JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Satish Mandhyan for the petitioners. 2. In Writ Petition No. 19466 of 1994 Shri S.D. Kautilya and Shri M.C. Singh have appeared for respondent No. 3 and in Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2004 Shri B. Dayal appears for the claimant respondent. 3. In both the writ petitions Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, a Local Authority constituted for market area under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 for Sikandarabad Distt. Buland Shahar, and Rampur, respectively have prayed for quashing the awards given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, awarding compensation under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquisition of the land for construction of market yards. 4. In Writ Petition No. 19466 of 1994 the facts are that a notification under Section 4 read with Section 17 (1) and (4) of the Act was issued on 23.3.1992 and was published in the gazette on 28.3.1992. The notification under Section 6 was published on 30.4.1992. The possession of the acquired land measuring 7 Bigha and 13 Biswa situate in village Sanwali, Pargana and Tehsil Sikandara Distt. Buland Shahar was taken on 23.5.1992. The award was made on 30.6.1993, relying upon sale-deed at Sl.No. 54 and determining compensation of the total land at Rs. 39,01,500/- and solatium at 30% of the market value of the land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer found the market value of the land to be Rs. 5,10,000/- per bigha on which the claimants were entitled to 30% solatium at Rs. 11,70,450/-, additional compensation at Rs. 71,830.35, interest at Rs. 3,09,188.54. In this manner he gave the award for a total sum of Rs. 54,52,968.89. 5. The award has been challenged by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti/ acquiring body on the ground that the compensation has been determined on the basis of sale-deed by an interested person ignoring the sale-deeds filed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. The respondent No. 3 was aware that the land was being acquired, and therefore two months before the acquisition he purchased the land to create false evidence of the market value. The maximum price demanded by the tenure holders was Rs. 3,93,000/- per bigha, which was not accepted by the Mandi Samiti and that corrupt practices prevailed in awarding higher compensation. 6. In Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2004, the facts are that 2.45 hects. The maximum price demanded by the tenure holders was Rs. 3,93,000/- per bigha, which was not accepted by the Mandi Samiti and that corrupt practices prevailed in awarding higher compensation. 6. In Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2004, the facts are that 2.45 hects. of land equal to 24,500 sq. mtr. was acquired in village Shahbad for construction of new market yard at Shahbad for which notification under Section 4 (1)/ 17 was published on 17.1.2001, with the last date of publication as 16.3.2001 and the notification under Section 6 (1)/17 was published on 9.1.2002 with its last date of publication on 21.1.2002. The possession was taken on 4.1.2002 and the award was made on 19.1.2004. The Special Land Acquisition Officer considered 34 sale-deeds. He did not accept sale-deed Nos. 16, 21, 26 and 27 filed by the Secretary of the Mandi Samiti, Shahbad and selected sale-deed No. 20 for determining the compensation, which proved that the fair market value of the land is 428 per sq. mtr. After deducting 25% he awarded Rs. 321/- per sq. mtr. for 3366 sq. mtr. land adjoining the road and after reducing 50% from this rate awarded Rs. 160.50 for the remaining 21134 sq. mtr. of land. The total compensation was determined at Rs. 44,72,493/- on which additional compensation for houses and trees was added for Rs. 6,77,110/- and that after adding solatium at 30% under Section 23 (2) of the Act of Rs. 14,28,780/- and additional compensation at 12% at Rs. 10,30,288/-, the entire compensation payable was worked out at Rs. 76,08,671/-, on which the interest was payable under Section 34 of the Act after deducting the cost of registration at Rs. 1720/-, and the cost of acquisition of the land at Rs. 7,60,867/-. 7. 14,28,780/- and additional compensation at 12% at Rs. 10,30,288/-, the entire compensation payable was worked out at Rs. 76,08,671/-, on which the interest was payable under Section 34 of the Act after deducting the cost of registration at Rs. 1720/-, and the cost of acquisition of the land at Rs. 7,60,867/-. 7. Shri B.D. Mandhyan, learned counsel appearing for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti in both the cases submits that Section 50 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act confers the local authority for whom the land is being acquired, a right to appear in the acquisition proceedings and also in the reference Court and to adduce evidence for the purposes of determining the amount of compensation, and that since there is no right to file a reference given to the local authority under Section 18 or an appeal under Section 55 to the High Court, the local authority can avail the extraordinary remedies under Article226 of the Constitution of India for judicial review of the determination of compensation. He has relied upon U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by L.Rs. and another, AIR 1995 SC 724 , in which the majority opinion of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court recognised the rights of the acquiring body, in furtherance to the law laid down in Neelagangabai v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 1321 . 