JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Project Officer, Singareni Collieries Company Limited, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2006 passed in O.P.No. 141 of 1993 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, wherein the learned Judge enhanced the compensation for the dry land from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs.36,000/- and for the wet land from Rs. 6,000/- to 36,000/- per acre. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an extent of Ac. 108.05 guntas of land out of which Ac. 91.25 guntas is of dry land and Ac. 16.31 guntas is wet land situated at Bhupalpelli Village, belonging to the claimants was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the opening of New Mines KTK-2A Incline and KTK-3 Magazine vide notification published in the gazette dated 23.1.1988 issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer after following the procedure prescribed under law, awarded compensation at Rs. 4,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 6,000/- per acre for wet land. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the value for excise trees at Rs. 1,85,700/-, and for other trees at Rs. 1,13,924/-. The claimants received the compensation under protest and contended that the amount awarded was insufficient. Being dissatisfied with the Award, the claimants sought for a reference under Section 18 of the Act and the Award has been accordingly referred to for proper adjudication of the market value in question and was taken on file by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. 3. In order to establish the claim, the claimants examined PWs. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs. A1 to A-18 and on behalf of the Referring Officer RWs-1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B1 to B8 were marked. 4. It is to be noticed that there are about 98 claimants and they are all marginal farmers and they possess small extents of land located at Bhoopalpalli, Warangal District. The trial Court after scrutinizing and analysing the evidence on record and placing reliance on sale transactions viz., Exs. A1 to A-8, determined the market value at Rs. 36,000/-per acre uniformly irrespective of dry or wet land. 5. The trial Court after scrutinizing and analysing the evidence on record and placing reliance on sale transactions viz., Exs. A1 to A-8, determined the market value at Rs. 36,000/-per acre uniformly irrespective of dry or wet land. 5. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the reference Court has committed a serious error in enhancing the compensation by taking into account un-comparable sale statistics and in this case the land acquired is very large extent. 6. The second contention is that the reference Court ought to have placed reliance on Ex. A1, a Xerox copy of the award dated 3.6.1998 of the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Mulug, in respect of a land acquired for the purpose of construction of a guest house by Singareni Colleries Company Limited, at Bhupalapally Village wherein the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value at Rs. 20,000/- per acre and the same was enhanced to Rs. 38,500/-by the Reference Court and that became final and no appeal is preferred. 7. The third contention is that when a large extent of land is acquired for the purpose of excavation of coal, a small bit of land cannot be the pointer so as to determine the market value unless proper deductions are given. 8. The fourth contention is that the lands acquired in the present case are located at a far off place, whereas the land acquired in Ex. B-1 is on the main road of Chityal Town and hence the acquired land in the present case stands on a different and distant footing. 9. To substantiate his contentions, he relied on the Supreme Court judgment reported in RATANLAL GUPTA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA ( (1996) 7 SCC 3 ),wherein the Supreme Court at paragraphs 4 and 5 held as under: “4. The question, therefore, is what would be the correct market value that could be fixed as compensation of the land in question. It is seen that strong reliance was placed before the Reference Court on the sale transaction relating to developed area and undeveloped area. In the undeveloped area, the market value was Rs. 23 per square yard in the developed area, the market value was Rs. 39.34 pr square yard. It is seen that the High Court found these lands connected with developed roads. 5. In the undeveloped area, the market value was Rs. 23 per square yard in the developed area, the market value was Rs. 39.34 pr square yard. It is seen that the High Court found these lands connected with developed roads. 5. It has been repeatedly held by a catena of decisions of this Court that when the market value is to be determined on the basis of small plots of land the same price cannot be expected to be realised when a large track of land is offered to a willing purchaser by a willing vendor. When layout has been obtained and the land is situated in a developed area, though sale relating to small plots of lands were produced before the Court, on recording a finding that such sales are genuine and not intended to inflate the market value of the land, this Court held that necessary directions should be given in determining the true market value based on resaleable price at a future date.” 10. He also drawn our attention to another judgment of the Apex Court reported in KANWAR SINGH AND OTHRS VS. UNION OF INDIA ( (1998) 8 SCC 136 ), wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph 8 held as under: “8. So far as the first argument that the appellants ought to have been given the same rate of compensation which was given to the claimants of the adjoining village is concerned, the amount of compensation for the land acquired depends on the market value of 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. Whether such an offer of compensation represents the market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act, has to be determined on the basis of evidence produced before the Court. The claimants have to prove and demonstrate that the compensation offered by the Collector is not adequate and the same doe not reflect the true market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The claimants have to prove and demonstrate that the compensation offered by the Collector is not adequate and the same doe not reflect the true market value of the land on the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. This could only be done by the claimants by adducing evidence to the effect that on the relevant date, the market value of the land in question was such at which the vendor and the vendee (buyer and seller) were willing to sell or purchase the land. The consideration in terms of 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 to be assessed in terms of those transactions. Sale instances showing the price fetched for similar land with similar advantages under bona fide transaction of sale at or near about the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act is well recognized to be the appropriate evidence for determining the market value of the acquired land.” 11. He has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in SHARADAMMA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER ( (2007) 11 SCC 347 ), wherein at paragraph 14 it held as under: “ 14. In our view, the learned counsel for the claimant is right in submitting that both the Courts were not correct in not awarding compensation as claimed by the appellant. The counsel is also right in referring to B.M Krishnamurthy (LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER VS. B.M. KRISHNA MURTHY – (1985) 1 SCC 469 ), particularly as to location of the land in question for claiming enhanced compensation vis’a’vis land bearing Survey No. 