Satish Chandra, J.:- This is the first appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated 6.1.2004 passed by the Nagar Mahapalika Tribunal, Lucknow in Misc. Case No. 11 of 1987, Aisi Ram and others v. State of U.P. & another whereby the compensation was enhanced to Re. 1 per sq. ft. 2. The appellant has acquired the land of Ghazipur Bastauli by issuing the Notifications under Sections 28 and 32 on 20.12.1969 and 8.7.1972. The possession was taken on 22.3.1975. The total compensation was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer Rs. 12,901.89/- measuring area 1-2-5 bigha. ft. Not being satisfied, the respondents filed a case before the Tribunal for enhancement of the compensation and the Tribunal has awarded the compensation by enhancing at the rate of Re. 1 per sq. ft. along with the solatium and interest. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. With this background, Sri Madan Gopal Misra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that certain developed land under the Ghazipur Bastauli was acquired which was pertaining to the village of Bastauli. He also submits that the respondents are not entitled for any enhancement of compensation. But the Tribunal has wrongly enhanced the compensation. The order of the learned Tribunal is totally perverse and contrary to the evidences available on record. He further submits that the provisions of Section 23 of Land Acquisition Act have not at all taken into consideration and the market value has been determined by learned Tribunal without taking into account the relevant procedure and law. He further submits that the learned Tribunal without taking into account the evidences adduced on behalf of the appellant and without coming to the conclusion of actual market value on the date of notification under Section 28 of Adhiniyam proceeded to enhance the compensation and determined the market value at the rate of Re 1/- per sq. ft. plus 30% solatium and interest. He again submits that despite all these points having been raised on behalf of appellant, the learned Tribunal proceeded to enhance the compensation ignoring the fact that there was no evidence. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Sri J.B.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents, has justified the impugned order. 5. Lastly, he made a request that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Sri J.B.Dubey, learned counsel for the respondents, has justified the impugned order. 5. After hearing both the parties, it appears that the land in question was acquired for the Housing Scheme. 6. It may be mentioned that Article 300-A of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his property saved by the authority of law. In law, the property can be taken away at the market price. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithviraj Taneja v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1977) 1 SCC 684 observed about the market value as follows:- "The market value means the price that in willing purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the property, having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibilities when laid out in the most advantageous manner excluding any advantage due to the carrying out of the scheme for which the property is compulsorily acquired. In considering market value the disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy should be disregarded. There is an element of guess work inherent in most cases involving determination of the market value of the acquired land. But this in the very nature of things cannot be helped. The essential thing is to keep in view the relevant factors prescribed by the Act." 7. In Misc. Case No. 5 of 1982, Sri Lala and others v. State, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Re.1 per sq. ft. in the same village. The land in question is near Lucknow-Faizabad Highway. Near the land, there was already developed colony like Ashok Garden, Mahanagar Colony and Nishatganj. 8. From the impugned order, it appears that this Court has already approved the compensation at the rate of Re. 1 per sq. ft. in various cases. Just to maintain equality and consistency, I uphold the order passed by the Tribunal which appears reasonable. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 10. The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.