Judgment :- This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Section 54(1) of L.A. Act against the order dt. 31.10.2002 passed in LAC. No.10/1989 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and amact, Shimoga, partly allowing the reference petition for enhanced compensation and etc., This MFA crob is filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC, against the judgment and award dt. 24.11.2004 passed in LAC. No.8/1989 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and C.J.M. Shimoga, partly allowing the reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation and etc., This Misc. First Appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC r/w Sec. 54(1) of LAC Act against the judgment and ward dt. 31.10.2002 passed in LAC No. 10/89 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & amact, Shimoga, partly allowing the reference petition for enhanced compensation and seeking further enhancement of compensation and etc.,) 1. This batch of five Miscellaneous Appeals under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) and the Cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C. r/w Section 54(2) of the Act are making their journey to and fro in the first round from the High Court to the Reference Court and in the second round from the Supreme Court to this Court, and are now back to square one, in the sense, they are all appeals against the judgment and awards of the Reference Court in LAC No. 8/1989 and LAC No.10/1989. 2. Though the two LAC cases were in company earlier, they got separated after remand from this Court in the first round of appeals by the Acquiring Authority (State Government) in MFA Nos. 759 and 760/1994. 3. Whereafter, it appears the two LAC cases charted out their own course of journey and have resulted in the two separate judgments and awards, and were again back before this Court in the form of above four main appeals and one Cross-appeal. All the appeals and cross objection were disposed of by this court under a common judgment dated 15.12.2006 whereunder, the compensation as determined by the Reference Court came to be further enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre from Rs.1,35,000/- per acre in LAC No.10/1989 and to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre from Rs.1,50,000/- per are in LAC No.8/1989 in respect of agricultural lands. All the appeals and cross objection were disposed of by this court under a common judgment dated 15.12.2006 whereunder, the compensation as determined by the Reference Court came to be further enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre from Rs.1,35,000/- per acre in LAC No.10/1989 and to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre from Rs.1,50,000/- per are in LAC No.8/1989 in respect of agricultural lands. Aggrieved by this common judgment and award of this Court. The matter was taken to the Supreme Court by the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, for whose benefit the lands in question had been acquired. The Supreme Court in terms of the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal Nos. 2459-2553/2009, allowed the appeals and after setting aside the judgment of this Court remanded the matters, to this court for fresh consideration. This is how the appeals are again before us. 4. The appeals and cross objection have their genesis in a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act initially published on 20.12.1984 and later after correction published on 22.8.1985 notifying the two parcels of land namely an extent of 5 acres 5 guntas in Survey No.24 and an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.23 of Shimoga Town for the public purpose namely for setting up on Underground Sewerage Treatment Plant by the Shimoga Town Municipality. 5. The acquisition proceedings resulted in an award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 26.9.1987 whereunder the Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation payable to the land owners to be at Rs.12,500/-per acre on the basis of compensation as had been awarded in respect of lands located at Kallahalli Village which award was based on a sale deed dated 23.1.1985 in respect of Survey No.31/2 an adjacent land, measuring 2 acres 4 guntas, sold at Rs.27,000/-on the basis of which the value therein had been fixed at Rs.12,000/- per acre. 6. 6. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer only indicated the sale transaction dated 23.1.1985 in respect of 2 acres 4 guntas of land located in Shimoga Village was for a sum of Rs.27,000/- and further that in respect of similar land located in Kallahalli Village which came to be acquired for a public purpose and which was located in the middle of Shimoga Town, the compensation had been fixed at Rs.12,500/-per acre and in the background of such development thought it proper to fix the compensation payable to the land owners at Rs.12,500/- per acre. The land owners on the other hand had staked their claims before the Land Acquisition Officer by indicating the value of their lands as around Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/-per acre of land. The land owners obviously being dissatisfied with the award of the Land Acquisition Officer sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Land Acquisition Officer having referred two claims to the Civil Court they were numbered as LAC.No.8/89 in respect of land in Survey No.23 and LAC.No.10/89 with reference to land in Survey No.24 of Shimoga Village. 