Judgment :- (This MFA is filed under Section 54 of LA Act against the judgment and award dated 9.8.2004 passed LAC.No.56/2003 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & C.J.M., Shimoga partly allowing the reference petition for enhanced compensation.) Keshavanarayana, J. This appeal filed under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short the ‘Act’) is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.8.2004 passed in LAC.No.56/2003 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and C.J.M., Shimoga. 2. On the request of the Executive Engineer, Upper Tunga Project, Shimoga, lands to an extent of 48 acres 38 guntas comprised in several survey numbers situated in Somanikoppa Village were notified for acquisition as per preliminary notification dated 11.9.1997 issued under Section 4(1) of Act. 3. Survey No.22/1A owned by the first respondent Kariyappa to an extent of 15 guntas was also notified for acquisition. The first respondent along with other owners of the land objected for the acquisition mainly on the ground that all these lands have already been developed into building sites as they are very close to Shimoga Town and therefore they sought for dropping of the acquisition proceedings. However, having regard to the fact that the lands were required for laying the main water canal for Upper Tunga Project, the Government proceeded with the acquisition by publishing declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act. Thereafter during the award proceedings before the Land acquisition Officer (for short ‘LAO’), the owners of the lands filed their claims contending that the lands are very valuable lands having potentiality of building sites close to Shimoga City, therefore the compensation should be commensurately fixed and paid. The LAO by his award dated 26.4.2002 classified the land bearing survey No.22/1A owned by the first respondent as “kere thari” and on the basis of the sale statistic secured from the office of the Sub-Registrar for the relevant period, determined the market value of the land at Rs.96,327/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the market value determined by the LAO, the first respondent filed application under Section 18(1) of the Act seeking reference of the matter to the Civil Court. 4. On reference, the Civil Court registered the case and proceeded with enquiry. During the enquiry before the reference court, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and produced Exs. P1 to P4. 4. On reference, the Civil Court registered the case and proceeded with enquiry. During the enquiry before the reference court, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and produced Exs. P1 to P4. He placed strong reliance on the certified copy of the sale deed dated 30.8.1998 which is marked as Ex.P.1 in respect of sale of a site measuring 30 ft. x 50 ft. in a lay out formed in Survey No.111/3 by the Revenue Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society, Shimoga. According to claimant the said site was sold for Rs.90,000/- and therefore he sought for determination of the market value of the acquired land at that rate on the premise that the land in question also had the same potentiality. He also produced a copy of guidance value issued by the Sub-Registrar, Shimoga and also RTC extracts pertaining to the land in question. On the other hand, the LAO did not produce any oral evidence except marking copy of the award as Ex.R.1 which included a Government order dated 9.5.2002 where in the Government had fixed the market value of the land bearing survey Nos. 111/3 and 125 of Somanikoppa acquired under the same notification at Rs.150/- per sq.mt. 5. The reference court after hearing both sides and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence though found that the land in question namely survey No.22/1A measuring 15 guntas has not been converted into non-agricultural purpose as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, held that it had all the potentiality of building sites having regard to its proximity to the city and also the other developed lay outs formed in the vicinity. The reference court placing reliance on Ex.P.1 determined the market value of the land in question at Rs.6,14,176/-per acre. According to the reference court, since a site measuring 50 ft. x 30 ft. was sold under Ex.P.1 for consideration of Rs.90,000/- the value for one acre would work out to Rs.26,93,600/-and since the land in question had not been converted for non-agricultural use , the reference court scaled down the value to Rs.13,85,208/-and thereafter by deducting 53% towards developmental activities, arrived at the market value of Rs.6,14,176/-per acre and the owner was ordered to be compensated for 15 guntas at that rare. 6. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the reference court, the Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act which stepped into the shoes of some part of the Irrigation Department of the Government of Karnataka, filed this appeal inter alia contending that the reference court has committed error in placing reliance on Ex.P.1 for the purpose of determining the market value though under Ex.P1 only a small house site formed in a properly formed lay out after getting the land converted for non-agricultural purpose having been sold, therefore Ex.P.1 cannot be a basis for determination of market value of large tract of agricultural land. It is also contended that in the absence of any evidence to establish similarity of land in question with the land which is the subject matter in Ex.P.1 and as to the proximity between the two lands, Ex.P.1 could have been accepted as the basis for determining the market value of the lands in question. It is also contended that the method by which the reference court has determined the market value is contrary to the well settle principles of law while determining the market value of agricultural lands. 