8. Shri B.D. Mandhyan submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer in both the cases has brushed aside the exempler sale-deed filed by the Secretary of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samities and has relied upon sale-deeds produced by the claimants giving excessive and fancy sale consideration. He submits that this Court has consistently held that small tracts of the land purchased, for a particular purpose may fetch fancy prices in terms of their location and the need for acquisition by the vendee, but the same basis cannot be applied to each tract of land, which are yet to be developed for public purpose. There can be no comparison with regard to value of the land covered by the sale-deeds relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officers, and the land proposed to be acquired. There can be no comparison with regard to value of the land covered by the sale-deeds relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officers, and the land proposed to be acquired. He has relied upon The Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, (1972) 4 SCC 236 ; Prithviraj Taneja v. The State of M.P. and another, (1977) 1 SCC 684 ; Smt. Ksushalya Devi Bogra and others v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another, (1984) 2 SCC 324 ; Ravindra Narain v. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 481 and Rishipal Singh and others v. Meerut Development Authority and another, 2006 (2) AWC 1597 (SC), in support of his submission that where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, the rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. 9. Shri B.D. Mandhyan further submits that the awards have been actuated with legal malafides in as much as the Special Land Acquistion Officer has brushed aside the exemplar sale-deeds produced by the Mandi Samities without giving good reasons. In Writ Petition No. 19466 of 1994 the land holders were demanding Rs. 3,93,000/- per bigha. The Khalsa Sanyukt Sahkari Kheti Samiti-respondent No. 3, very cleverly got several collusive sale-deeds executed in favour of the Sahkari Samiti inflating the price to be set up as exemplars and then colluded with the Special Land Acquisition Officer for awarding compensation at higher amount. The sale-deeds between 1989 and 1991 were executed for nearly an amount of Rs. 1 lac per bigha and that there could be no such jump in prices, to calculate the market value at Rs. 5,10,000/- per bigha. The petitioner filed sale-deed dated 4.1.1992 in respect of plot No. 362 area 12 biswa sold for Rs. 1,21,665/-. There was another sale-deed dated 27.3.1992 in respect of plot No. 459 area 9 biswa 16 biswansis with sale consideration of Rs. 2,72,000/- per bigha. Another sale-deed dated 13.3.1992 in respect of plot No. 184 measuring 6 biswa 3 biswansis for Rs. 70,000/- per bigha was on record. In the sale-deeds dated 3.3.1992 and 10.8.1992 the plots were sold at Rs. 1,35,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- per bigha. 10. In Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2004 Shri B.D. Mandhyan submits there after brushing aside the sale-deeds filed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti including the sale-deed Nos. 70,000/- per bigha was on record. In the sale-deeds dated 3.3.1992 and 10.8.1992 the plots were sold at Rs. 1,35,000/- and Rs. 90,000/- per bigha. 10. In Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2004 Shri B.D. Mandhyan submits there after brushing aside the sale-deeds filed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti including the sale-deed Nos. 26 and 27 of Khata No. 1427, 1426, 1658, 1669, 1670 and 1674 in which 2 hects. of land on 19.10.2000 was sold for Rs. 4,05,427/- at the rate of about 20 per sq. mtr., the Special Land Acquisition Officer has relied upon sale-deed No. 20 of a land adjacent to Shahbad Dhakia road of 168 sq. mtr. at Rs. 428/- per mtr. and that after giving 25% deductions he has determined the rate of the land at Rs. 321/- per sq. mtr. for 3366 sq. mtr. of land adjoining the road and Rs. 160.50 for remaining 21134 sq. mtr. of land. 11. Shri Mandhyan submits that in both the cases the Special Land Acquisition Officer has colluded with land owners to cause severe loss to the Mandi Samiti. 12. In both these writ petitions the entire compensation has been deposited, and the entire amount has been withdrawn by the claimants. 13. In U.P. Awas Evem Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Supra) the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that the acquiring body has a right to notice and to be heard before the compensation is determined. The acquiring body also has right to lead evidence. Where notice has been served on the local authority and opportunity was given to it to lead evidence, the remedy available to the local authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is available on the grounds on which judicial review is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judicial review of the quasi-judicial orders passed by the authorities invested with statutory powers, is limited to the grounds namely that the determination is malafide; prompted by extraneous considerations; made in contravention of the principles of natural justice; or any constitutional or any statutory provisions. In such judicial review the Court does not exercise appellate powers to correct mere errors of law or fact. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary but it must be exercised alongwith recognised lines and should not be arbitrary, and based only upon the discretion of the Court. In such judicial review the Court does not exercise appellate powers to correct mere errors of law or fact. The jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary but it must be exercised alongwith recognised lines and should not be arbitrary, and based only upon the discretion of the Court. The High Court does not ordinarily enter upon determination of questions, which demand elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right. The High Court is also not authorised to reappreciate the evidence and to hold otherwise than that has been held by the Government regarding sufficiency of the material or evidence to arrive at a conclusion. The High Court should be careful not to substitute its own decision and confine itself to the questions, (i) whether the decision making authority exceeded its powers; (ii) committed an error of law; (iii) committed breach of the rules of natural justice; (iv) reached an unreasonable decision; or (v) abuse its powers vide Mansukh Lal Vitthal Das Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622 . 