Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in LAOP.No.81 of 1990 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, dated 30.09.1993. The Government / respondent is the appellant herein. 2. For the purpose of solving the water problem at Pannapatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk, the Government had acquired 0.02.5 hectares of land in S.No.22/2A, 0.04.0 hectares of land in S.No.23/1A1 and 0.10.5 hectares of land in S.No.25/2B in Pannaipatti Village, Nilakottai Taluk. 3. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the formalities had published notification under Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act on 1. 1986 conducted an enquiry and fixed the compensation for the land acquired as Rs.6,354/- per acre ie., Rs.14,820 per hectare and has also fixed the compensation for each coconut tree at the rate of Rs.120/-. Aggrieved by the award of compensation passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the complainant had preferred objection, which was referred to by the Land Acquisition officer under Section 18 of the Act to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. 4. Before the Land Acquisition Tribunal the claimant was examined as C.W.1 and Ex.C.1-sale deed executed by one Lakshmi in favour of one Vasantha dated 22. 1990 was marked as Ex.C.1. The learned Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of the above said oral and documentary evidence had enhanced and fixed the compensation for the land acquired as Rs.120/- per cent ie., Rs.12,000/-per acre. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal, on behalf of the Government the present appeal has been preferred before this Court. 5. Now the point for determination in this appeal is Whether the award passed by the Land Acquisition Tribunal is sustainable? 6. Point:- Admittedly Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was publised in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 08.01.1986 and amended draft notification was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 13. 1986 and subsequently erratum of the draft notification was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 16.04.1986. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.C.1-sale deed dated 22. 1986 and subsequently erratum of the draft notification was also published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette on 16.04.1986. But the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.C.1-sale deed dated 22. 1990, which is four years subsequent to the publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act has enhanced and fixed the compensation for the land as Rs.120/- per cent, which is against the principles of all cannons of law as referred to in the decision in Chimanlan Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona ( AIR 1988 SC 1652 = 1988(2) SCC 751 = 1988(3) SCJ 1233). The ratio decidendi laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the above ratio runs as follows:- “While determining market value of land, the following factors have to be borne in mind- .(1) Determined as on the crucial date of publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notification under Sections 6 & 9 are irrelevant). .(2) 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. .(3) 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. .(4) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in providing the index of market value). .(5) 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. .(6) 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. .(6) 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. .(7) 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 viz-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. .(8) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. .(9) 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. The exercise indicated in clauses (1) to (10) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:- Plus factors Minus fators 1. Smallness of size. 1. Largeness of area 2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. frontage on a road 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. nearness to developed area 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition 6. 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 The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense 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 10000 sq. yds. or more. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense 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 10000 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 lay out, 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 approximately 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. 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. These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.” So under such circumstance, the enhancement of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Tribunal on the basis of Ex.C.1-sale deed, which is admittedly subsequent to the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, warrants interference from this Court. Point is answered accordingly. 7. In fine, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Land Acquisition Tribunal in LAOP.No.81 of 1990 on the file of the Court of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for retrial. The learned Trial Judge, after giving opportunities to both the parties to let in further evidence, shall dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894, within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.