7. Upon service of notice of this appeal, respondent/claimant has appeared though his learned counsel. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 8. Undisputedly, the land in question bearing survey No.22/1A measuring 15 guntas was owned by the first respondent and as on the date of issue of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, the land had not been converted for non-agricultural purpose as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, as such it had remained as an agricultural land which had been classified as kere thari. No doubt the evidence on record indicates that certain lands within the vicinity of the land in question which were also acquired under the very same notification had been converted into non-agricultural purposes and lay out of building sites had been formed therein. 9. The LAO in his award after classifying the land in question as kere thari rejected the contention of the claimant that he should be paid compensation for the land in question as a building site. The LAO placing reliance on the sale statistics obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar determined the market value of the land in question as an agricultural land. The LAO placing reliance on the sale statistics obtained from the office of the Sub-Registrar determined the market value of the land in question as an agricultural land. Before the reference court, as noticed earlier, the claimant placed reliance on Ex.P.1 and the reference court proceeded to determine the market value of the acquired land based on the valuation found in Ex.P.1. Perusal of Ex.P.1 shows that it is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 30.08.1997 in respect of sale of a site measuring 30 ft. x 50 ft. in the lay formed by the Revenue Department Employees House Building Co-operative Society, Shimoga in Survey No.111/3 of Somanikoppa village. The vendor under this sale deed had purchased the said site from the society who in turn sold the same to one Basheer Ahamed for a price of Rs.90,000/-. As could be seen from the contents of Ex.P.1 itself, it is clear that the land had been converted to non-agricultural purpose in the year 1986 itself as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 15.5.1986 and necessary conversion fine had been deposited by the Society. The Society had formed a lay out of building sites and thereafter the sites were either allotted or sold to its members. The sale deed Ex.P1 pertains to sale of a small residential site. The reference court was considering the market value of a large extent unconverted land, acquired under the notification. 10. In Administrative General of West Bengal Vs. Collector of Varanasi (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 943) the Apex Court referring to its several earlier decisions has held that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties. The relevant observations are found at para 6, which reads as under, “6. It is trite proposition that prices fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land as the two are not comparable properties x x x x x The principle that evidence of market-value of sales of small, developed plots is not a safe guide in valuing large extents of land has to be understood in its proper perspective. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. The principle requires that prices fetched for small developed plots cannot directly be adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is shown that the large extent to be valued does admit of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that building lots that could be laid out on the land would be good selling propositions and that valuation on the basis of the method of a hypothetical lay-out could with justification be adopted, then in valuing such small, laid-out sites the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of the notification would be relevant. In such a case, necessary deductions for the extent of land required for the formation of roads and other civic amenities; expenses of development of the sites by laying-out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for the period of deferment of the realization of the price; the profits on the venture etc. are to be made. In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, (See (1982) 1 SCC 419 : ( AIR 1982 SC 940 )) this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other development expenses can, together, came up to as much as 53%. But the prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in the case of large areas, for the reason that the former reflects the ‘retail’ price of land and the latter the ‘wholesale’ price.” 11. In the case of Ravinder Narain Vs. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 481 the Apex Court has reiterated the above principle as under in para 6, “6. Where large area is the subject-matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to three decision of this Court in Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta [ (1972) 4 SCC 236 ], Prithvi Raj Taneja vs. State of M.P. [ (1977) 1 SCC 684 ] and Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer [ (1984) 2 SCC 324 ]. 7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. 7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. 8. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust [ (1989) 2 SCC 329 ] in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust Act, 1960 this Court held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the land acquired. While determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is an accepted principle as laid down in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divl. Officer (AIR 1939 PC 98) that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded, neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth, Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the potentiality. 9. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to a minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made: (i) when sale within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages. 10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case (see Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty (AIR 1959 Supreme Court 429)” 12. This view is again reiterated in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti & others [ (2008) 1 SCC 554 ] and in the case of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa reported in (2009) 11 SCC 164 . 13. From the principles laid down in the above decisions it is clear that price fetched by sale of small plot cannot act as a safe basis while determining the market value of large extent of land, and unless the element of speculation is reduced to a minimum by applying the principles laid down in Ravinder Narain’s case referred to supra, fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales cannot be made. 14. Section 51-A of the Act permits acceptance of a certified copy of a registered document, as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. 15. 14. Section 51-A of the Act permits acceptance of a certified copy of a registered document, as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. 15. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Cement Corporation of India Limited v. Purya and others [ (2004) 8 SCC 270 ], while approving the reasonings in Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah [ (2001) 3 SCC 530 ], has held thus in para 31, 32, 35 and 39: “31. Thus, the reasoning of this Court in Narasaiah case [ (2001) 3 SCC 530 ) that Section 51-A enables the party producing the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on the contents of the document without having to examine the vendee or the vendor of that document, is the correct position in law. This finding in Narasaiah case is also supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji Ruparel (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 128) 32. Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting this view of the Court in Narasaiah case as the correct view. 33. The submission of Mr. G. Chandrashekhar to the effect that the contents of a sale deed should be a conclusive proof as regards the transaction contained therein or the court must raise a mandatory presumption in relation thereto in terms of Section 51-A of the Act cannot be accepted as the court may or may not receive a certified copy of sale deed in evidence. It is discretionary in nature. Only because a document is admissible in evidence, as would appear from the discussions made hereinbefore, the same by itself would not mean that the contents thereof stand proved. Secondly, having regard to the other materials brought on record, the court may not accept the evidence contained in a deed of sale. When materials are brought on record by the parties to the lis, the court is entitled to appreciate the evidence brought on record for determining the issues raised before it an in the said process, may accept one piece of evidence and reject the other. X X X X X X 35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. X X X X X X 35. A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of the Act may carry therewith a presumption of genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of proof against whom the presumption operates for disproving it. Only if the presumption is not rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been made that the court shall presume a fact, the same by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive. The genuineness of a transaction can always fall for adjudication, if any question is raised in this behalf. X X X X X 39. While it is clear that under Section 51-A of the LA Act a presumption as to the genuineness of the contents of the document is permitted to be raised, the same can be relied upon only if the said presumption is not rebutted by other evidence. In the said view of the matter we are of the opinion that the decision of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue Officer V.V. Narasaiah lays down the correct law.” 16. In view of the above, the Reference Court is right in holding that Ex.P.1 being a certified copy of a registered sale deed can be received in evidence as evidence of the transaction recorded therein. Nevertheless, mere admission of Ex.P.1 as evidence of transaction recorded therein does not ipso facto become the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. The other essential elements such as similarity of the two lands and the proximity are to be proved and established before accepting the value mentioned in the sale deed as the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land. 17. In the case on hand, the claimant, except producing Ex.P.1 has not produced any acceptable evidence to establish similarities of the two lands and its proximity. Admittedly, the land out of which the site was sold under