Judgment K.M. Thaker, J.—By way of the captioned appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “the Code”] the appellants have brought under challenge a common judgment and award dated 31.1.1997 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Nadiad in Land Reference Case Nos.106/1987 and other accompanying reference cases. The said land reference cases arose from award dated 22.9.1986 rendered by the Land Acquisition Officer [hereinafter referred to as “LAO”] in respect of the acquired lands situate in Mahemdabad town. 2. By the impugned award dated 31.1.1997, the Reference Court has granted additional compensation, by adopting belting method, as done by LAO, making division of the lands into 4 different categories viz. Block-A, Block-B, Block-C and Block-D, at the rate of Rs. 9396 per Bigha (Rs. 4.00 per sq. mt.) for Block-A, Rs. 8809 per Bigha (Rs. 3.75 per sq. mt.) in respect of Block-B whereas for Block-C and Block-D additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 8221 per Bigha (Rs. 3.50 per sq. mt.) and Rs. 7634 per Bigha (Rs. 3.25 per sq. mt.) respectively, is determined. The appellants, feeling dissatisfied and upon being aggrieved by the rate for additional compensation in the impugned award, have preferred present appeals. The appellants are the original claimants/land owners, who demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. mt. 3. The lands in question came to be acquired at the behest of the Chief Executive Officer, Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority [hereinafrer referred to as “AUDA” or “Acquiring Body”] who made the proposal to acquire the agricultural and non-agricultural lands of village Mahemdavad for the public purpose of construction of “Growth Centre”. After scrutiny of the proposal, the State Government was satisfied about the purpose and the requirement and consequently, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the gazette on 4.6.1981. The appellants were served with the prescribed notices and in turn they filed their respective objections against the proposed acquisition before the LAO. The other prescribed procedures under Sections 4 and 5 were also duly followed and thereafter, the declaration Notification as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette on 23.5.1984. The appellants were served with the prescribed notices and in turn they filed their respective objections against the proposed acquisition before the LAO. The other prescribed procedures under Sections 4 and 5 were also duly followed and thereafter, the declaration Notification as contemplated under Section 6 of the Act was published in the gazette on 23.5.1984. 3.1 On the basis of the available details, the LAO made the award dated 22.9.1986 fixing the market value of the different categories of the lands at Rs. 170 per Are for Block-A, Rs. 155 per Are for Block-B and for Block-C and D, he determined Rs. 100 per Are and Rs. 120 per Are respectively. With regard to the Kharaba land in respect of all 4 categories, the LAO fixed the rate at Rs. 1 per Are. The LAO also awarded compensation for certain existing constructions, as well as wells and trees, as per the details mentioned in the award. 4. The appellants were dissatisfied with the award and therefore they demanded that reference be made to the Court under Section 18 of the Act. Hence, the competent authority made reference which culminated into Land Reference Case Nos.106/1987 and allied cases. Before the Reference Court, the appellants-claimants demanded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq mt. As mentioned earlier, the Reference Court, after taking into account the evidence obtaining on the record, granted additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 4.00 per sq. mt., Rs. 3.75 per sq. mt., Rs. 3.50 per sq. mt. and Rs. 3.25 per sq. mt. for Block-A, B, C and D respectively. The appellants were not satisfied with the award of the Reference Court. Hence, appeals being First Appeal No.840/1998 and other cognate appeals were filed in this Court. By judgment dated 15.3.1999, this Court partly allowed the appeals and enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs. 15 per sq. mt. for agricultural lands and Rs. 19 per sq. mt. for non-agricultural lands. This Court also considered it proper to do away with the belting system adopted by the Reference Court. For the Kharaba land, the Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per sq. mt and the deduction at the rate of 5% towards government share, as granted by the Reference Court, was set aside by this Court. This Court also considered it proper to do away with the belting system adopted by the Reference Court. For the Kharaba land, the Court granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per sq. mt and the deduction at the rate of 5% towards government share, as granted by the Reference Court, was set aside by this Court. The opponent/acquiring body felt aggrieved by the said judgment of this Court and carried the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of S.L.P.Nos.6716/2002 to 6753/2002. The Apex Court, by order dated 10.10.2002 allowed the S.L.Ps. and remanded the matters to this Court. 5. Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate, and Mr. Nitin Amin, learned advocate, have appeared for the appellants, Mr. Nikunt Raval, learned AGP, has appeared for the State Government and Mr. P.R.Nanavati has appeared for the acquiring body. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 6. It emerges from the record that the appellants examined witnesses viz. Mr. Pradhuman Khamar, Mr. Jayantibhai Dahyabhai, Mr. Mohmad husein Malek, Mr. Shirajuddin Smalek and Mr. Majumiya Malek, and Mr. Bhikhubhai Rami, a government approved valuer, as one of the witness. Besides the above referred witnesses, the appellants also examined Mr. G.R. Vora, Mr. R.K. Patel, Mr. Paulbhai, Mr. H.A. Raval, Mr. Davidbhai, Mr. Danabhai, Mr. Rafiyuddin Malek and Mr. Kiritbhai. While on behalf of the opponents Mr. Navinchandra, Mr. Udasing and Mr. Amrutbhai were examined. Both sides produced on record diverse documents e.g. copy of 7/12 form, sale instances and certain orders made by the Collector determining the price/premium while allotting the lands. 7. During evidence, the appellants asserted that the lands in question of Mahemdabad town possessed high potential value for commercial and/or industrial use as well as for residential purpose. The claimants also stated that the Mahemdabad town is only at a distance of 20 kms. from the Ahmedabad city and that it is also a commercially developed town enjoying facilities like schools, banks, various government offices, well developed housing colonies, dispensaries, hospitals, etc. and also has well laid facilities of roads, electricity, telephone, water supply and commercially/ industrially developed surroundings. from the Ahmedabad city and that it is also a commercially developed town enjoying facilities like schools, banks, various government offices, well developed housing colonies, dispensaries, hospitals, etc. and also has well laid facilities of roads, electricity, telephone, water supply and commercially/ industrially developed surroundings. 7.1 The appellants also claimed that apart from such potential for commercial or industrial use, even otherwise, the lands in question were very fertile and the appellants used to have good agricultural income as they were able to reap three crops in a year and they had installed electric motors, pump sets etc. and they also owned cows and buffaloes. The appellants also urged that the approach of the LAO of adopting belting method was fundamentally wrong and there was no scope or justification for adopting the belting method and dividing the acquired lands in 4 categories. According to the appellants-claimants, the lands in question were equally well situated and possessed similar market value as well as potential value. The appellants, citing such relevant facts and by relying on various sale instances and other documents, claimed that the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. mt. compensation would be just and reasonable rate, and ought to be granted. The appellants also claimed enhanced rate for compensation for building, wells and other constructions on the acquired lands. 8. The claims were opposed by the acquiring body as well as the opponent No.1. In the written statement filed on behalf of the opponents, it was stated that the demand of the appellants is exaggerated and actually the rates determined by the LAO were adequate and reasonable. 8.1 After considering the rival submissions and the material on record, the Reference Court has, by impugned award, fixed the market value and granted compensation as noted hereinabove earlier. The Reference Court also confirmed the LAO’s decision of adopting belting method and enhanced the compensation on the basis of the categories made by the LAO. 9. Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate, and Mr. Nitin Amin, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants have, while assailing the impugned award, submitted that the Reference Court has determined the market value and rate for compensation disregarding the relevant documentary and oral evidence and the final observations and conclusion of the Reference Court are contrary to the documents or are based on misconstruction of the documents. Nitin Amin, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants have, while assailing the impugned award, submitted that the Reference Court has determined the market value and rate for compensation disregarding the relevant documentary and oral evidence and the final observations and conclusion of the Reference Court are contrary to the documents or are based on misconstruction of the documents. The relevant sale instances have been arbitrarily disregarded and though the sale instances depicting the price ranging from Rs. 8 per sq. mt. to Rs. 15 and Rs. 24 and Rs. 37 per sq. mt. covering the period from 1979 to 1983 i.e. pre-Section 4 Notification period and also post-Section 4 Notification period were available on record, the Reference Court unjustifiably picked-up the sale deed of February-1980 which reflected artificial and abnormally low price. It was submitted that the Reference Court erred in not appreciating that the price reflected by the said sale deed i.e. Exh. 237 was not a natural or correct and true reflection of the prevailing market value of the lands in question. Referring to the sale instance (Exh. 227 of April, 1982) reflecting price of Rs. 30 and Rs. 37.52 (Exh. 205 of April, 1983), Rs. 22.58 (Exh.225 of July, 1979), etc. the learned Advocate for the appellants strenuously submitted that the demand of compensation at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. mt. was completely justified and the same ought to have been accepted by the Reference Court. The learned Counsel for the appellants highlighted the location of the lands in question. The learned Counsel also stressed that the passage lying in between Ahmedabad city and Mahemdabad town was, at the relevant time, fast developing and many industrial units were coming up. As a result of which, the lands in question acquired a very high potential value for commercial or industrial use. 10. Per contra, Mr. Nanavati, learned Advocate for the opponents, opposed the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the Reference Court is justified in taking into account Exh.237. He