JUDGMENT M. Y. Eqbal, J.These two appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 27.7.2007 passed in First Appeal No.37 of 1997(R) with First Appeal No.65 of 1997(R), whereby learned Single Judge allowed one of the appeals being F.A. No.37 of 1997 and enhanced the amount of compensation, whereas F.A. No.65 of 1997 has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: By notification dated 01.2.1982 published in Hazaribagh District Gazette under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government sought to acquire land including 3.97 acres of land of Khata No.982 of village Jhumaritelaiya P.S. Koderma for construction of Krishi Bazar Samittee. Objections were invited from the owners of the lands. The respondent in possession of 3.97 acres of land of Khata No.982 filed objection for the release of the acquired lands and in alternative, for payment of compensation @ Rs.30,000/-per katha. However, the land acquisition proceeding commenced and finally award was prepared in respect of the lands of the respondent, whereby compensation of Rs.1,95,021/-was awarded. Thereafter, at the instance of the claimants-respondents, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Special Land Acquisition Judge, Koderma in Reference Case No.779/92. The Land Acquisition Judge, taking into consideration the facts and evidence adduced by the parties and also Ext.B, the recommendation made by the Land Acquisition Officer, determined the value of the acquired lands of the respondents @ Rs.5000/-per kattha. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Land Acquisition Judge, the appellant-Market Committee filed F.A. No.65/97 and respondents-claimants filed F.A. No.37/97 for enhancement of compensation. The learned Single Judge, after re-appreciation of evidence, allowed the appeal filed by the claimants-respondents and held that the claimants-respondents are entitled to compensation @ Rs.20,000/-per decimal. Consequently, F.A. No.65/97 filed by the appellant-Market Committee has been dismissed. Hence these letters patent appeals by the appellant-market committee. 3. We have heard Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the land situates within the municipal area of Koderma Municipality. The Land Acquisition Judge also recorded a finding that the land in question is by the side of main road and is near the Railway Station, Telaiya Market and other important offices and having great commercial value. 4. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the land situates within the municipal area of Koderma Municipality. The Land Acquisition Judge also recorded a finding that the land in question is by the side of main road and is near the Railway Station, Telaiya Market and other important offices and having great commercial value. The learned Single judge, taking into consideration two sale deeds (Exts.2 and 2/A dated 30.4.81 and 10.4.81 respectively, held that claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.20,000/-per decimal. 5. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently argued that although by Exts.2 and 2/A, lands adjacent to the land in question, were sold @ Rs.20000/-per decimals, but by these sale deeds, only small pieces of lands were sold and therefore, that cannot be and shall not be the basis for determining the compensation. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly relied upon Exts.2 and 2/A and determined the valuation on the basis of these two sale deeds. 7. It is well settled that while determining the market value of the lands acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment in the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. The price which the willing vendor reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser must be taken into consideration; while at the same time, disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it, must be disregarded. Potentiality of the land is also to be considered based on materials available. It is equally well settled that while determining compensation, the Court has to take into consideration the comparable sale deed by which land adjacent to the land acquired has been sold within a reasonable time of the notification. At the same time, where large area is the subject matter of acquisition rate at which small plots are sold, cannot be said to be a safe criterion. 8. In the case of The Collector of Lakhimpur Vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta [ (1972) 4 S.C.C. 236 ], the Supreme Court observed: - “4. At the same time, where large area is the subject matter of acquisition rate at which small plots are sold, cannot be said to be a safe criterion. 8. In the case of The Collector of Lakhimpur Vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta [ (1972) 4 S.C.C. 236 ], the Supreme Court observed: - “4. In our opinion the High Court overlooked the fact that the plots which were the subject-matter of the sale deeds Exhibits 1 to 4 were comparatively of small areas and it is well known that when a large area like the one which was the subject-matter of acquisition has to be sold it cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots can be sold. It is significant that the respondent himself had originally claimed, before the Collector, compensation at the rate of Rs 10,000 per Bigha. We see no reason for the High Court awarding compensation at a rate higher than Rs 10,000 which would also be consistent with the evidence furnished by the four sale deeds. Although the average price of these sales came to Rs 15,000 per Bigha but when it is considered, as has already been observed, that they were of comparatively much smaller area they would constitute good evidence for fixing the rate at a figure which was originally claimed by the respondent, namely, Rs 10,000 per Bigha. In other words, if the plots covered by the sale had been sold in larger parcels the price likely to be fetched would not have exceeded Rs 10,000 per Bigha.” 