JUDGEMENT Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this batch of appeals preferred under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the challenge is to the award dated, 2nd June, 1997 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 33 of 1990. 2. The facts which are necessary to be stated for adjudication of this batch of appeals are that a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act) was issued for acquisition of land situated in Mauza-Dhaboul in the district of Aurangabad. As is evident from the material brought on record, the Land Acquisition Officer-cum-Collector under the Act awarded compensation of Rs. 30,000 per acre in respect of land situate in Mauza-Dhaboul. On an application preferred under Section 18 of the Act, the Land Acquisition Collector preferred the matter to the Civil Court and, as is evincible from the award, the Reference Court enhanced the valuation to Rs. 1,55,600. 3. It is worth noting, the Reference Court has passed two awards one in L.A. Case No. 33 of 1990 and another in L.A. Case No. 60 of 1990. L.A. Case No. 33 of 1990 relates to Mauza-Dhaboul and L.A. Case No. 60 of 1990 pertains to Mauza-Jasoiya. Be it noted, the said land acquisition cases were disposed of by a common order and the main order was passed in L.A. Case No. 1 of 1990. 4. The notification issued in the year 1987 was for the purpose of acquiring land admeasuring 233.62 acres falling in three villages, namely, Majurhi, Jasaiya and Dhaboul for construction of Aurangabad Development Centre under the Scheme for the benefit of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Patna (for short, "the BIADA"). 5. It is worth noting, the said authority, namely, the BIADA submitted an application in this appeal and was arrayed as a co-Appellant alongwith the State. 6. Though initially a submission was canvassed by Mr. 5. It is worth noting, the said authority, namely, the BIADA submitted an application in this appeal and was arrayed as a co-Appellant alongwith the State. 6. Though initially a submission was canvassed by Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the BIADA, that the matter should be remitted to the Reference Court in view of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in U.P. Awas Even Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (1995)2 SCC 326, Abut Razzak v. Kerala Water Authority (2002)3 SCC 228 , and the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2780 of 1998, yet eventually a consensus was arrived at that the matter should be heard on merits inasmuch as in some cases the matter was earlier remanded and the Reference Court has reiterated the award. Thus, I proceed to deal with the appeal on merits. 7. Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar, GP-XIV, Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh, GA-VI, Mr. Anil Kumar Jha, GA-lI Mr. P. Tekriwal, GA-I, Mr. Narmedeshwar Jha, AAG-VII, and Mr. Ram Bilash Mahto, AAG-VIII, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior Counsel, alongwith Mr. Mukul Prasad, learned Counsel for the BIADA, and Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned Senior Counsel, alongwith Mr. Anirudha Kumar Verma and Mr. Virendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the Claimant-Respondents. 8. Before I proceed to deal with the rivallised contentions raised at the Bar, I think it condign to refer to certain pronouncements which ought to be borne in mind while dealing with a case for grant of compensation pertaining to acquisition of land. 9. In Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Shardaben and Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 93 , the Apex Court expressed the view that burden is always on the Claimants to prove by adducing reliable evidence that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and lands are capable of fetching higher market value. It is the duty of the Court to closely scrutinise the evidence, apply the test of a prudent and willing purchaser i.e., whether he would be willing to purchase in open and normal market conditions of the acquired land and then to determine the just and adequate compensation. 10. In Hookiyar Singh and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and Anr. 10. In Hookiyar Singh and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad and Anr. (1996) 3 SCC 766 their Lordships expressed the view that the Court must not indulge in feats of imagination but, sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser and put a question to itself whether as a prudent purchaser it would offer the same price in the open market as is to be determined. 11. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ram Kumari Devi (Smt.) and Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 577 , the Supreme Court ruled that when 13.75 acres of land was offered for sale in an open market, no prudent man would have credulity to purchase the land on square foot basis. Similar view was taken in the case of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation v. Narrottambhai Morarbhai and Anr. (1996) 11 SCC 159 . 12. Yet in another decision rendered in the case of G. Narayan v. Land Acquisition Officer7 (1996) 10 SCC 607 , it was ruled that it must be established, as a fact, that the potential purpose does exist on the date of notification, the prevailing conditions in the market, the existence of the construction of building activities in the neighbourhood and that other lands in the adjacent neighbourhood possessed similar conditions. 13. In Kanwar Singh and Ors. v. Union of India (1998) 8 SCC 136 it has been expressed that the amount of compensation for the land acquired depends on the market value of the land on the date immediately before the notification under Section 4 of the Act or when same land is acquired and offer of compensation is made through an award. In the aforesaid case, it was ruled that the consideration in terms of the price received for land under bona fide transactions on the date or preceding the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act generally shows the market value of the acquired land and the market value of the acquired land is to be assessed in terms of those transactions. For attracting the conception of future potentiality of the land, location of the land cannot be ignored as has been held in the case of Hasan Ali Walimchand (dead) by LRs. v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 388 . 14. For attracting the conception of future potentiality of the land, location of the land cannot be ignored as has been held in the case of Hasan Ali Walimchand (dead) by LRs. v. State of Maharashtra (1998) 2 SCC 388 . 14. In this context, we may refer with profit to the decision rendered in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor v. L. Kamalamma (Smt.) dead by L.Rs. and Ors. K. Krishnamachari and Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 385 , wherein, it has been held that when no sales of comparable land are available where large chunks of land had been sold, even land transaction in respect of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions such as for development of the land by providing enough space for roads, sewerage, drains, expenses involved in formation of a layout, lump-sum payment as also the waiting period required for selling the sites. 