further submitted that the sale instances referred on behalf of the appellants should not be taken into account mainly for the reason that they are concerning small parcels of lands and therefore cannot be said to be comparable and that most of them were of period subsequent to the Notification under Section 4 in present case. He further submitted that the sale instances referred on behalf of the appellants should not be taken into account mainly for the reason that they are concerning small parcels of lands and therefore cannot be said to be comparable and that most of them were of period subsequent to the Notification under Section 4 in present case. He also submitted that the LAO and Reference Court were right and justified in adopting belting method, more particularly, considering the location and nature of the lands in question. He submitted that the rate determined by the Reference Court is adequate and does not warrant any interference. 11. On examination of the impugned award, it emerges that the Reference Court found, as mentioned in Para 21, that the sale deed Exh.237 which was for agricultural land bearing Survey No.859 being the land adjoining to the lands in Block-C provided good base for determining the market value. The said sale deed was executed on 7.2.1980. The land concerned in the said transaction was agricultural land which came to be sold by virtue of the said sale deed at the rate of Rs. 0.50 ps. per sq. mt. The Reference Court also referred to other transactions, one of them being the instance in which the land was sold by AUDA to Sardarnagar Cooperative Housing Society on 6.4.1990 at the rate of Rs. 3.54 per sq. mt. The Reference Court also considered Exh.240 executed on 22.8.1990 for consideration of Rs. 4/- per sq. mt. The Reference Court has also referred to Exh.241 which was executed on 23.4.1991 for consideration at the rate of Rs. 3.52 per sq. mt. The Reference Court, upon considering the sale deeds at Exhs.238 to 241 (executed in 1990 and 1991) and also Exh.237 came to the conclusion that the market value can be determined between the range of Rs. 0.50 ps. to Rs. 4.00 per sq. mt. Having reached such conclusion, the Reference Court passed the impugned award with the earlier mentioned directions. 11.1 During the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as opponents invited our attention to the below mentioned observations made in the order dated 10.10.2002 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. “The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants raised two questions, both of which, in our view, have merit. 11.1 During the hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as opponents invited our attention to the below mentioned observations made in the order dated 10.10.2002 by the Hon’ble Apex Court. “The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants raised two questions, both of which, in our view, have merit. First, it is urged that, though the High court enhanced the compensation and arrived at the figure of Rs. 15.00 per sq. metre for agricultural land and Rs. 19.00 per sq. metre for non-agricultural land by relying on an instance of sale in the year 1975, at the rate of Rs. 8.00 per sq. metre, the process by which, the High court adopted a bench mark and the reasoning by which it arrived at the figure of Rs. 15.00 per sq. metre and Rs. 19.00 per sq. metre is neither disclosed nor discernible. Second, it is urged that though the High Court was very much impressed with the instance of a sale in the year 1975, it has totally ignored a later instance of a sale in the year 1980, also of a large tract of land. In the submissions of the appellants, the sale instance of 1980 was nearer and more comparable and ought to have been adopted as a bench mark by the High Court. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents and with his assistance perused the impugned judgment. The sale instance of 1980, evidence by (Exh. No.237) has not even been adverted to. There is considerable merit in the grievance that, while a comparable instance of sale in the year 1980 was available to determine the value of the land in the year 1981, there was hardly any justification for the High Court to travel all the way back to the sale instance of 1975. At any rate, without expressing any opinion this, we are satisfied that there is no advertence to the sale instance of the year 1980. There is justification for the grievance of the appellants that a comparable sale of large tract of land has not been considered without any reasons being given for rejecting it. These two glaring lacunae, in our view, render the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court vulnerable and open to attack, and, we must say, successfully. There is justification for the grievance of the appellants that a comparable sale of large tract of land has not been considered without any reasons being given for rejecting it. These two glaring lacunae, in our view, render the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court vulnerable and open to attack, and, we must say, successfully. Learned Counsel for the respondents pointed out that the acquisition was in the year 1981 and till today the matter is still under litigation. This is, of course, a matter for serious consideration. At the same time, it would be unjust to leave the matter as it stands. By an unclear process of reasoning, and by not considering at least one vital piece of evidence, the compensation has been hiked from Rs. 3.50 to Rs. 4.00 per sq. metre to Rs. 15.00 to Rs. 19.00 per sq. metre. In order to render complete justice, we are of the view that the matter should go back to the High Court so that the parties have an opportunity of inviting the attention of the High Court to all the material on record upon consideration of which the appeals should be decided.” 