14. In the cases at hand the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samitis were issued notices and were allowed to participate in the proceedings. The exemplar sale-deeds filed by the Mandi Samities were considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officers. He has not violated any procedure or established principles of law. The assessment of the rate of compensation is based upon the exempler sale-deeds, which were considered to find out the fair market value in accordance with the considerations under Section 23 of the Act and on the principle that fair market value of the land is based upon the price, which a willing buyer is ready to pay to the willing vendor. In Cement Corporation of India Ltd. v. Purya and others, (2004) 8 SCC 270 and Ranveer Singh v. Union of India, (2005) 12 SCC 59, it was held that the market value of a fully developed land cannot be compared with a wholly underdeveloped land although they may be adjoining or at a little distance. The sale-deed pertaining to the portion of lands, which are subject to acquisition are the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired land even the market conditions prevailing as on the date of the notification are relevant. The sale-deed pertaining to the portion of lands, which are subject to acquisition are the most relevant piece of evidence for assessing the market value of the acquired land even the market conditions prevailing as on the date of the notification are relevant. The sale of small piece of land cannot be basis of determination and that isolated sale-deed showing a very high price should not be made the sole basis for determination of the market value. In Kanta Devi and others v. State of Haryana and another, (2008) 15 SCC 201 , it was held that the 70% deduction towards development charges to make land suitable for purposes for which the land was acquired is on the higher side. The Court found the deductions of 60% to be reasonable in the said case. 15. In Writ Petition No. 19466 of 1994 the Special Land Acquisition Officer found that the notification under Section 4 (1) was made on 23.3.1992. The exemplar sale-deed No. 1 to 37 related to the period 1989-90 to 1990-91, which was more than two years prior to the acquisition. There was considerable increase in price of land after 1990-91. The sale-deed No. 38 and 39 were executed in the year 1992, and that 18 sale-deeds related to the same land, which was acquired. If the sale-deed relates to the same land, which was acquired, he could rely upon the sale-deeds of the land, which was acquired for finding out correct market value and that according to this sale-deeds the rate of land was between Rs. 4 lacs to Rs. 6 lacs per bigha. Out of these 9 sale-deeds were executed on the same day on 30.1.1992 at Rs. 5,10,000/- per bigha; and 8 others on different dates. The sale-deed No. 54 was of the largest area of land, in which land was also same quality namely ‘jangal avval aavi’. The Special Land Acquisition Officer found it safe to rely upon the sale-deed for determining the market value at Rs. 5,10,000/-. The objections of Shri B.D. Mandhyan that sale-deed was collusive and did not give the correct value of the land is not based on any material produced on record. The Mandi Samiti itself submitted that prior to the acquisition the farmers had demanded Rs. 3,93,000/- per bigha, which is not much below the compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Mandi Samiti itself submitted that prior to the acquisition the farmers had demanded Rs. 3,93,000/- per bigha, which is not much below the compensation fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. We do not find that the rate fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, was arbitrary, highly excessive or fanciful or that he had no basis to determine the market value of the land. 16. In Writ Petition No. 17819 of 2004 the exemplar sale-deed filed by the Mandi Samiti were considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The sale-deed No. 16 and 21 were of the land, which was far away from the acquired land and that sale-deed No. 26 related to 20 mtrs. of land at the rate of Rs. 1000/- per sq. mtr. and other sale-deed was in respect of same gata No. 1426 of 2 hectare at Rs. 4,05,427/- at the rate of Rs. 20 per sq. mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer found that it was clear from such a low rate that Shri Krishna Gopal, the purchaser had executed the sale-deed to evade stamp duty and income tax and that the sale consideration was not realistic. He relied upon the other sale-deeds and has found sale-deed No. 20 to be best exemplar of the sale-deed of the land adjacent to road. By this sale-deed 168 sq. mtr. of land without any construction was sold at the rate of Rs. 428/- per sq. mtr. While accepting this sale-deed the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not accept the sale-deed No. 3 of 20 sq. mtr. of land at Rs. 1000/- per sq. mtr. and sale-deed No. 18 of 79.42 sq. mtr. of land at Rs. 1259/- per sq. mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has thereafter deducted 25% and has accepted Rs. 321/- per sq. mtr. for 336 sq. mtr. and by deducting another 50% he has fixed the rate of the remaining 21134 sq. mtrs. at Rs. 160.50 sq. mtr. 17. We cannot say that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has acted arbitrarily or has fixed highly excessive and fanciful rates. He has considered all the sale-deeds and given good and valid reasons to accept the sale-deed No. 20 to be the best exempler for fixing market value and has thereafter made adequate deductions. 18. In both the writ petitions the compensation has been deposited and has been paid to the claimants. 19. He has considered all the sale-deeds and given good and valid reasons to accept the sale-deed No. 20 to be the best exempler for fixing market value and has thereafter made adequate deductions. 18. In both the writ petitions the compensation has been deposited and has been paid to the claimants. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any good ground to interfere. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. ————