7. The two references were clubbed together and common evidence were recorded. Both the land owners K.S. Gangadharappa and Bhoopalam R. Jagadish deposed as PWs.1 and 2 respectively. The documentary evidence Exs. P.1 to P.5 comprising of RTC extracts, certified copy of the Circular, Encumbrance Certificate and the valuation certificate were marked. No evidence either oral or documentary, was let in on behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer. The learned Judge of the Reference Court on appreciation of the materials before the Court opined that while the materials placed by the claimants before the Court were not productive for their seeking any enhancement in terms of the claim made in the Reference Court, nevertheless provided succor to the land owners having recourse to the judgment and award rendered by the Court in LAC. Nos. 7, 8, 14, 19, 20 and 41 of 1990 which were disposed on 20.7.1992 wherein the Court had determined the compensation payable in respect of lands as similar in nature and located within Millaghatta area of Shimoga Town which had been determined as Rs.49,900/- per acre. Nos. 7, 8, 14, 19, 20 and 41 of 1990 which were disposed on 20.7.1992 wherein the Court had determined the compensation payable in respect of lands as similar in nature and located within Millaghatta area of Shimoga Town which had been determined as Rs.49,900/- per acre. Having regard to the date of the preliminary notification suitable escalation was added to this valuation and arrived at Rs.54,500/- per acre in respect of the lands acquired from the petitioners in the two references. 8. Strangely enough the Land Acquisition Officer appealed against this judgment and award of the Reference Court rendered in common in the two references contending that the determination of the compensation by the Reference is on the higher side that there is no basis for the Reference Court to rely upon its earlier judgment rendered in LAC. Nos. 7, 8, 14, 19, 20 and 41 of 1990 and it was not even the case of the land owners and if they had failed to establish by any cogent material as to what should be their entitlement as proper compensation, the Reference Court could not have embarked on such exercise of enhancing the compensation as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. This Court under judgment in MFA.No.760/94 dated 29.10.2001 to which one of us (DVSKJ) was party allowed the appeal only for a remand to the Reference Court for the reason that the learned Judge of the Reference Court ought to have consider only the materials that are available on record and as the learned Judge by the judgment and award of the Reference Court under appeal proceeded to this conclusion based on surmises and conjectures and not on any material on record and not on material placed before the Court by any of the parties and therefore, the matter required fresh consideration before the Reference Court. 9. When the matter went back to the Reference Court, fortunes of the land owners brightened as in this round the Reference Court thought it proper to arrive at the market value based on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Shivaji Rao Vs. 9. When the matter went back to the Reference Court, fortunes of the land owners brightened as in this round the Reference Court thought it proper to arrive at the market value based on a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Shivaji Rao Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in M.F.A.No.1953/95 c/w M.F.A.No.348/95 and finding that under the said judgment this Court having determined the market value of the lands located in or around the lands notified under acquisition under the present notification and though the lands under the present notification were only agricultural lands it having the potential for non-agricultural use and that the surroundings already been put to nonagricultural use it may be safe to adopt the valuation as determined by this Court in respect of all the lands rendered in judgment in Shivaji Rao’s case and applying the user as the basis whereunder the value of the land per acre had been determined at Rs.2,70,000/- thought it proper to apply necessary corrections for the reason that the present lands were only agricultural lands had not been converted for non-agricultural use nor had it been laid down for being put to use either for a housing purpose or for any industrial activities etc. reduced 50% of this amount by allowing 6% as provision for development activities and determined the value of the land as to be Rs.1,35,000/- per acre. By that time, the judgments were rendered in two reference cases, the two references having found their own course during the proceedings, two separate judgments were rendered one in LAC No.8/89 and the other in LAC.No.10/89 and the only difference noticed by the Reference Court in these cases was that the said land with reference to these cases namely 3 acres 20 guntas in Survey No.23 also had some two years old Arecanut plants standing on the land at the time of fore-notification to an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas and thought it proper to add a further amount of Rs.15,000/-per acre in respect of the loss of such arecanut plants to the owner of the land having regard to the requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. 10. 10. In the further development of this litigation, both the Land Acquisition Officer and the beneficiary namely the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board appealed to this Court under Section 54(2) of the Act by filing two appeals each and for a good measure, the land owner of Survey No.23 who figured as respondent in corresponding two appeals corresponding to the judgment in LAC.No.8/99 has filed a cross appeal. 