Judgment :- Common Judgment: (K.K. Sasidharan, J.) 1. These two first appeals are directed against the common order dated 14.09.1995 in LAOP Nos.14/1992 and 29/1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Salem, whereby, the learned Subordinate Judge fixed the market value of the acquired property at Rs.6 per sq.ft. Factual matrix :- 2. The Government of Tamil Nadu have issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act on 05.01.1983 acquiring an extent of 29.40 acres of property situated in the village of Thiruchengode for the residential project of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. After complying with the statutory requirements, the Special Tahsildar, Land Acquisition Neighbourhood Scheme, Namakkal passed an award on 18.09.1986 fixing the market value of the property at Rs.17,077 per acre for un-irrigated land and Rs.14,000/- for manvari dry lands. The award was not acceptable to the land owners and as such, they have prayed for reference to the Civil Court as provided under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984. Accordingly, reference was made to the Civil Court in L.A.O.P.No.14/1992 and 29/1992. The claimants have prayed for compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.ft. 3. During the course of proceedings, on the side of the claimants, CW-1 to CW-5 were examined and Ex.C-1 to C-8 were marked. RW-1 was examined on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer and Exs.R-1 to R-7 were marked. 4. The Reference Court found that the property in Exs.C-1 and C-2 dated 10.06.1992 and 23.09.1982 were situated very near to the property acquired and the sale of the said property was also few months prior to issuance of Sec.4(1) notification. As per Exs.C-1 and C-2, sale price was Rs.10/- per sq.ft. Ex.C-1 property was having an area of 4118 sq.ft. and similarly, Ex.C-2 property was also having lesser extent and both the properties were sold as house sites. Reference Court also found that in the very same village, there was an earlier acquisition as per Sec.4(1) notification issued in the year 1978, which culminated in passing an award by the Reference Court in LAOP No.56/1979 on 12.09.1985 fixing the land value at Rs.1.75 per sq.ft. The said award was marked as Ex.C-4 and the property involved in the said award was also a house site. The said award was marked as Ex.C-4 and the property involved in the said award was also a house site. The Reference Court also found from the topo sketch marked as Ex.R-3 (A) that the property covered by the data sale deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the market value was situated far away from the property, but on the other hand, the property in Exs.C-1 and C-2 were nearer to the acquired property and accordingly, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the sale value as reflected in Exs.C-1 and C-2 shows the prevailing market rate as on the date of Sec.4(1) notification and accordingly, Rs.10 per sq.ft was taken as the land value. The Reference Court was also of the opinion that certain deductions have to be made for the purpose of development and accordingly, 40% was given towards deduction and a sum of Rs.6 per sq.ft was fixed as the market value of the property acquired. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Reference Court, the Land Acquisition Officer has come up with the first appeals. .Submission of the appellants:- .6. Thiru. V. Ravi, learned Special Government Pleader contended that the basis adopted by the Reference Court for arriving at the market value was against the well established principles governing the determination of land value. According to him, in the face of the data sale deeds produced by the State as well as the earlier award in respect of the property in the very same village, the Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation on the basis of two documents registered only few months before the issue of Sec.4(1) notification. According to the learned Government Pleader, the Reference Court should have allowed deduction of at least 50% towards development charges and a further deduction should have been given on account of smallness of the plot, the value of which was taken as the basis for determination of compensation. .Submission of the Housing Board:- 7. Thiru. According to the learned Government Pleader, the Reference Court should have allowed deduction of at least 50% towards development charges and a further deduction should have been given on account of smallness of the plot, the value of which was taken as the basis for determination of compensation. .Submission of the Housing Board:- 7. Thiru. K. Chelladurai, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, beneficiary of the land acquisition, contended that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer reflected the market rate prevailing in the locality and while determining the compensation, various factors have been taken into consideration by the Land Acquisition Officer and disregarding the said award, the Reference Court refixed the compensation on the basis of two documents of dissimilar lands. According to the learned counsel, in the event of taking the value as shown in Exs.C-1 and C-2 as the prevailing market rate in the area, suitable deduction must have been given by the Reference Court towards development charges as well as on account of smaller extent covered by those documents when compared to the larger extent of property acquired. It was further contended that the deduction given by the Reference Court was not at the rate indicated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various judgments. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Housing Board placed reliance on the following Judgments:- 2005(4) SCC 789 ; 2005(4) CTC 762 and; 1996(9) SCC 640 Submission of the claimants:- 9. Tvl.B. Kumarasami, M.S. Palanisami and P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the acquired property is situated just abetting Thiruchengode-Melur main road and is also within the municipal limits. According to the learned counsel, it was a well developed area and in and around the property acquired, there are large number of industries as well as spinning mills and in the said area property was sold as house sites at the rate of Rs.10 to Rs.20 per sq.ft. According to the learned counsel, the acquired property is a well developed property with high potential and as such, there was no need for any kind of deduction. According to the learned counsel, the acquired property is a well developed property with high potential and as such, there was no need for any kind of deduction. The property was acquired for putting up residential houses by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and it was only after satisfying that the property was fit for construction of residential houses that necessary steps were taken for acquisition and as such, there was no justification for deduction on account of development charges. Determination of compensation – Guiding principles:- 10. While fixing market value, the Land Acquisition Officer has to consider various factors. The purpose for which the property was acquired, the nature of the property acquired, its locational advantages, presence of roads, electricity, educational institutions, hospitals and other infra-structural facilities available in the area are all relevant for the purpose of arriving at the just compensation. 11. The Honourable Supreme Court in Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2001) 7 SCC 650 ) indicated the importance of comparable sales method of valuation for determining market value thus:- "3. It is no doubt true that courts adopt comparable sales method of valuation of land while fixing the market value of the acquired land. 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. Comparable sales method of valuation is preferred because it furnishes the evidence for determination of the market value of the acquired land at which a willing purchaser would pay for the acquired land if it had been sold in the open market at the time of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. However, comparable sales method of valuation of land for fixing the market value of the acquired land is not always conclusive. There are certain factors which are required to be fulfilled and on fulfilment of those factors the compensation can be awarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. The factors laid down inter alia are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, (2) that the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, (3) that the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, (4) that the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and (5) that the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired. If all these factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why the sale value of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquired land. However, if there is a dissimilarity in regard to locality, shape, site or nature of land between land covered by sales and land acquired, it is open to the court to proportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than what is reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attached with the acquired land. 12. The positive as well as negative factors to be taken into consideration for arriving at the correct market value was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 ), wherein it was held thus: "18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. Market value is ordinarilythe price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. 19. Market value is ordinarilythe price the property may fetch in the open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered. 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under: Positive factors Negative factors .(i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area .(ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth .(iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up .(v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality .(vi) level vis-à-vis land under (vi) some special disadvantageous acquisition factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage 21. Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price." 13. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 = 2007 (14) Scale 109 ), the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the position that in considering the market value, the guiding star would be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor and willing purchaser and not an anxious dealing at arms length. 14. In Special Dy. Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, (1997) 6 SCC 41 ), the Honble Supreme Court also considered the best evidence for fixing the market value thus:- "8. 14. In Special Dy. Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, (1997) 6 SCC 41 ), the Honble Supreme Court also considered the best evidence for fixing the market value thus:- "8. The best evidence of the value of property are the sale transactions in respect of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party; the time at which the property comes to be sold; the purpose for which it is sold; nature of the consideration; and the manner in which the transaction came to be brought out. They are all relevant factors. In the absence of such a sale deed relating to the acquired land, the sale transactions relating to the neighbouring lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. In that case, the features required to be present are: it must be within a reasonable time of the date of the notification; it must be a bona fide transaction; it should be a sale of land similar to the land acquired or land adjacent to the land acquired; and it should possess similar advantageous features. These are relevant features to be taken into consideration to prove the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act." Documents of Transaction relating to the Adjacent land- Relevancy:- 15. In ONGC Ltd. v. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel, (2005) 6 SCC 454 = JT 2005(7) SC 465, the Honourable Supreme Court referred to the importance of instances of sale in respect of similar lands in the locality thus:- "15. Instances of sale in respect of the similar land situated in the same village and/or neighbouring villages should have been taken as guiding factors by the Reference Judge as also by the High Court. In the absence of any better evidence, the Reference Judge as also the High Court could have made addition in the sale prices for the land as evidenced by the said deeds of sale. Potentiality:- 16. In Pattammal v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 63 = 2005(9) Scale 182 ), the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the reduction made by the High Court in respect of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for acquiring about 9 hectares of property in Keezhaveli Village of Karaikal in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Potentiality:- 16. In Pattammal v. Union of India, (2005) 13 SCC 63 = 2005(9) Scale 182 ), the issue before the Supreme Court was regarding the reduction made by the High Court in respect of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for acquiring about 9 hectares of property in Keezhaveli Village of Karaikal in the Union Territory of Pondicherry. The Honourable Supreme Court found that the Reference Court had taken into consideration the positive factors in determining the compensation and while restoring the award of the Reference Court, observed thus: "35. In our view, the Reference Court had adopted the correct procedure upon examination of the location and potential value of the acquired lands in its detailed award, as also the contemporaneous sale deeds which indicated that there had been a steep escalation of the price of lands in the immediate vicinity of the acquired lands, which fact had also been admitted by the Land Acquisition Officer." Guess work:- 17. In Special Dy. Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, (1997) 6, the Honble Supreme Court while considering the bounden duty of the Court to evaluate the evidence on the basis of human conduct, indicated that for the purpose of arriving at the reasonable market value of the property, some amount of guess work is permissible. 18. In The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., ( 2008 (11) Scale 637 ), Honble Supreme Court gave an illustration of the increase in the market value and the percentage of increase to be made and the method of calculation of the increase thus:- Calculation of increase in market value - whether cumulative or flat rate:- "15. The increase in market value is calculated with reference to the market value during the immediate preceding year. When market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction, which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase. As the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous years market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. As the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous years market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. The difference between the two methods is shown by the following illustration (with reference to a 10% increase over a basic price of Rs.10/- per sq.m): Year By flat rate By cumulative increase method increase method 1987 10.00 10.00 (Base Year) 1988 10 + 1=11.00 10.00 + 1.00 = 11.00 1989 11 + 1=12.00 11.00 + 1.10 = 12.10 1990 12 + 1=13.00 12.10 + 1.21 = 13.31 1991 13 + 1=14.00 13.31 + 1.33 = 14.64 1992 14 + 1=15.00 14.64 + 1.46 = 16.10 "16. We may also point out that application of a flat rate will lead to anomalous results. This may be demonstrated with further reference to the above illustration. In regard to the sale transaction in 1987, where the price was Rs.10 per sq.m, if the annual increase to be applied is a flat rate of 10%, the increase will be Rs.1 per annum during each of the five years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is to be determined with reference to sale transaction of the year 1989 when the price was Rs.12 per sq.m, the flat rate increase will be Rs.1.20 per annum, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is determined with reference to a sale transaction of the year 1990 when the price was Rs.13 per sq.m, then the flat rate increase will be Rs.1.30 per annum