11.2 In light of the fact that one of the main issues raised before the Apex Court was with reference to the sale deed Exh.237, the learned Counsel for the appellants referred to the copy of the said sale deed Exh.237 and also referred to an affidavit made in Civil Application No.5329 of 2003 in First Appeal No.804 of 1998, by one Mr. Chhanabhai Jobanbhai and the learned Counsel also referred to the averments made in the above referred Civil Application and submitted that the contents of the said Civil Application and the affidavit have remained uncontroverted inasmuch as any counter affidavit opposing the contents of the Civil Application or the affidavit has not been preferred by the opponents. He also submitted that actually the sale transaction covered by the said sale deed i.e. Exh.237, was a distress sale inasmuch as there was a sitting tenant on the said land who was cultivating the land since many years and the land was in his possession and it was with a view to putting an end to the tenancy proceedings that the said sale deed was executed. It also comes out from the said affidavit in Civil Application, and has been highlighted by the appellants’ learned counsel, that the land concerned in the said transaction was fallow land. The learned counsel, by referring to this factual aspects, submitted that the said document Exh.237 and the price reflected therein cannot be, by any yardstick, considered to be comparable for any purpose and cannot be relied upon. 11.3 We, upon taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects, are inclined to accept the submissions that the price reflected in the sale deed Exh.237 does not represent or cannot be taken as representing the real and true market value prevailing at the relevant time. The learned Counsel for the acquiring body has not been able to dislodge or even dispute and controvert the factual aspects highlighted by the appellants’ learned Counsel and flowing from the averments made in the affidavit or in the Civil Application. He has also not been able to bring to our notice any contrary material, much less any other affidavit or document controverting the assertions made in the application or the affidavit. Thus, we do not have any reason to not to accept the said factual aspects and we are in agreement with the submission that the said sale instance is not and cannot be said to be comparable for the purpose on hand. 12. It is not in dispute that the distance between Ahmedabad city and Mahemdabad town, which is a taluka headquarter, is about 20 kms. and it is also situate at an advantageous location where there is railway station facility on Ahmedabad-Mumbai broad gauge railway line and also the advantage of abutting national/state highway. It is also not in dispute that the said town has the facilities of agricultural produce market committee, various banks, civil court and well laid water lines. The witnesses of the appellants’ side have asserted that the lands in question possessed high fertility and they used to raise three crops in a year. The said claim is not disproved by the opponents. It is also not disputed that several industrial units were being set up on the passage between Ahmedabad and Mahemdabad and several housing colonies were set up and various others were coming up in the Mahemdabad town. The said claim is not disproved by the opponents. It is also not disputed that several industrial units were being set up on the passage between Ahmedabad and Mahemdabad and several housing colonies were set up and various others were coming up in the Mahemdabad town. All these features demonstrate and establish that the lands in question had potential for commercial and/or industrial use as well as potential for construction of residential premises besides being lands with high fertility. These are relevant factors in determining the market value and thereby the rate of compensation. 13. During the hearing, learned Counsel for the opponents, while opposing the appellants demand for additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 40, has not been able to substantiate or justify that the rate fixed by the Reference court is adequate and reasonable. The opponents have also not been able to bring to our notice any material, either any relevant sale deed or any previous judgment or award, which could either substantiate and justify the opponents’ case that there is no justification and there is no room for any enhancement over and above the rate fixed by the Reference Court or that the rate fixed by the Reference Court is adequate and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 14. So far as the copies of the various sale instances produced on record by the appellants-claimants are concerned, Exh. 203 pertains to land bearing survey No.31 which came to be sold by document dated 20.10.1984 at the rate of Rs. 24.30 per sq. mt. The Reference Court has declined to rely upon the said document on the ground that it was a small plot of non-agricultural land. The said document, as the date thereof reveals, is post Section 4 Notification i.e. about 3 1/3 years after Section 4 Notification and the evidence of the concerned witness gives out that the land was converted into non-agricultural land. Generally, a transaction which is of a date subsequent to the date of Notification, would not be readily relied upon, particularly without appropriate adjustment/deduction and also without considering whether there was any speculative rise in prices or not and without ascertaining the comparability qua all relevant features. Generally, a transaction which is of a date subsequent to the date of