11. All these appeals and cross objections were heard together and disposed of by the common judgment rendered by this Court on 15.12.2006 and the fortunes of the land owners which had at the first instance brightened in the first round of remand really soured this time with this Court determining the compensation payable to the land owners to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre as common basis in respect of lands situated in both Survey Nos. It was now the turn of the Land Acquisition Officer and the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board to go up in appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court entertained the appeals and set aside common judgment of this Court in all the five appeals and has remanded the appeals to this Court in terms of its judgment. That is the background in which we have heard these appeals at some length. 12. Heard Sri. G.V. Shantharaju, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri. Shashidar, learned counsel who have appeared for the appellant-Board in M.F.A.No.6582/05 and M.F.A.No.1549/03 and Sri. N.D. Jayadevappa, learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant Land Acquisition Officer in M.F.A.No.1339/2003, Sri. H.N. Narayan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant land owner in M.F.A.No.1396/03 as also for the very person figuring as respondent in two appeals of the Board and in one appeal of the Government and Sri. S.N. Hatti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.F.A. Cross Objection No.211/2006 in M.F.A.No.6582/2005 appeal who figures as respondent in all the other appeals. 13. S.N. Hatti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.F.A. Cross Objection No.211/2006 in M.F.A.No.6582/2005 appeal who figures as respondent in all the other appeals. 13. Submission on behalf of the Board and the Land Acquisition Officer is that the judgment and award of the Reference Court enhancing the compensation from the original Rs.12,500/- per acre as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer to the astronomical figure of Rs.1,35,000/- per acre in LAC.No.10/89 and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in LAC.No.8/99 is without any rhyme or reasons; that there is absolutely no reason for such an enhancement as the material on record did not support such enhancement and further that the judgments under appeal are neither logical nor cogent; that the learned Judge of the Reference Court has taken irrelevant considerations and the judgment while the same is not based on the material on record but has only referred to a judgment and award rendered by this Court in some other appeals and the judgment and award not even being made part of the record in present cases have all combined together would vitiate the judgment and awards rendered in the two references. 14. It is further submitted that when once the learned Judge of the Reference Court found that Exs.P.4 and P.5 marked in LAC.No.10/89 being two sale deeds dated 7.10.1983 and 4.2.1985 were not of any relevance for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands in question and when the learned Judge of the Reference Court rightly and cautiously rejected the transaction being made the basis for determining the market value of the acquire lands, there was no other material before the Court to enhance the compensation as had been sought for and even assuming that the lands in question had non-agricultural potential, the land owners having not proved the extent of non-agricultural potential the present method of valuing the land on a overall potential basis or generating the value uniformly across Shimoga Town is nothing short of a perverse reasoning and therefore, the judgment and awards were not sustainable and set aside. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the Board and the Land Acquisition Officer submitted that when once Exs.P.4 and P.5 are not accepted as relevant material for the purpose of determining the market value and if reliance placed on the judgment and award rendered in Shivaji Rao’s case which is neither part of the record nor relevance of it had been established by the claimants, the determination of market value of Rs.1,35,000/-and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre is definitely not proper or correct nor it is sustainable in law and therefore the appeal requires to be allowed. 16. Per contra, Sri. H.N. Narayan, learned Senior Counsel and Sri. S.N. Hatti have submitted in chorus that the lands in question undoubtedly had considerable potential for non-agricultural developments and use; that it had been virtually conceded even by the Land Acquisition Officer as noticed in his award that even if no other material was placed by the land owners before the Reference Court, the Land Acquisition Officer and the beneficiary cannot dispute the factum of the acquired lands having considerable non-agricultural potential for development and even on the date of issue of preliminary notification, its market value was not merely on the basis of the agricultural yield but definitely due to its potential, for being put to a non-agricultural user and therefore, the judgment and award of the Reference Court while should be necessarily sustained there is on the other hand scope for enhancement, not only on the basis of Exs.P.4 and P.5 but also having regard to the observations made by the Supreme Court in their judgment for remanding this batch of appeals to this Court and therefore would submit that while the early enhancement by this Court raising the market value from Rs.1,35,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/- in common, while should be definitely sustained there is scope for further enhancement and not reduction in that value and therefore urge this Court will have to examine the possible enhancement over and above the market value of Rs.4,00,000/- per acre. 17. While Sri. 17. While Sri. H.N. Narayan, learned Senior Counsel would urge that apart from correcting the judgment and award of the Reference Court on the question of determining the market value of the lands in the manner as submitted above, there is also need for correction to the judgment and award of the Reference Court