Ex.P.1 is a converted land and a well laid layout of building sites had been formed by a House Building Society, whereas the acquired land was an unconverted land and lay-out of building sites had not been formed therein. Admittedly, the land out of which the site was sold under Ex.P.1 is a converted land and a well laid layout of building sites had been formed by a House Building Society, whereas the acquired land was an unconverted land and lay-out of building sites had not been formed therein. No evidence has been placed as to the proximity of the lands. Absolutely no evidence is produced by the claimant to show that the acquired land was ripe for use for building purposes; that the land had been divided into sites and there was demand for sites. No circumstance was brought out to the effect that valuation on the basis of the method of hypothetical lay-out could with justification be adopted. As ruled in Administrative General of West Bengal Vs. Collector of Varanasi, referred to supra, even if all these criterias are established, the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small sites in the area at or about the time of notification, would be relevant while valuing small laid-out sites in the hypothetical lay-out and not the large tract of land. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be held that the site sold under Ex.P.1 and the acquired land are comparable lands. Therefore, the Reference Court is not justified in placing reliance on Ex.P.1 and in accepting the value mentioned in Ex.P.1 as the basis for determining the market value of the land in question. The market value of the acquired land determined by the reference court at Rs.6,14,176/- per acre is therefore not in accordance with law and is liable to be set-aside. 18. However, the Learned counsel for the claimant drew our attention to the Government Order accompanying the award Ex.R.1 wherein the government has fixed the market value in respect of lands in Survey Nos. 111/3 and 125 acquired under the very notification, at the rate of Rs.150/-per sq.mt. by allowing escalation of 25% over and above the guidance value. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant that the land in question is adjacent to the land bearing Survey Nos. 111/3 and 125 and it is similar to the said land since survey Nos. by allowing escalation of 25% over and above the guidance value. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant that the land in question is adjacent to the land bearing Survey Nos. 111/3 and 125 and it is similar to the said land since survey Nos. 111/3 and 125 are also in the vicinity of the land in question and since they are also not converted into nonagricultural purpose and are classified as kere thari, the claimant in this case is also entitled for compensation at the same rate as fixed in respect of Survey Nos. 111/3 and 125 if not the value as determined by the reference court, on the basis of Ex.P.1. 19. We have already held that the market value determined by the Reference Court on the basis of Ex.P.1 is not proper and legal. However, having regard to the fact that the Government itself has fixed the market value of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 111/3 and 125 at the rate of Rs.150/-per sq.mt., we fail to understand as to why the said benefit should not be extended to the claimant in this case. In fact, as could be seen from observation made by the Reference Court in the judgment under appeal, the claimant did place reliance on this Government Order and sought determination of market value of the acquired land at that rate. As could be seen from the contents of the award Ex.R.1, the lands bearing Survey Nos.111/3 and 125 are also classified as kere thari. It is also observed in the award of LAO, that these lands are also not converted into non-agricultural purpose. Nevertheless, the Government has fixed the market value of these lands at Rs.150/- per sq.mt. and at that rate, the owners of those lands have been granted compensation. The claimant in his oral evidence before the Reference Court has asserted that his land as well as the other lands acquired in the same notification are within the same extension adjacent to each other and there are no difference between the nature of these lands. In the cross examination of PW.1, there is no serious challenge to this part of evidence of PW.1. In the absence of any such challenge, there is no reason to reject the said evidence. In the cross examination of PW.1, there is no serious challenge to this part of evidence of PW.1. In the absence of any such challenge, there is no reason to reject the said evidence. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant does not seriously dispute the fact that the owners of the lands in survey Nos.111/3 and 125 which are also classified as kere thari have been paid compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.mt. as fixed by the Government in its order dated 9.5.2002 produced along with Ex.R1. Therefore we are of the opinion that it is just and proper to fix the market value of the land in question also at the rate of Rs.150/- per sq.mt. and the compensation should be worked out on that basis. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award of the reference court dated 9.8.2004 passed in LAC.No.56/2003 is modified to the extent indicated above. The market value of the land bearing Survey No.21/A belonging to the first respondent-claimant measuring 15 guntas is determined at Rs.150/- per sq.mt. and the claimant is entitled to receive compensation at that rate. The parties shall bear their respective costs.