15. In Kasturi and Ors. v. State of Haryana (2003) 1 SCC 354 , it has been opined that there is a difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed and 20 per cent deduction towards development charge as against the normal one-third form the amount of compensation would be regarded as justified. 16. In the case of Ahad Brothers v. State of NI.P. and Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 545 , the Apex Court has expressed the view as under: (13) The Reference Court as well as the High Court both have concurrently held that the land acquired, though was an agricultural land, was not being used for agricultural purpose as on the date of issuing Section 4(1) notification and it had potentialities for the purpose of creating building, sites. The Reference Court was right in determining the market value of the land acquired @ Rs. 2 per sq. ft. but, it committed an error in not giving any deduction towards development charges. In our view, having regard to the location and surroundings of the acquired land, as already indicated above, it would be just and appropriate to deduct 30 per cent towards developmental charges out of the amount of compensation payable to the Appellant @ Rs. 2 per sq. ft. In our view, having regard to the location and surroundings of the acquired land, as already indicated above, it would be just and appropriate to deduct 30 per cent towards developmental charges out of the amount of compensation payable to the Appellant @ Rs. 2 per sq. ft. (14) In view of what is stated above, the impugned judgment and/order cannot be sustained.The impugned judgment is modified awarding the compensation to the Appellant as owner of the land acquired @ Rs. 2 sq. ft., after deducting 30 per cent of the market value of the land calculated on the basis of Rs. 2 sq. ft. The Appellant is also entitled to all the statutory benefits on the amount of compensation so determined. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. 17. In Shardamma v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. AIR 2007 SCW 1109 , a two-Judge Bench of the Apex Court taking note of the fact that the acquired land was surrounded by factories and there was industrial potentiality and the land acquired was adjoining the national highway and better located fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 per square yard. 18. In Land Acquisition Officer, A.P. v. Kamandana Ramakrishna Rao and Anr. AIR 2007 SCW 1745, the Apex Court while dealing with the issue of compensation determined on yield basis observed that the Court is not precluded from taking into consideration factors such as potentiality and utility of land. 19. In the case at hand the Claimants brought on record the documents that the land in question situate adjacent to Aurangabad Town and on one side of the land there is Karma Road and Aurangabad Patna Road is on the other side. It was stated that it is situated adjacent to Aurangabad Police Line, Electricity Office, Anugrah Inter College, Block Development Officers Office, Collectorate and other Government Offices. It was contended that the market value of land at the time of notification, that is, 30th June, 1987 was approximately 4,000 per decimal and the other land similar to the acquired land was sold at Rs. 1,600 per decimal. It was also contended that the acquired land was homestead, yet the same was used for agricultural purposes and yielding good crops. The emphasis was laid on the development of Aurangabad Town and commercial facilities. 20. 1,600 per decimal. It was also contended that the acquired land was homestead, yet the same was used for agricultural purposes and yielding good crops. The emphasis was laid on the development of Aurangabad Town and commercial facilities. 20. It is apt to note, the State of Bihar did not file any written statement to justify the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector. 21. Eighteen witnesses were examined and number of documents were executed. Exh. 1 is the registered sale deed dated, 3rd March, 1986 executed in respect of 31 per cent decimals of land bearing Plot No. 22 situated in Village-Dhaboul for a consideration of Rs. 49,000. Exh. 1/a is another registered sale deed dated, 14th March, 1986 executed for a consideration of Rs. 49,000 in respect of 311/2 decimals. Exh. 1/b, the sale deed dated, 14th July, 1987 in respect of 1 khata, was executed for a consideration of Rs. 10,000. Vide Exh. 1/d a sale deed was executed on 6th March, 1986 for a consideration of Rs. 7,500 in respect of five decimals of land. Certified copies of the judgments in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 58 of 1990 and 19 of 1990 were marked as Exhs. 4 and 4/a. 22. On behalf of the State though no written objections were filed, yet-certain witnesses were examined and documents were exhibited. Exh. B is the valuation khatiyan and Exh. C is the sale chart prepared by the department. According to Exh. C, the value of the land is Rs. 45,000 per acre on the ground that the sale chart was inconsequential inasmuch as the entry made in the said chart was of a land situated at a distance from the land inquestion. 23. Learned Counsel for the Claimants placed reliance over Exhs. 1, 1/a and 1/d which were contemporaneous sale deeds, the proximity to the road, the nature of the land, that is, homestead and the factum, that is, adjacent to the Government Offices and justified the claim for compensation. 24. On behalf of the State, it was contended that it was a ditch and not a homestead land and the price of the land was rightly determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. 24. On behalf of the State, it was contended that it was a ditch and not a homestead land and the price of the land was rightly determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. Reference Court relying on the oral evidence of the Claimants recorded a finding that the land was not a ditch though it was used for agricultural purposes and perused the map, from which it was manifested that the entire Plot No. 22 was sold in the year 1986. He took note of the fact that 31 decimals of land of that Plot was sold for a consideration of Rs. 49,000 and five decimals of that Plot was sold for Rs. 7,500 in the same year. 25. Be it noted, the Claimants placed heavy reliance on Exhs. 1/c and 1b by which 1 khata land was sold for Rs. 10,000. The deeds were contemporaneous in nature and regard being had to the situation of the land, the Reference Court determined the price of the land Rs. 1,55,600 per acre. Thus, the Reference Court has taken note of the sale price for 31 decimals of land which is almost one-third of an acre and the sale deed by which 1 khata (equivalent to 3 decimals) was sold for Rs. 10,000. 26. Regard being had to the prevailing conditions at the time of notification, the contemporaneous sale deeds, the future potentiality of the land, the nature of the sale deed, the surrounding areas, I am of the view that the determination made by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be found fault with and the price fixed for the land is in accord with the concept of credibility of a prudent purchaser to purchase the same, apart from other aspects, which are to be taken into consideration at the time of determination of compensation. 27. In view of the foregoing analysis, I do not perceive any merit in these appeals and, accordingly, they are dismissed without any order as to costs.