for allowing reduction of 50% of the value arrived at, as margin for developmental activities by submitting that so far as the claimant’s lands in Survey No.24 is concerned, the entire extent of land put to use for the purpose of acquisition for setting up the Underground Sewerage Treatment Plant, the question of allowing the deduction or providing a margin for developmental activities does not arise and if the court can take note of this development and therefore while suitable enhancement over and above the market value as determined by the Reference Court can be provided for and no deduction should be made from out of this determination as the Board has not provided any such margin towards developmental activities in the sense there was no occasion for laying roads, providing civic amenities area etc. having regard to nature of the user of the acquired land which the Board had acquired. 18. Sri. H.N. Narayan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in M.F.A.No.1396/03 has sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Administrative General of West Bengal Vs. having regard to nature of the user of the acquired land which the Board had acquired. 18. Sri. H.N. Narayan learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in M.F.A.No.1396/03 has sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Administrative General of West Bengal Vs. Collector of Varanasi reported in AIR 1988 Supreme Court 943 and in particular to the observations contained in para 6 of this judgment to submit that when once even a larger extent of land which has been acquired has been demonstrated to be of similar nature and is at a stage when it can be readily used for building purposes and when immediately building plots can be laid out in the land and can be sold as hot cakes, then the valuation of that land on the hypothetical basis of a non-agricultural potential in the sense that the value of such building sites can be taken as a measure to arrive at the market value of the acquired lands and when in this connection it is submitted that it is a forgone conclusion that subject lands being located within the heart of Shimoga Town and when development had taken place all round the subject lands, when it was surrounded by Highway, by railway line, bus stand etc. and in the vicinity of a well developed lay out laid down by the municipality, definitely the value should be taken on par with the value of the land in the municipal layouts and if so, the learned Judge of the Reference Court should not have rejected Exs.P.4 and P.5, the sale deeds of contemporary period or a little earlier and though even initially these sale deeds in respect of municipal sites should have been adopted as a basis for valuing the market value of the subject lands nevertheless submits that the judgment and award of the Reference Court if at all calls for a suitable modification it is only to enhance the compensation to the higher side and not to reduce it as is sought to be contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Board. 19. Sri. 19. Sri. S.N. Hatti, learned counsel appearing for the land owner in cross appeal would submit that the remand order of the Supreme Court remanding these appeals to this Court if at all has to be understood as though, the Supreme Court was disapproving the values as it had been arrived at by this Court in the earlier round which had been fixed at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre uniformly for both parcels of the land; that the only inference one has to draw is that the remand is for the purpose of providing a suitable enhancement from the earlier enhanced value of Rs.4,00,000/-per acre and in that context would also rely upon Exs.P.4 and P.5 as in LAC.No.10/89 which are in turn marked as Exs.P.11 and P.12 in LAC No.8/89 and for the same reason would urge that should be taken as a supporting material for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the lands in question. 20. Sri. S.N. Hatti would also point out that this could be inferred as Supreme Court in the remand order had observed that the High Court is required to indicate the basis for making deductions from the value of the land as arrived at but the same having not been indicated, the remand is only for such purpose that while the value as arrived at, on the basis of Exs.P.11 and P.12 is only to be retained and the further question is only as to what extent of deduction is justified or warranted and the limited purpose of remand is only for this and nothing else. 21. Sri. S.N. Hatti submitted that the only requirement of this Court in the present batch of appeals is to arrive at a satisfactory percentage for the purpose of deduction on the basis of the valuation of the lands in terms of the value indicated in Exs.P.4 and P.5 in LAC.No.10/89 and in Exs.P.11 and P.12 in LAC.Nos.8/89 and in support of the submission would place reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka (1) 870 in the case of Shantha and another Vs. The Executive Engineer and another and is supporting the submission of Sri. H.N. Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, urging that no deduction is warranted at all though the ground for not providing for any deduction as urged by Sri. H.N. Narayan and as urged by Sri. The Executive Engineer and another and is supporting the submission of Sri. H.N. Narayan, learned Senior Counsel, urging that no deduction is warranted at all though the ground for not providing for any deduction as urged by Sri. H.N. Narayan and as urged by Sri. S.N. Hatti are different and on the strength of the judgment reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka (1) 870 submission is that the said land is already located in a developed area and having lost its agricultural character potential long back does not warrant any deduction at all. 22. Sri. S.N. Hatti, also places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh reported in 2001 Supreme Court 2532 to submit that the learned Judge of the Reference Court has committed an error in law in refusing to place reliance on Exs.P.11 and P.12 for the reason that the claimants have not been able to prove the contents of the document in the sense the valuation as had been indicated in the sale deeds due to the non-examination of the author either the vendee or vendor or the witnesses etc. and would submit that the judgment of the Reference Court is not in the consonance with law declared by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh’s case that Section 51-A of the Act by itself takes care of the necessity to examine or not to examine the vendor or the vendee of a sale deed to prove the contents; that after the introduction of Section 51-A of the Act in the Land Acquisition Act in terms of Amendment Act No.68 of 1984 and more so if the declaration of law by the Supreme Court in Ram Singh’s case concludes the issue in favour of the claimants for the acceptability of Exs.P.4 and P.5 in LAC.No.10/89 which are same as Exs.P.11 and P.12 in LAC.No.8/89 for the purpose of rely upon as a piece of evidence to arrive at the possible market value of the subject lands. 23. Sri. 23. Sri. S.N. Hatti, being not content with such submission has also submitted that further addition of 20% can be added either by way of bonus or as additional value for the urban potential of the land and therefore urges that in the present appeals this Court can re-determine the market value of the said land at a much higher rate than Rs.4,00,000/- per acre as land been determined by this Court in the earlier round of all these appeals before this Court. 24. We have perused the judgments under appeal, the remand order of the Supreme Court remanding these appeals for re-examination of this Court, the record of the case and considered the submission made at the Bar in the light of the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel. 25. It is rather surprising even puzzling as to how a simple question of determining the possible market value of the land acquired for a public purpose compulsorily, can assume so many hues and shades and the value can keep varying at different levels of judicial echelons. 26. The present appeals are a very good example of the vagaries of such an exercise, the fluctuating fortunes of the land owners, varying perceptions of judicial principles and approach the above all the proverbial uncertainty of litigation. 27. In the first instance, the Land Acquisition Officer valued the land at Rs.12,500/-per acre, based on a sale deed which was only in respect of a converted land in the vicinity of the lands acquired. The Reference Court in the first instance thought it proper to enhance the value to Rs.54,000/-per acre, and it is at this stage, the State which was the acquiring authority and responsible for compensating the respondents/claimants came up in appeal before this Court complaining that the determination of the compensation is on the higher side. The claimants were quite content and happy with the enhancement as had been provided by the Reference Court as they neither filed appeals nor cross appeals in the appeal filed by the State. 28. The claimants were quite content and happy with the enhancement as had been provided by the Reference Court as they neither filed appeals nor cross appeals in the appeal filed by the State. 28. This Court found such enhancement based on an earlier award of the Reference Court when that award was not even on record in the form of a marked document, was not a satisfactory way of re-determining the market value particularly for enhancement and therefore remanded the matter to the Reference Court in the first round of remand there was luck for the land owners as the Reference Court found it proper to value the land at Rs.1,35,000/- per acre in LAC.No.10/89 and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre in LAC.No.8/89 the difference being comparable to the extent of arecanut plants grown in the lands relevant for LAC.No.8/89. The further appeal by the State with one independent appeal by the land owner in one case and cross appeal by the other land owner in other case resulted in further enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000/-per acre this time by this Court! This was found fault with, by the Supreme Court and the judgment of this Court enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,00,000/- per acre is set aside and all the appeals are back before us. It is in this background we have dealt with these appeals. 29. What one can notice in the sequence of developments is that the State if should have kept quite with the enhancement as had been provided by the Reference Court in the first round of litigation at Rs.54,500/-per acre, then the matter would have attained finality and it appears not only the State but the land owners also would have been content with that valuation. Alas! that did not happen. The State chose to file appeal and that has led to the disastrous result, as could be inferred from the above narration! 30. The trend that emerges from the above developments is that the Courts tend to get liberal over a period of time or the trend of spiraling land values, inevitably influences the minds of the Judges and even in respect of acquisition in the past period, in the present situation of the year 1984-85. 