for the years 1991 and 1992. It will thus be seen that even if the percentage of increase is constant, the application of a flat rate leads to different amounts being added depending upon the market value in the base year. On the other hand, the cumulative rate method will lead to consistency and more realistic results. Whether the base price is Rs.10/- or Rs.12/10 or Rs.13/31, the increase will lead to the same result. The logical, practical and appropriate method is therefore to apply the increase cumulatively and not at a flat rate." Guideline rate – irrelevant:- 19. On the other hand, the cumulative rate method will lead to consistency and more realistic results. Whether the base price is Rs.10/- or Rs.12/10 or Rs.13/31, the increase will lead to the same result. The logical, practical and appropriate method is therefore to apply the increase cumulatively and not at a flat rate." Guideline rate – irrelevant:- 19. The learned Counsel for the claimants contended that even in the Sale Deed marked on the side of the appellant as Ex.R-5 before the Reference Court, the market value of the property was shown as Rs.10 per sq.ft. on the basis of the guideline rate and as such, the said guideline rate was also an indication of the prevailing market value in the area. 20. It is trite that guideline register is maintained by the Revenue Department only for the purpose of collection of stamp duty and the said rate has nothing to do with the market rate. The Government is primarily concerned about the collection of revenue and it is only for the purpose of preventing under-valuation of documents that the Government periodically reviews the guideline rate and no reliance could be placed on such guideline rate for the purpose of fixing the market value of the property. Similarly, the Collector also cannot make an award on the basis of guideline rate and in case award is only on the basis of guideline rate, the value shown in such award cannot be termed as "market value". 21. The Honble Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini, (1995) 1 SCC 717 ), considered the evidentiary value of the entries in the basic value register and held thus:- "6. The admissibility and evidentiary value of the entries in the basic value register was considered by this Court in Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer. After an elaborate consideration this Court held that the basic value register is maintained only for fiscal purpose of collecting stamp duty and registration charges. The market value mentioned therein cannot form a foundation to determine the compensation under Section 23(1) of the Act. It is settled law that the market value should be determined on the hypothesis of the price fetched in the bona fide sale by a willing vendor who would agree to sell the lands to a willing vendee of the acquired land or the land in the neighbourhood possessed of similar features. It is settled law that the market value should be determined on the hypothesis of the price fetched in the bona fide sale by a willing vendor who would agree to sell the lands to a willing vendee of the acquired land or the land in the neighbourhood possessed of similar features. The notification under Section 47-A which is meant to be a guide for collection of revenue cannot form the basis for determination of market value of the land under Section 23(1) of the Act. 22. In R. Sai Bharathi v. J.Jayalalitha, (2004) 2 SCC 9 ),, the legal position was reiterated thus:- "22. The guideline value has relevance only in the context of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (as amended by T.N. Act 24 of 1967) which provides for dealing with instruments of conveyance which are undervalued. The guideline value is a rate fixed by authorities under the Stamp Act for purposes of determining the true market value of the property disclosed in an instrument requiring payment of stamp duty. Thus the guideline value fixed is not final but only a prima facie rate prevailing in an area. It is open to the registering authority as well as the person seeking registration to prove the actual market value of property. The authorities cannot regard the guideline valuation as the last word on the subject of market value. 24. This scheme of the enactment and the Rules contemplate that guideline value will only afford a prima facie basis to ascertain the true or correct market value, undue emphasis on the guideline value without reference to the setting in which it is to be viewed will obscure the issue for consideration. It is clear, therefore, that guideline value is not sacrosanct as urged on behalf of the appellants, but only a factor to be taken note of, if at all available in respect of an area in which the property transferred lies. In any event, therefore, if for the purpose of the Stamp Act guideline value alone is not a factor to determine the value of property, its worth will not be any higher in the context of assessing the true market value of properties in question to ascertain whether the transaction has resulted in any offence so as to give a pecuniary advantage to one party or the other. Deduction towards Development charges:- 23. Deduction towards Development charges:- 23. While fixing the market value, it is permissible for the Land Acquisition Officer to give necessary deduction towards development charges. While giving such deduction, the Land Acquisition Officer must record reasons about the disadvantage of the land acquired and the purpose for which the land was sought to be acquired as well as percentage of land necessary for providing developments like provision of roads, electricity, water and sewerage and other facilities. The extent of deduction cannot be put in a straitjacket formula and it varies from case to case. The Hon’ble Supreme court had time and again indicated the factors to be considered by the Land Acquisition Officer for making deduction towards development charges as well as percentage of deduction. Such deduction is also not automatic unless there is a factual finding that such deduction was absolutely necessary in the facts of the case by taking into consideration the ground situation. In case the property has already been developed, there would be no requirement of deduction towards development. 