can be taken into account, as the evidence on record shows that it is 2 Kms away from the land sought to be acquired and the same cannot form the basis for fixation of market value. Accordingly, we fix the market value for the acquired land at Rs.1,10,000/- per acre, and the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation and also 12% additional market value on it from the date of notification to the date of taking possession or passing of award whichever is earlier. The claimant is also entitled to solatium at 30% on the market value and interest at 9% per annum for one year from the date of taking possession and thereafter at 15% per annum till the date of realization. 26. In the result, the appeal filed by the State is dismissed and the appeal by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties shall bear their own costs.