30. The trend that emerges from the above developments is that the Courts tend to get liberal over a period of time or the trend of spiraling land values, inevitably influences the minds of the Judges and even in respect of acquisition in the past period, in the present situation of the year 1984-85. This thinking influences the decision, though the relevant consideration is only the market value of the land as on the date of the issue of preliminary notification under Section 4 of the Act. 31. Values of lands particularly in the vicinity of the urban areas sky rocketing, is a global phenomenon which has emerge on the scene, on and after the issue of Section 4 notification in the present cases, but it has turned into a reverse trend subsequent to the global recession that is from 2008 onwards. 32. The upward trend was phenomenal in the initial stages, stabilized in the mid 1990s and it was only a downward trend thereafter. Be that as it may, these are all not relevant as they are all subsequent developments and particularly if one were to go by the mandate of law and as had been indicated in Section 23 and 24 of the Act the statutory provisions are very clear, unambiguous and emphatic. The only aspect that falls for our consideration in the present appeals is the first aspect of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act viz., the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4 sub-section (1). The material that had been placed by the land owners/claimants before the Reference Court which had been in the form of Exs.P.4 and P.5 which had been elaborately discussed by the learned Judge of the Reference Court but had been rejected is the only material that can throw light, if it is found that it is an acceptable material in the sense of a comparable document, for arriving at the market value of the land under acquisition. 33. 33. On facts we have found that several submissions have been made at the Bar, that the lands which are subject matter of Exs.P.4 and P.5 are not either in the vicinity of the lands acquired in the present cases nor is there any material or evidence to indicate that distance separating the sites referred in Exs.P.4 and P.5 and the lands under acquisition in these two cases. Whether or not the claimants had examined vendee or vendor, parties to the sale deeds, the non-examination we find if at all is to the determinant of the land owners further as their examination could have brought out the fact on record to indicate as to the proximity or similarity of the sites, sold under these documents to the subject lands under acquisition. In the absence of any other supporting evidence or material, Exs.P.4 and P.5 blissfully remain aloof and independent and are not linked to the subject lands as to the value the sites, it form subject matter of Exs.P.4 and P.5 and therefore becomes an irrelevant discussion if they have not been linked or if they have not been shown as a comparable piece of lands to subject lands, under acquisition. On the other hand we find the sites which were sold under Exs.P.4 and P.5 are admittedly municipal sites, in laid out layouts had exchanged hands as sites and of smaller dimensions measuring 35 ft. x 50 ft. Though these two sale deeds are of contemporaries periods and could have formed a reasonably dependable basis for valuing the subject lands, subject to other provision and if they should have been linked up or their relevance should have been proved by the claimants to the lands under acquisition, that having not been done, they remain independent. Further the lands under acquisition are large tracts of agricultural lands, though it could be said that they had non-agricultural potential also, but the fact being they were non-laid out land and had not been used for non-agricultural purposes, though agricultural activity had ceased. 34. Even applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Administrative General of West Bench Vs. 34. Even applying the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Administrative General of West Bench Vs. Collector of Varanasi (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 943) we find that while the observations contained in para-6 of the judgment are applicable to the facts of the present case, on the other hand the observations contained in para-6 relied upon by the learned counsel H.N. Narayan is not in support of the case of the land owners but to the contrary! The earlier part of the observation viz., “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” which in turn is placing reliance on the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court and the further observation that “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” and the observation made to this land is applicable to the fact situation in the present case and the later observation starting from. “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 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. are to be made. In Brig. Sahib Singh Kalha v. Amritsar Improvement Trust, (See (1982) 1 SCC 419 (AIR 1982 Supreme Court 940)) this Court indicated that deductions for land required for roads and other developmental expenses can, together, come 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 ‘retain’ price of land and the latter the ‘wholesale’ price. The sale transaction at Ext.24 was an year later. Such subsequent transactions which are not proximate in the point of time to the acquisition can be taken into account for purposes of determining whether as on the date of acquisition there was an upward trend in the prices of land in the area. Further under certain circumstances where it is shown that the market was stable and there were no fluctuations in the prices between the date of the preliminary notification and the date of such subsequent transaction, the transaction could also be relied upon to ascertain the market value. This Court in State of U.P. v. Maj. Jitender Kumar, (See AIR 1982 Supreme Court 876 (877)) observed: “…It is true that the sale deed Ext.21 upon which the High Court has relied is of a date three years later than the Notification under S.4 but no material was produced before the Court