Notification, would not be readily relied upon, particularly without appropriate adjustment/deduction and also without considering whether there was any speculative rise in prices or not and without ascertaining the comparability qua all relevant features. So far as Exh.203 is concerned, it should be noted that neither the acquiring body has objected said document nor the Reference Court has raised any doubt on the ground that it is tainted with speculation. Further, the land in question was, as admitted by the concerned witness, converted into non-agricultural land. 14(A) The opponents also referred to Exh.205 which pertains to the land bearing survey No.494/1 admeasuring about 533 sq. mts. (646 sq. yards) which is said to have been sold to a cooperative housing society by document dated 6.8.1983 at the rate of Rs. 37.52 per sq. mt. This document also pertains to period after (i.e. about 2 years after) the date of Notification under Section 4. The witness has not given any detail about the distance between the land under acquisition and the land concerned in the said transaction for which Exh.205 was executed. As per the admission, as recorded by the Reference Court in Para 10 of the award, the said transaction pertained to a small piece of land and that too of non-agricultural land. Thus, no fault can be found with the Reference Court in not relying upon the said document as well. 14(B) The document at Exh. 209 is of May, 1975 and is concerning a parcel of land admeasuring about 9140 sq. yards by virtue of which Collector, Kheda allotted land to APMC. It is noticed that as compared to other instances (except Exh.203), this particular instance, is of relatively larger parcel (i.e. about more than 9000 sq. yards) and the rate was determined by the Collector at Rs. 8/- per sq. mt. 14(C) The document Exh.218 was executed in May, 1974 and the land concerned in the said transaction was already converted into non-agricultural land. By the said document Exh.218 the land bearing survey No.323-S was sold at the rate of Rs. 18.15 per sq. mt. in May, 1974. The transaction executed by the said document Exh.218 appears to have been executed for about 2066 sq. mt. of non-agricultural land. By the said document Exh.218 the land bearing survey No.323-S was sold at the rate of Rs. 18.15 per sq. mt. in May, 1974. The transaction executed by the said document Exh.218 appears to have been executed for about 2066 sq. mt. of non-agricultural land. The said Exh.218 is not accepted by Reference Court mainly on the ground of smallness (as mentioned in Para 10 of award-judgment). 14(D) The document being Exh.223 is said to have been executed in December, 1979 i.e. 5 years after the earlier referred document Exh.218 and the price paid in 1979 is said to be of Rs. 15.62 per sq. mt. which is less than the price of sale deed Exh.218. So far as the said Exh.223 is concerned the Reference Court has recorded that the witness who was examined to prove the said document stated that he had paid more amount than the true and natural market price prevailing at the relevant time because he was in need of the said land which was abutting his land. Thus, the said document Exh.223 obviously did not and does not merit any consideration. Further, in view of the fact that the consideration for both documents [i.e. Exh.223 (Rs. 15.62 per sq. mt.), which was executed 5 years after Exh.218 as well as the Exh.209 which was executed on 6th May, 1975 (i.e. after Exh.218) at the rate of Rs. 8.00 per sq. mt.], were less than the consideration for Exh.218, the said Exh.218 does not appear worth relying on for the purpose on hand. 14(E) As regards Exh.225, the Reference Court has, in light of the evidence of the concerned witness (Mr. R.A. Malek-Exh.224) observed in Para 12 of the judgment that the price reflected in the said document, (which is said to have been executed on 13.7.1979 for consideration of Rs. 22.58) does not deserve to be accepted and relied upon for the reason that the said price was fixed between the parties in a civil dispute which was pending in the Court and the price was determined between the parties by way of compromise. Here also, we do not see any strong reason to take any different view, and the appellant has not been able to make out any ground to convince us to differ from the Reference Court. 15. This back drop of facts attracts the attention to Exh.209. Here also, we do not see any strong reason to take any different view, and the appellant has not been able to make out any ground to convince us to differ from the Reference Court. 15. This back drop of facts attracts the attention to Exh.209. Though the said sale instance Exh.209 is of a period 6 years prior to the date of Notification under Section 4 in present case, it can provide reasonable guideline or base for determining the market value of lands in question. Firstly, for the reason that the purchaser, in this case of Exh.209 is an APMC and the price was fixed by the Collector, thus any possibility of mentioning artificially inflated price or stating less than actual price (i.e. undervaluing) is eliminated and ruled-out in such case. Secondly, Exh.209 represents transaction for relatively or comparatively larger track of land (i.e. about 9140 sq. yards) as compared to other instances such as 533 sq. mts. or 416 sq. mts. or 186 sq. mts. etc. These aspects have been overlooked by the Reference Court while putting-aside Exh.209. 15.1 If the well recognized principle and method of adjusting 10% increase per year is applied to the said case (i.e. the consideration for Exh.209) then the market price would come to around Rs. 13.00 in the year 1981 (for the case on hand). 