9. In the case of Prithvi Raj Taneja (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr { (1977) 1 S.C.C. 684 ], the Supreme Court held as under: - “6. In appeal before us, Mr Andley on behalf of the appellant has argued that more than half of the land in dispute is within the municipal limits of Ashok Nagar Municipality, while the remaining land was also likely to be included within those limits shortly. It is further stated that the land in question abuts Ashok Nagar-Isagarh Road and is situated near the tehsil building and the railway station. Learned counsel has also referred to the fact that small plots of land adjoining the land in dispute were sold at rates of Rs 9 and Rs 8 per square yard during the years 1958 to 1960. Learned counsel has also referred to the fact that small plots of land adjoining the land in dispute were sold at rates of Rs 9 and Rs 8 per square yard during the years 1958 to 1960. In this respect, we find that the High Court has considered most of the above circumstances and has come to the conclusion that Rs l per square yard represents fair market value of the land in dispute. The High Court has also referred to the special circumstances under which the small plots were sold and their price was fixed. We agree with the High Court that the price paid for small plots of land cannot provide a safe criterion for determining the amount of compensation for a vast area of land. We may in this context refer to a recent judgment in the case of Padma Uppal v. State of Punjab1 wherein this Court observed that it is well settled that in determining compensation the value fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large area and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold.” 10. In the instant case, admittedly, the area of the land acquired is 3.97 acres owned by the claimant-respondent. The value of the land has been determined by the learned Single Judge on the basis of Exts.2 and 2/A. By Ext.2, only 500 sq.ft. of land was sold @ Rs.20000/-per decimal. Similarly, by Ext.2/A, only 500 sq.ft. of land was sold @ Rs.20000/-per decimal. There is no dispute that the lands sold by Exts.2 and 2/A are the lands adjacent to the land in question. But in the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, in our view, Exts.2 and 2/A cannot be the only criterion or yardstick for determining the valuation of a chunk of land measuring an area of 3.97 acres. The learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. 11. In the case of Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana [ (2008) 2 S.C.C. 568 ], the Supreme Court after discussing the issue observed:- “14. The learned Single Judge has not considered this aspect of the matter. 11. In the case of Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana [ (2008) 2 S.C.C. 568 ], the Supreme Court after discussing the issue observed:- “14. 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. 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. 15. The question to be considered is whether in the present case those factors exist which warrant a deduction by way of allowance from the price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by the parties. The land has not been acquired for a housing colony or government office or an institution. The land has been acquired for setting up a sugar factory. The factory would produce goods worth many crores in a year. A sugar factory apart from producing sugar also produces many by-products in the same process. One of the by-products is molasses, which is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no utility and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by-product begasse is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilised in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines. Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public, there is no scope for earning any money in future. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines. Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public, there is no scope for earning any money in future. An industry established on acquired land, if run efficiently, earns money or makes profit every year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of housing colony, or offices, or institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory or industry. After all the factory cannot be set up without land and if such land is giving substantial return, there is no justification for making any deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for construction of residential colony for the staff working in the factory. Nevertheless, where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods yielding good profit, it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned in various decisions of this Court are not applicable in the case under consideration.” 12. Mr. V.P. Singh further argued that the land in question is at a great distance from Koderma Railway Station and is not situated in commercial area. It is situated at a distance of about one k.m. from the market place and far away from Railway Station, school, bank, cinema hall, etc. 13. As noticed above, the claimants filed two sale deeds, Exts.2 and 2/A, in support of their case that the adjacent land was sold @ Rs.20000/-per decimal. As against the aforesaid evidence, five sale deeds have also been brought on record by the appellant which are Exts.A, A/1, A/2, A/3 and A/4. By sale deed dated 08.1.1982 (Ext.A), 3 decimal of land was sold @ Rs.750/-per decimal; by sale deed dated 12.1.1982 (Ext.A/1), 2 decimals of land was sold @ Rs.250/-per decimal. Similarly, by sale deed dated 06.2.1982 (Ext.A/2), 2 decimal of land was sold @ Rs.500/-per decimal. By sale deed dated 08.1.1982 (Ext.A), 3 decimal of land was sold @ Rs.750/-per decimal; by sale deed dated 12.1.1982 (Ext.A/1), 2 decimals of land was sold @ Rs.250/-per decimal. Similarly, by sale deed dated 06.2.1982 (Ext.A/2), 2 decimal of land was sold @ Rs.500/-per decimal. Ext.B is the true copy of order sheet which shows that the Land Acquisition Officer recommended for payment of compensation of the land acquired @ Rs.50000/-per acre i.e. Rs.500/-per decimal. 14. The question, therefore, that needs consideration in the present case is as to what should be the reasonable valuation of the land. As observed above, sale deed by which a small piece of land was sold, cannot be the conclusive evidence for the purpose of determining the valuation when other evidences are available on record. It is well settled that there cannot be any precise or specific criterion for the purpose of determining valuation. There is no yardstick by which the future can be foreseen with any greater degree of preciousness. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that when somebody is deprived of his land by compulsory acquisition, he must be paid compensation by determining the value of the land, but valuation must not be exorbitant, excessive and beyond imagination. In the instant case, after giving our conscious consideration and application of mind, we are of the view that in no case, the value of the land in question shall be more than Rs.10000/-per decimal. The valuation of the acquired land determined by the learned Single Judge @ Rs.20000/-per decimal is highly excessive and exorbitant. 15. Hence, these appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is modified by reducing the amount of compensation to Rs.10000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) per decimal for the entire acquired lands. However, in the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.