to suggest that there was any fluctuation in the market rate at Meerut from 1948 onwards till 1951 and if so to what extent. In the absence of any material showing any fluctuation in the market rate the High Court thought it fit to rely upon ex.21 under which the Housing Society itself had purchased land in the neighbourhood of the land (in) dispute. On the whole we are not satisfied that any error was committed by the High Court in relying upon the sale deed Ex.21…” But this principle could be appealed to only where there is evidence to the effect that there was no upward surge in the prices in the interregnum. The burden of establishing this would be squarely on the party relying on such subsequent transaction. The burden of establishing this would be squarely on the party relying on such subsequent transaction. In the present case appellant did not endeavour to show that between the date of preliminary notification i.e., 4.7.1959 and the date of Ext.24 i.e. 18.8.1970 there was no appreciation in the value of land in the area. Therefore, Ext.24 cannot be relied upon as affording evidence of the market value as on 4.7.1959. We cannot accept the argument that the price indicated in Ext.24 should be accepted after allowing an appropriate deduction for the possible appreciation of the land values during the period of one year. Apart from other difficulties in his exercise, there is no evidence as to the rate and degree of appreciation in the values of land so that the figure could be jobbed backwards from 14.7.1960 to 4.7.1959.” is not relevant for the purpose of present cases as we have discussed the fact situation as above. It is therefore that while the finding of the Reference Court for rejecting the relevance on Exs.P.4 and P.5 for using that as a basis to arrive at the market value of the subject lands is affirmed but for the reasons as we have held above and not as indicated by the Reference Court. 35. When once the material sought to be placed and relied upon by the land owners in the form of Exs.P.4 and P.5 is found to be not a reliable or relevant material for the purpose of arriving at the market value of subject lands, the further contention of the land owners based on the judgment of our High Court reported in ILR 2007 Karnataka (1) 870 in the case of Shantha and another Vs. The Executive Engineer and another and also the judgment in the cases State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh reported in 2001 Supreme Court 2532 and Administrative General of West Bench Vs. Collector of Varanasi (AIR 1988 Supreme Court 943), are all of no significance and the arguments based on the ratio and the law laid down in these cases are only to be rejected as not relevant or as per cable and are accordingly rejected. 36. That still leaves us with the question as to whether the valuation as arrived at by the Reference Court is the proper value of the subject lands in this state of affairs. 36. That still leaves us with the question as to whether the valuation as arrived at by the Reference Court is the proper value of the subject lands in this state of affairs. We do not find any reason or justification warranting an enhancement of the market value of the land over and above the value as arrived at by the Reference Court as the appellant and the cross appellant have not made out any case or ground for such enhancement, based on the available material to demonstrate that the Reference Court as committed an error in fixing the market value of the lands at Rs.1,35,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/-per acre. 37. That still leaves us with the question as to this valuation is justified or calls for interference at the instance of the beneficiary and the State Government as the State Government and the beneficiary are also in appeal before this Court contending that value as determined by the Reference Court is on the higher side and it is in this context we have heard Sri. Shashidhar led by Sri. Shantharaju, learned Senior Counsel for these two appellants and as noticed above the Reference Court while declined to place any reliance on Exs.P.4 and P.5 and rightly so, as indicated above in this judgment, nevertheless found it proper to enhance the market value from Rs.12,500/- per acre as determined by Land Acquisition Officer to Rs.1,35,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre respectively in respect of subject lands involving in LAC Nos.10 and 8 of 1989, respectively with a small difference of Rs.15,000/-for the land in respect of LAC.No.8/89, it appears is justified on the premise of existence of 2 years old arecanut plant standing on the said land is not in dispute; that the basic question is the value of Rs.1,35,000/- per acre as arrived by the Reference Court is sustainable based on any relevant material available on record. 38. In the light or provisions of Section 24 of the Act, we see no force in the submission of Sri. 38. In the light or provisions of Section 24 of the Act, we see no force in the submission of Sri. H.N. Narayan learned Senior Counsel that since the extent of the acquired land is being utilized by the Board for locating Underground Sewerage Treatment Plant no deduction for developmental activities could be allowed as per Section 24 of the Act, as the purpose for which the land is acquired or the use for which the acquired land is acquired, cannot be a consideration to be taken note of while determining the market value of the acquired lands. 