16. Before determining the market price, we may take into account other instances also. The sale deed Exh.227 is one of the instances which can be considered contemporaneous inasmuch as it is said to have been executed on 26.4.1982 i.e. about 10 months after the Section 4 Notification published in present case. The price mentioned in the document is Rs. 30 per sq. mt. If usual 10% reduction (it being about 10 months later) is allowed then the price would come to about Rs. 27/-. 16.1 However, the opponents have raised serious objection with regard to the said and other similar documents on the ground that they are of a period subsequent to the Notification under Section 4 in present case and therefore, they would not reflect real market price prevailing at the time when Section 4 Notification came to be issued in present case and the price reflected in Exh.227 would be influenced by the Section 4 Notification. It cannot be denied that there is some substance in the said objection of the opponents. It cannot be denied that there is some substance in the said objection of the opponents. 16.2 Further, the reasons recorded by the Reference Court in Para 14 of the judgment for not considering Exh.227 as comparable are good reasons which do not warrant any interference and cannot be considered as non-germane. 17. The earlier referred Exh.203 which is said to have been executed in October, 1984 and which reflects price of Rs. 24.30 ps. per sq. mt., may also cause similar difficulty inasmuch as the said document is also post Section 4 Notification in the present case. The same would be the position in respect of Exh.205 also inasmuch as it is of August, 1983, meaning post Section 4 Notification. The Reference Court has recorded reasons in Paras 9 and 10 of the judgment for not treating the said Exh.203 and 205 as comparable instances. We may, however, further examine the said documents, in light of recognized principles, so as to arrive at a reasoned and educated decision about market price at the relevant time. 18. As noticed hereinabove earlier, some of the sale instances brought on record pertain to post acquisition period. Under the circumstances, so as to take such instances into consideration, appropriate deductions will be necessary to determine the market price of the lands acquired in the year 1981. 18.1 In absence of any evidence against Exh.203 about speculative increase in the price after the date of Notification, if reference is made to Exh.203, then it is noticed that it is dated 20.10.1984. Thus, there is a gap of about 3 years. 18.2 Now, if deduction at the rate of 33% in all (i.e. towards the 3 year’s gap between the date of Notification and also towards the size and nature/character of the plot and for factoring-in the development charges, etc.) is allowed then the market price would come to around Rs. 16.28 in the year 1981. Further, in light of the fact that the transactions in July and December 1979 are said to have been executed for about Rs. 22.58 and Rs. 15.62, it will not be presumptuous or without basis to consider the rate of Rs. 16.28, though of course after appropriate adjustment/deduction, as market value in 1981 for the lands in question. Further, in light of the fact that the transactions in July and December 1979 are said to have been executed for about Rs. 22.58 and Rs. 15.62, it will not be presumptuous or without basis to consider the rate of Rs. 16.28, though of course after appropriate adjustment/deduction, as market value in 1981 for the lands in question. Besides this, so as to accommodate i.e. to factor-in the post section 4 notification aspect connected with this Exh.203 if further adjustment is allowed, of 5% over Rs. 16.28, then the rate would come to about Rs. 15.46. The Reference Court has not examined the matter and said Exh.203 from this perspective. 18.3 Exh.205 which is concerning land admeasuring 533 sq. mt is (compared to the fact that the earlier referred document Exh.203 pertains to transaction of land admeasuring 12343 sq. mts.) comparatively small parcel of land and thus, in our view the said Exh.205 would, however, not qualify as comparable. Further, when in October, 1984 transaction is said to have been executed for Rs. 24.30/- per sq. mt. then it appears that there must be some special reason for the purchaser in August, 1983 (i.e. one year earlier) to pay higher price of Rs. 37.52. Thus, we would rather not rely on the said transaction. 18.4 Of course, there appears to be available on record an earlier award in Reference Case No.27 of 1984 but that is in respect of a different village viz. Mankava. The said award has not been found acceptable by the Reference Court and in our view rightly so for the reason that not only the said village is a different village and at a distance of about 4 kms. from the acquired land, but also because of the fact, as recorded in Para 15 by Reference Court, that in the said case the market price was determined on the basis of yield method whereas in present case, there is no material on record which may assist in adopting yield method. Hence, the said previous award cannot be taken as comparable for present case. Hence, the said previous award cannot be taken as comparable for present case. 18.5 Similarly, we also do not find any error in the decision of the Reference Court in not considering another available award (Exh.276) as comparable for the reason that the said award came to be made in Reference Case No. 196 of 1989 (present reference case being of 1987) because in the said case the lands were acquired in the year 1989 and for the purpose of determining the market value in the said Exh.276 the Reference Court had relied on the yield method. The Reference Court, in present case, was, therefore, right and justified in holding (in Para 16) that the said award was not good foundation for comparison or for determining the market value in present case. 18.6 So far as the evidence by the Government Approved Valuer (Exh.19) is concerned, the said valuer/witness fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 120 per sq. mt. It needs to be mentioned that during the hearing before us neither the appellants nor the opponents have placed any real and substantial reliance on the said report of the valuer. Even otherwise, having regard to the other sale instances and/or awards available on record, the report does not appear to be convincing or worth relying and/or reflecting the actual market value prevailing at the relevant time. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the said report as a good guideline or base for determining the market value of the lands in question. 19. As mentioned earlier, it comes out from the impugned award that the Reference Court has referred to and substantially relied upon the documents Exh.237 to 241 which pertain to the lands sold at the rate ranging from Rs. 0.50 per sq. mt to Rs. 1.07 per sq. mt and Rs. 4.00 per sq. mt in the year 1978, 1988 and 1990. 19.1 When the said instances are compared with the sale instances discussed hereinabove, it emerges that in 1979 the lands were sold, in Mahemdabad town, ordinarily at the rate ranging from about Rs. 15/Rs.16 (Rs. 15.62) per sq. mt. to about Rs. 22/Rs.23 (Rs. 22.58) per sq. mt. and in 1982 transaction are said to have been arrived at about Rs. 30.00 per sq. mt and, as noticed hereinabove earlier, in 1984 land admeasuring about 12000 sq. mts. 15/Rs.16 (Rs. 15.62) per sq. mt. to about Rs. 22/Rs.23 (Rs. 22.58) per sq. mt. and in 1982 transaction are said to have been arrived at about Rs. 30.00 per sq. mt and, as noticed hereinabove earlier, in 1984 land admeasuring about 12000 sq. mts. is said to have been sold at Rs. 24.30 per sq. mt. 19.2 Thus, in view of the gap and the difference between the two sets, the details about price referred to in the documents pertaining to the period of 1978, 1988 to 1990 of Rs. 0.50 or Rs. 1.34 or Rs. 4.00 per sq. mt. etc., do not appear to be reflecting correct and natural market price prevailing at the relevant time. We are, upon considering Exhibits 203, 223, 225, 227 and even 218 and/or 209, not convinced to accept Exhibit 237 and Exh.238 to 241, as the base for the purpose on hand. 19.3 Further, with regard to the said Exh.238 to 241 more relevant is the fact, and it will not be out of place to note, that the witness Mr. Navinchandra has in his evidence stated that the landowners had filed reference cases for enhanced compensation in lieu of the acquired land (which was purchased by way of said sale deeds) and such land Reference cases were pending and that the rates mentioned in the deeds were, as stipulated in the said deeds, subject to the rate which may be fixed by the Reference Court and it was stipulated that the cooperative societies will pay such difference. Meaning thereby the rates mentioned in the said documents, as noticed by the Reference Court, were tentative and were to be finalized on the basis of the rate which may be determined by the Reference Court. 19.4 Hence, such tentative rates in Exh.238 to 241 would not make good foundation for determining market price for lands in question as on 4.6.1981. 19.5 Thus, in our view, the market price ranging from Rs. 0.50 to Rs. 4.00 cannot be accepted as the true and correct prevailing market price in 1981, more particularly, in light of the market price revealed from the earlier discussed sale instances, coupled with the stipulations recorded in the deeds at Exh.238 to 241. The Reference Court erred in basing the process of determination of market price on the said sale instances. 20. 4.00 cannot be accepted as the true and correct prevailing market price in 1981, more particularly, in light of the market price revealed from the earlier discussed sale instances, coupled with the stipulations recorded in the deeds at Exh.238 to 241. The Reference Court erred in basing the process of determination of market price on the said sale instances. 20. Thus, upon taking into account the above discussed features, the relevant details of the various sale instances and the earlier awards obtaining on record, it emerges that Exh.203 and 209 provide sufficient guideline and base for determining the market price for lands in question. We are conscious of the conclusions recorded by the Court regarding Exh.203. However, as mentioned above the Court missed to notice and overlooked certain relevant aspects and features attached to Exh.203. Further, it also emerges, upon taking into account the said sale instances Exh. Nos.203 and 209 (reflecting the market price of Rs. 24.30 and Rs. 8.00, prevailing at the relevant time) that with appropriate adjustments as regards the rates/price mentioned in the said documents, it would emerge that the market value of the land in Mahemdabad town in 1981 would range between Rs. 13.00 to Rs. 16.28. Therefore, we are of the view that considering all attending facts and circumstances of present case the market price for the lands in question, of course excluding the Kharaba land, can be fixed at Rs. 15.00 per sq. mt. 21. So far as the appellants’ demand for compensation for Kharaba land is concerned, we are of the view that in light of the facts of present case and in view of the evidence available on record, the Reference Court is not justified in not granting reasonable rate of compensation in respect of Kharaba land. Since the lands in question were acquired for construction of “Growth Centre” i.e. for commercial purpose, the LAO and Reference Court were not justified in fixing rate for compensation for Kharaba land only at Rs. 1/-, more so, when in present case, market value is determined on the basis of sale instances and not on yield basis. The LAO awarded only Rs. 1 per sq. mt. towards compensation for Kharaba land. 1/-, more so, when in present case, market value is determined on the basis of sale instances and not on yield basis. The LAO awarded only Rs. 1 per sq. mt. towards compensation for Kharaba land. It emerges from the material that the private Kharaba lands were being put to use by the land owners for pre and post crop reaping operations and for storage of equipment and the yield and that therefore, such lands enjoyed certain utility value for the land owners engaged in agricultural operations. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case and in light of the material on record and on considering the extent of Kharaba land (as compared to other acquired lands) compensation at some reasonable rate deserves to be allowed and on overall consideration of relevant aspects discussed earlier, we are inclined to fix Rs. 5.00 ps per sq. mt. as the price for Kharaba land. Thus, the price for Kharaba land is fixed accordingly. ORDER 22. Hence, we determine the market price of the lands in question, except the Kharaba land, at the rate of Rs. 15.00 per sq. mt. and the price for Kharaba land is fixed at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per sq. mt. The claimants will be, thus, entitled for additional compensation on the basis of the said market price (as fixed by this judgment) after adjusting/deducting the amount awarded by LAO and/or paid-deposited earlier. The payment to be made only by account payee cheques and only after proper verification. 23. So far as the direction in the impugned award for deducting 5% government share from the awarded amount is concerned, the said direction, in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s. Babu Govind Gavate [ AIR 1996 SC 904 ] is required to be set aside inasmuch as the Apex Court has held that in view of the provisions of the Act vis-a-vis the provisions under Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, it is not permissible to make any deduction from the market value because when the State exercises its power of eminent domain and compulsorily acquires the land, any question of sanction under Section 43 does not arise and therefore, any deduction from the market value would not be permissible. Thus, in our view, the Reference Court was not right or justified in directing 5% deduction from the awarded amount. Hence, the said direction is hereby set aside. 24. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ratan Kumar Tandon & Ors. vs. State of U.P. [ (1997) 2 SCC 161 ] wherein it is observed that:— “When land and building are acquired by a notification, the claimant is not entitled to separate valuation of the building and the land. They are entitled to compensation on either of the two methods but not both. If the building is assessed, it is settled law that the measurement of assessment be based on either the rent received from the property with suitable multiplier or the value of the building is the proper method of valuation. In this case, since the land was separately valued, the building cannot again be separately assessed and compensation awarded except the value of debris.” we are of the view that claimants are not entitled for any additional compensation, beyond the amount assessed and awarded by the LAO, for the alleged constructions on the acquired lands and it cannot be said that the Reference Court committed any error in not relying on Exh.20 and/or Exh.28. 25. Since the reference proceedings were pending before the Reference Court at the time when the amendment in Sections 23 and 28 of the Act were effected, the appellants will be entitled for solatium at the rate of 30% under and as per Section 23(2) of the Act on the said additional market value only after adjusting amounts awarded/paid or deposited earlier. 26. The direction regarding interest over the rate of additional compensation passed by the Reference Court are not interfered with and it is directed that the opponents shall pay interest on the enhanced amount of compensation in accordance with the directions contained in the award dated 31.1.1997 passed by the Reference Court. It is also clarified that appellant shall not be entitled for any compensation towards construction, trees, etc. over and above what was awarded by LAO. 27. It is also clarified that appellant shall not be entitled for any compensation towards construction, trees, etc. over and above what was awarded by LAO. 27. The appellants will also be entitled for the additional payment at the rate of 12% on the additional market price only i.e. on that portion of the rate fixed by this judgment which is above the price fixed earlier and is arrived at after adjusting the amounts awarded/paid or deposited earlier as per the directions in the impugned judgment, from the date of Notification under Section 4 to the date of award or the date of taking over possession, whichever is earlier. 28. It is further directed that the Reference Court shall calculate the total amount of additional compensation, solatium, additional increase and interest as per the directions and the Reference Court will endeavor to complete the calculations within period of 6 weeks from the receipt of the copy of the judgment and the Records & Proceedings. Within 3 months thereafter the respondents shall deposit/pay the compensation to the claimants. 29. First appeals are partly allowed and are accordingly disposed of with aforesaid directions. The office shall draw decree in terms of this judgment. No order as to costs. In view of the disposal of the main appeals, Civil Applications also stand disposed of. P P P P P