24. In Naganath (dead) by Lrs. v. Asst. Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., (2008(13) Scale 202), the Honourable Supreme Court observed that the trend of the various Judgments of the Supreme Court indicates deduction on account of development charges in the range of 1/6th to 33% and with regard to comparable sales instances, it was observed thus:- "5. Secondly, as regards the comparable sale instance, we are of the view that Ex.P-16 is a plot almost adjoining the subject land. It is a relevant piece of evidence which the High Court ought to have taken into consideration particularly when Ex.P-15 refers to a plot of land which is away from subject land by about 3 km." 25. The Honble Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 , (cited supra) referred to an earlier decision relating to deduction towards development charges, in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tehsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, ( 1991 (4) SCC 506 ), wherein it was held thus:- “In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of the larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. However, in applying this principle of deduction it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and situated in an advantageous position suitable for building purposes and have all amenities such as roads, drainage, electricity, communications, etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. In the present cases the lands covered by the acquisition are located by the side of the National Highway and the Southern Railway Staff Quarters with the Town Planning Trust Road on the north. The neighbouring areas are already developed ones and houses have been constructed, and the land has potential value for being used as building sites. Having found that the land is to be valued only as building sites and having stated the advantageous position in which the land in question lies though forming part of the larger area, the High Court should not have applied the principles of deduction. It is not in every case that such deduction is to be allowed. Therefore, the High Court erred in making a deduction of one-third of the value of the comparable sale and thus reducing the fair market value of land from Rs.10 per sq yd to Rs.6.50 per sq yd.” 26. In Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 ), the Honble Supreme Court also placed reliance on the Judgment in Kasthuri vs. State of Haryana, ( 2003 (1) SCC 354 ) and indicated the percentage of deduction towards development charges thus:- "10. Shri Varma has also referred to Kasturi v. State of Haryana wherein it was observed that in cases of those lands where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the development charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards development charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards development charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. Therefore, in this case taking into consideration the potentiality of the acquired land for construction of residential and commercial buildings, the deduction made was only 20%. 27. In Naganath (dead) by Lrs. v. Asst. Commissioner & Land Acquisition Officer and Anr., (2008(13) Scale 202), cited supra, the Honble Supreme Court indicated the percentage of deduction towards development charges thus: "4. We find merit in the Civil Appeal on the above three grounds. Firstly, we are of the view that deduction of 53% towards development charges is on the higher side. No reason has been given for applying the rate of 53% towards development charges. Generally, the trend of the various judgments of this Court indicates deduction in the range of 1/6th to 33%. In this case, the High Court has deducted the charges at 53% which, in our view, appears to be excessive." Documents relating to smaller extent – deduction 28. While fixing the market rate, very often, documents of similar extent would be taken as the basis. The normal rule in fixing compensation for large extent of land with reference to the value shown in the sale document of lesser extent is that there must be suitable deduction. It is common knowledge that larger extent of property invariably fetch less when compared to smaller extent. No prudent buyer would buy larger extent of land by quoting the price prevailing in the market for a small piece of land. While determining compensation, the documents relating to distress sale or documents evidencing payment of fancy price have no relevance. Similarly, while assessing the market value, the Reference Court could also consider the previous award of the Collector or Reference Court in respect of lands situated in the nearby area. 29. The Honble Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 ), by placing reliance on some of the earlier Judgments regarding deduction in the case of smaller extent when compared to the larger extent acquired, explained the legal position thus:- "11. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer it was held as follows: “4. The Honble Supreme Court in Atma Singh v. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 ), by placing reliance on some of the earlier Judgments regarding deduction in the case of smaller extent when compared to the larger extent acquired, explained the legal position thus:- "11. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer it was held as follows: “4. (15) … 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 approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent 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.” 12. Shri Dwivedi has also referred to Basant Kumar v. Union of India, K. Vasundara Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO) and H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi. In the first cited case, land was acquired for planned development of Delhi and in the other two cases for housing boards and a deduction of 33% was applied. 13. The reasons given for the principle that price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land, according to cases referred to above, are that substantial area is used for development of sites like laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and other civic amenities. Expenses are also incurred in providing these basic amenities. That apart it takes considerable period in carving out the roads making sewers and drains and waiting for the purchasers. Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period of time. Expenses are also incurred in providing these basic amenities. That apart it takes considerable period in carving out the roads making sewers and drains and waiting for the purchasers. Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period of time. In order to make up for the area of land, which is used in providing civic amenities and the waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon the facts of each case, is made. Statutory benefits:- 30. The Honble Supreme Court in The General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., ( 2008 (11) Scale 637 ), reiterated the legal position with regard to payment of statutory benefits thus: "19. Subsequent to the decision of the High Court, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Sunder v. Union of India [ 2001 (7) SCC 211 ], held that the `amount awarded for the purpose of interest will include not only the market value but also the additional amount under section 23(1A) and solatium under section 23(2) of the Act. In Patel Joitaram Kalidas & Ors. V. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. LAO ( 2007 (2) SCC 341 ), this Court held that the calculation of interest on the additional amount under section 23 (1A) and 23(2) is automatic and consequential, even in the absence of any specific ppeal by the claimants in respect of non-grant of such interest." Determination of compensation in the subject case:- 31. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the compensation at Rs.17,077/- per acre for the irrigated dry land and a sum of Rs.14,000/-was given as compensation for the manwari dry lands. For the purpose of fixing the market value, document no.137 as found in Sl.No.24 was taken as the basis. The Land Acquisition Officer collected 598 sales effected in the village during three years prior to issuance of Sec.4(1) notification and more particularly for the period from 05.01.1980 to 04.01.1983. The document in respect of property in S.No.222/6, 222/8 and 222/9 as found in Document No.263 dated 15.02.1982 as well as S.No.221/15 found in document no.137 dated 15.02.1982 were taken as the data lands and accordingly, the value reflected in those documents were taken as the market value. 32. The document in respect of property in S.No.222/6, 222/8 and 222/9 as found in Document No.263 dated 15.02.1982 as well as S.No.221/15 found in document no.137 dated 15.02.1982 were taken as the data lands and accordingly, the value reflected in those documents were taken as the market value. 32. The claimants have exhibited two documents before the Reference Court marked as Ex.C-1 dated 10.06.1982 and Ex-C-2 dated 23.09.1982. The property in Ex.C-1 is in S.No.207/1 and the property in Ex.C-2 is situated in S.No.312/1 and both these plots are in the very same village. We have perused the topo sketch of the property and confirmed the fact that the property in Ex.C-1 is adjacent to the acquired property. The property covered by the Sale Deed relied on by the Land Acquisition Officer is situated far away from the acquired property and the same is also evident from the topo sketch. The property in Ex.C-2 is also situated away from the acquired property, but when compared to the data sale deed, Ex.C-2 property is nearer to the acquired portion. There was no serious challenge to the genuineness of the sale in Exs.C-1 and C-2. No evidence was adduced on the part of the Collector to prove that those Sale Deeds were created only for claiming compensation at a higher rate, as they were aware of the proposal for land acquisition. 