39. The argument of Sri. S.N. Hatti, learned counsel that additional value to the extent of 15 to 20% over and above the compensation determined by this Court in the earlier occasion should be allowed, has no basis. Having regard to evidence on record there is no force in the argument of Sri. S.N. Hatti, that no deduction should be allowed towards developmental activities. We have already noticed that the acquired land as on the date of the preliminary notification was still an agricultural land though agricultural activity had ceased, on account of several factors. The Reference Court determined the market value of the land by deducting 50% of the value as determined in Shivaji Rao’s case towards developmental activities. The lands acquired involved in Shivaji Rao’s case as could be seen from the said judgment was a converted land whereas the land in question were agricultural lands. Therefore, the Reference Court deducted 50% towards developmental activities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, of this case, in our opinion, the Reference Court is justified in deducting 50% of the value towards developmental charges. 40. For such purpose, the Reference Court has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Shivaji Rao which is a valuation made by this Court in M.F.A.No.1953/95 connected with M.F.A.No.348/95 arising out of LAC.No.46/90 to an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas of land situated in Millaghatta land of Shimoga which had been acquired for the purpose of formation of house sites in terms of a preliminary notification dated 2.8.1984. 41. 41. The notification undoubtedly is of contemporary period and being even a little earlier to the present notification, definitely form a valid basis for arriving at the market value but the objection raised on behalf of the beneficiary and the State by the learned counsel is that this judgment and award is not necessarily a piece of evidence on record as the judgment of this Court had not even been marked. 42. If this objection is to be sustained, as it is a fact that this had not been marked but the Reference Court has virtually taken judicial note of this award because it happened to be a judgment and award of the High Court and the Reference Court with all reverence has accepted this, the question for our present consideration is as to whether independent of the marking of the award or not, can it throw some light in the context of the determination of the plausible market value of the subject lands having regard to its non-agricultural potential and it is here the submission of the learned counsel for the land owners that the Land Acquisition Officer had himself observed that the lands were suitable for non-agricultural purpose assumes some significance. 43. In the absence of any other worth while material or dependable material having come on record and though the judgment and award in Shivaji Rao’s case is not forming part of the record in the sense it is not a document marked on behalf of the claimants, we find that it is a safe bet to accept this as a measure, for determining the market value of the subject lands having regard to its non-agricultural potential. 44. We are conscious of the fact that the subject lands though perhaps can be attributed with non-agricultural potential was not laid out as sites in small bits but large agricultural tracks of land of 5 acres and 3 acres and the terrain and nature of the land is not known. In such a scenario, it will be rather hazardous to arrive at a value commensurate to the valued of a land in a developed once when the subject lands are not a uniformly laid out well developed area and if at all it can remain an agricultural land but with potential for non agricultural use. 45. In such a scenario, it will be rather hazardous to arrive at a value commensurate to the valued of a land in a developed once when the subject lands are not a uniformly laid out well developed area and if at all it can remain an agricultural land but with potential for non agricultural use. 45. Under such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the value of the said lands as arrived at by the Reference Court appears to be a reasonable value and on a reasonable basis and merits acceptance. Though it is ironic that the State Government which came up in appeal complaining the first round of valuation by the Reference Court at Rs.54,500/- per acre was itself on the higher side, and in the second round the determination by the Reference Court at a much higher level of Rs.1,35,000/-and Rs.1,50,000/- per acre which is almost 3 times, is being sustained even when the State Government had succeeded in the first round of appeal before this Court! 46. It is for this reason we have observed that the vagaries of litigation in our system is as puzzling and as surprising and anything could happen and though it may be a matter of considerable disappointment for the land owners whose aspirations had soared in the earlier round of litigation with this Court having determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.4,00,000/- per acre, we find that it cannot be restored in favour of the land owners in the light of the discussion we have made above and more so when the judgment of this Court came to be set aside by the Supreme Court and the matter is remanded. We definitely cannot understand the remand order of the Supreme Court in the manner canvassed either by Sri. H.N. Narayan or Sri. S.N. Hatti, to the effect that the remand order is either for the purpose of further enhancing the land value upwards from the earlier valuation as determined by this Court at Rs.4 lakhs per acre or that there is any scope for such further enhancement due to the remand order and therefore argument to the effect urged on behalf of the land owners is rejected. 47. 47. In the result, the appeal and the cross appeal by the land owner as well as the appeals by the State Government and the beneficiary as well as one appeal by the land owner and other cross appeal by the other land owner are all dismissed which definitely enjoins to leave the parties to bear their respective costs in all these appeals. All appeals dismissed.