Judgment :- (N.R.L. Nageswara Rao) 1. This appeal is filed by the claimants against the order, dated 19.3.1999, in O.P.No.92 of 1989 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The claimants are appellants. An extent of Acs.15-95 cents of land belonging to the claimants in Sy.No.85/1 of Mundeswarapuram, Korukonda Taluk was acquired for providing house sites to weaker sections and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity “the Act”) was made on 19.3.1979, award enquiry was conducted and award was passed on 31.1.1981 fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,000/- per acre. The claimants were not satisfied with the compensation and as the matter was not referred, they have approached the this Court in W.P.No.1346 of 1984 and as per the directions of this Court, dated 12.2.1996, reference was made under Section 18 of the Act. The claimants contended that the market value as on the date of acquisition was Rs.50,000/- per acre and the lands are fertile and crop yielding lands. Further the claimants were deprived of the money which they should have got earlier and they also claimed compensation for well at Rs.40,000/-and for the trees at Rs.100/- each. 3. After the reference, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-8. The lower Court, taking into consideration the fact that the claimants, at the earlier point of time before the Land Acquisition Officer, have stated that the market value is only Rs.10,000/- per acre, held that even though they are entitled for a compensation of Rs.24,000/- per acre, it cannot be awarded. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation at Rs.24,000/- per acre. The appellants also claimed benefits under the amended Act. 4. The points that arise for consideration are— (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and the appellants are entitled for any further enhancement? (2) Whether the order of the lower Court requires any interference? 5. The appellants also claimed benefits under the amended Act. 4. The points that arise for consideration are— (1) Whether the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and the appellants are entitled for any further enhancement? (2) Whether the order of the lower Court requires any interference? 5. Before considering the evidence on record, learned counsel for the appellants contends that the powers under Section 23 of the Act are very wide and merely because a lesser amount was claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer, the Constitutional right to get a correct and real value for their property, which was lost under the acquisition, cannot be denied. According to the learned counsel, the lower Court is not bound to confine the claim to the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, since the enquiry under Section 18 of the Act is an independent enquiry and it is in the nature of a suit and the Court has to decided on the basis of the claim before it. It is also contended that under Section 25 of the Act, the Court has to fix the compensation, which should be real. 6. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in Bhimasha v. Land Acquisition Officer (2008) 10 SCC 797 , Spl. Land Acquisition Officer (NHW), Dharwad v. Kallangouda (FB) AIR 1993 KARNATAKA 197 (FB), Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V.Narasaiah AIR 2001 SC 1117 (1), and Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Purya (2004) 8 SCC 270 . 7. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that merely because the claimants have claimed less amount towards compensation before coming to the Court, it is not final and we accept that the claimants can show before the Court as to what is the real potentiality and the market value. The reasoning of the lower Court for rejecting the claim on that ground may not be sustainable. 8. However, we have to now consider as to whether the market value at Rs.24,000/- per acre arrived at by the lower Court is sustainable, since in the appellate Court it has got every power to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion of its own. 9. 8. However, we have to now consider as to whether the market value at Rs.24,000/- per acre arrived at by the lower Court is sustainable, since in the appellate Court it has got every power to assess the evidence and come to a conclusion of its own. 9. Before considering the evidence on record, it is to be mentioned that a statement was given by the 1st claimant under Ex.B-6 fixing that the market value is only Rs.10,000/-per acre and it was on 28.3.1980. Not only in Ex.B-6, in Ex.B-7 also the 1st claimant has fixed the market value at Rs.12,000/- per acre. In the grounds of appeal, there is nothing to explain as to under what circumstances the valuation of Rs.10,000/- per acre was fixed by the 1st claimant. It is nowhere stated that by ignorance or otherwise lesser amount was claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that people are expected to know the value of their properties and nobody gives a lesser price if really it is costing more. The tendency of any individual is to boost the value of his property and not to decrease it. 10. Therefore, at the earliest point of time, when the claimants have given the market value as Rs.10,000/- per acre, it amounts to an admission of the factual status, though by virtue of legal advice or otherwise, they may, at a later point of time, change the value. It cannot be forgotten that the claimants have approached the Court also for reference and, in such circumstances, the illiteracy of the claimants or ignorance of the real potentiality or the market value of the land cannot be discarded. 11. Therefore, what we have to now consider is— (i) Whether the claim of the claimants that the market value is more than Rs.10,000/-per acre by the date of acquisition can be taken into consideration or not? and (ii) Whether the material on record is acceptable and the finding of the lower Court can be sustained. 12. Before the lower Court, the claimants have relied upon 3 sale deeds. Ex.A-1 is a sale deed whereunder an extent of 484 square yards of site in Sy.No.103/1 was sold and the market value per acre came to Rs.40,000/-. To substantiate the sale, PW.2 was examined. 12. Before the lower Court, the claimants have relied upon 3 sale deeds. Ex.A-1 is a sale deed whereunder an extent of 484 square yards of site in Sy.No.103/1 was sold and the market value per acre came to Rs.40,000/-. To substantiate the sale, PW.2 was examined. Ex.A-2 is a sale deed, dated 15.5.1978, and an extent of 52 square yards was purchased for Rs.1,000/-. Though the reasoning given by the lower Court for discarding the sale on the ground that no person is examined may not be tenable, however, the property sold is only 52 square yards when compared to the huge extent of acquired land. So also Ex.A-3 was also not taken into consideration by the lower Court as it was said to be a site of tobacco barren. 13. It is true that even small extent of land can be taken into consideration for fixation of the market value. However, the proximity of the said land and its utility have to be taken into consideration. Merely because huge extent of the land was acquired for the purpose of house sites does not mean that a small piece of land, which was nearer to the village and which has fetched the same value, cannot be the basis. Therefore, reliance on Ex.A-1 by the lower Court as a comparable sale without further reasons as to its location and nearness to the acquired land cannot be sustained. 14. Even from the evidence available on record, the distance between the acquired land and the land sold by P.W.2 under Ex.A-1 is one furlong. It was admitted by P.W.2 that the acquired land is an agricultural land, whereas Ex.A-1 is a house site. Therefore, the land under Ex.A-1 was a house site even in 1976, whereas by then the acquired land is only an agricultural land. Even after 3 years after Ex.A-1, the acquired land was still an agricultural land and no house has come in any part of the acquired land. Therefore, the consideration of Ex.A-1 sale deed, which pertains to a small extent of 484 square yards in huge extent of the property, is not proper it does not reflect the real market value. Therefore, the admission of the 1st claimant about the market value being Rs.10,000/-per acre appears to be real and reasonable and it cannot be taken as an admission by ignorance or incapacity. 15. Therefore, the admission of the 1st claimant about the market value being Rs.10,000/-per acre appears to be real and reasonable and it cannot be taken as an admission by ignorance or incapacity. 15. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the market value fixed by the lower Court. However, it appears that the claimants are not granted the statutory benefits. In this case, evidently, by the date of the Amendment Act, the proceedings were pending before the Court. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for all the statutory benefits under the Amended Land Acquisition Act, including the additional market value, solatium, interest and interest on solatium. 16. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the market value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. However, it is held that the claimants are entitled for the statutory benefits of enhanced market value, solatium and interest thereon, if not already given by the lower Court. Each party shall bear their own costs.