33. It is also found from the topo sketch that there are locational advantages for the acquired property. Since the property in Ex.C-1 is situated very near to the acquired property, the Reference Court was justified in relying on the said document for the purpose of fixing market value. The data Sale Deed which is in respect of the property in S.No.220 and 222 (Doc.No.137/82 and 263/82) are situated on the other side of the road. When there are documents registered in the locality prior to Sec.4(1) notification, such documents should have been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and in case he was of the opinion that the value as shown in such documents does not reflect the prevailing market value, such reasons could have been indicated in the award. 34. When there are documents registered in the locality prior to Sec.4(1) notification, such documents should have been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and in case he was of the opinion that the value as shown in such documents does not reflect the prevailing market value, such reasons could have been indicated in the award. 34. The adjacent property in S.No.56/79 was acquired by the Government as per Sec.4 (1) notification issued in the year 1978 and on reference to the civil court, the land value was re-fixed at Rs.1.75 per sq.ft as per order dated 12.09.1985 in L.A.O.P.No.56/79 marked as Ex.C-4. Since the property in Ex.C-4 like the acquired property is situated in municipal area, the possibility of increase in the sale value every year would be in the range of 15-20% as indicated in various Judgments of the Supreme Court and even if 15% increase per year is taken as the basis, the value arrived at Rs.1.75 per sq.ft in the year 1978 would be increased by about Rs.3.05 per sq.ft in the year 1983. 35. From the details furnished in the topo sketch marked as Ex.R-3, we are convinced that the land taken as data land for arriving at the market value is a dissimilar land. Therefore, no reliance could be placed on the sale deed pertaining to the data land to arrive at the market value and as such, the reference court was justified in rejecting the sale deed relating to the data land. 36. The land covered by Ex.C-1 is situated just adjacent to the acquired property and as such, the value as shown in the said sale deed could be taken as the basis for fixing the compensation. The Reference Court had recorded reasons for accepting the documents in Ex.C-1 and C-2 and for rejecting the data sale produced on the side of the Land Acquisition Officer. In fact, the locational advantages of the acquired property and its suitability for putting up residential building was admitted even by the witness examined on the side of the appellant. No contrary evidence showing any negative factor of the acquired property was produced before the Reference Court by the State as well as by the requisitioning Department. In fact, the locational advantages of the acquired property and its suitability for putting up residential building was admitted even by the witness examined on the side of the appellant. No contrary evidence showing any negative factor of the acquired property was produced before the Reference Court by the State as well as by the requisitioning Department. Therefore, the Reference Court had rightly relied on the document in Ex.C-1 for the purpose of fixing the market value and we do not find any reason to disagree with the findings rendered by the Reference Court. In view of the similarity of the acquired land and the property in Ex.C-1, we are of the considered opinion that the sale price as shown in Ex.C-1 could be taken as the basis for fixing the land value. 37. The Reference Court on the basis of available materials as well as on a consideration of the topo sketch found that the acquired property is situated in a highly developed area surrounded by road and the site is suitable for construction of residential houses. Therefore, by taking into account the locational advantages, the Reference Court fixed the value at Rs.10 per sq.ft. The Reference Court also gave a deduction of 40% and fixed the market value at Rs.6 per sq.ft. 38. Even though the Reference Court was justified in taking the value of property as shown in Ex.C-1 as the market value, no deduction was made on account of lesser extent. The area of the property in Ex.C-1 is only 4118 sq.ft., but however, the property acquired was a large extent of 29.40 acres. Therefore, we are of the opinion that while fixing the value of the property at Rs.10/-, necessary deduction should be made towards development charges as well as on account of smaller extent. On an overall consideration of the matter, we fix the deduction towards development charges at 30% and a deduction of 20% is given on account of the smaller extent of property in Ex.C-1, when compared to the large extent of property acquired as per sec.4(1) notification dated 05.01.1983. Accordingly, we fix the market value at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. 39. We accordingly allow these two appeals in part by refixing the market value at Rs.5 per sq.ft. The claimants are also entitled to the benefits as per law and as indicated in paragraph 30 of this Judgment. Accordingly, we fix the market value at Rs.5/- per sq.ft. 39. We accordingly allow these two appeals in part by refixing the market value at Rs.5 per sq.ft. The claimants are also entitled to the benefits as per law and as indicated in paragraph 30 of this Judgment. The learned Special Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the Housing Board are entitled to separate fees for each of the first appeals. No costs. To Conclude:-