14. For the said purpose, he relied upon para 6 of B.M.Krishnamurthy. The counsel also drew our attention to a map which is on record. It clearly shows that the land of Survey Nos. 112 and 113 is better located than the land of Survey No. 14 in B.M. Krishnamurthy. He also referred to deposition of Syed Abdul Khader, the then Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore from 1964 to 1967. The witness admitted that Kissan Factory was located at a distance of 3/4th mile from the acquired land. 112 and 113 is better located than the land of Survey No. 14 in B.M. Krishnamurthy. He also referred to deposition of Syed Abdul Khader, the then Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore from 1964 to 1967. The witness admitted that Kissan Factory was located at a distance of 3/4th mile from the acquired land. He further stated that the Corporation limits were about two furlongs from the acquired land. There was industrial potentiality of the lands though the acquired lands were not converted. He stated that Survey No. 112 was situated adjoining Bangalore-Madras Highway and was in between Old Madras Road and Madras-Bangalore railway line. According to him, New Aero Engine Factory was very much in existence at the time of acquisition and it was opposite Survey No. 112 on the other side of the Old Madras Road. Near about the acquired land, there were other factories also. Corporation limit was within a distance of 50-60 yards from New Aero Engine Factory limits. He further stated that approach road from NGEF to Old Madras Road was adjacent to Survey No. 112. Byappanahalli Railway Station was 1 or 1 ½ furlongs from Survey No. 112. He admitted that Survey No. 113 was abutting Survey No. 112 and what was stated about Survey No. 112 held good as regards Survey No. 113 also. He admitted that Bangalore-Madras Road was a National Highway.” 12. He has further drawn our attention to the Supreme Court judgment reported in PANNA LAL GHOSH AND OTHERS VS. LAND ACQUSITION COLLECTOR AND OTHERS ( (2004) 1 SCC 467 ). The relevant portion of the judgment is at paragraph 8, which reads as under: “8. The second issue relates to the payment of solatium @ 30% under Section 23(2) of the Act. Solatium is “money comfort” quantified by the statue and given as a conciliatory measure for the compulsory acquisition of land of the citizen, by a welfare State such as India. (Narain Das Jain v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika ( (1991) 4 SCC 212 ) Thus the statutory amount of solatium is intended to compensate the owner for his disinclination to part with his property.” 13. (Narain Das Jain v. Agra Nagar Mahapalika ( (1991) 4 SCC 212 ) Thus the statutory amount of solatium is intended to compensate the owner for his disinclination to part with his property.” 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended that there are about 98 claimants and they all are marginal farmers and by virtue of acquisition, they have deprived of their livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that their avocation is agriculture and they have been lost their valuable cultivating land. He further contended that the reference court has not committed any serious error in determining the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation and rightly relied upon the sale transaction entered into at the relevant period and determined the market value properly and hence, no interference is called for. To justify his contentions, he relied upon the Supreme Court judgment reported in RAVINDER NARAIN AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA ( AIR 2003 SC 1987 ), wherein, the Supreme Court at paragraphs 6 and 7 held as under; “6. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur V. Bhuban Chandra Dutta ( AIR 1971 SC 2015 ). Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by LRs. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another (AIR (1977 SC 1560) and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others etc v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another ( AIR 1984 SC 892 ). 7. It cannot, however, be laid down a 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.” 14. He further relied upon the judgment reported in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHORI AND OTHERS ( AIR 2008 SC 399 ). The relevant portion of the judgment is at paragraphs 15,16 and 22, which reads as under: “15. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices.” 14. He further relied upon the judgment reported in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHORI AND OTHERS ( AIR 2008 SC 399 ). The relevant portion of the judgment is at paragraphs 15,16 and 22, which reads as under: “15. Where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criteria. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of this Court in The Collector of Lakhimpur V. Bhuban Chandra Dutta ( AIR 1971 SC 2015 ). Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by LRs. V. The State of Madhya Pradesh and another (AIR (1977 SC 1560) and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and others etc v. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and another ( AIR 1984 SC 892 ). 16. It cannot, however, be laid down a 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.” 21. It is well settled that in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation has to be deducted out of the amount of compensation payable on the acquired land subject to certain variations depending on its nature, location, extent of expenditure involved for development and the area required for roads and other civic amenities to develop the land so as to make the plots for residential or commercial purposes. A land maybe plain or uneven, the soil of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the foundation for the purpose of making construction; may be the land is situated in the midst of a developed area all around but that land may have a hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land the character of a developed area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civil amenities etc. However, in cases of some and where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, it may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors, which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly, when vat tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.” 15. He further placed reliance on the judgment reported in GAFAR AND OTHERS VS. MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER ( (2007) 7 SCC 614 ), wherein the Supreme Court at paragraph 9 held that the Reference Court noticed that the sale instances produced before the Court related to developed lands with various facilities, which the acquired lands lacked, and it was stated that the value therein could not be adopted, and that a reduction of 35 to 60% from the values shown was justified. It also observed that the Reference Court should be more specific in dealing with the cases and it was expected to discuss each of those sale transactions, compare the lands contained therein with those that were involved in the acquisition, with reference to the advantages and disadvantages, the extents, the nature of the land, the facilities available and other relevant matters before determining what would be the just compensation payable to the landowners in the acquisition. It also observed at paragraph 11 of the judgment as under: “ Various decisions were brought to our notice and particular emphasis was placed on the decision in RAVINDER NARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA ( (2003) 4 SCC 481 ) wherein it was held that there was no absolute prohibition in taking not of the rates fixed for ale of smaller plots and making it the basis for fixation of compensation for larger extents. There cannot be any quarrel with the proposition that there is no absolute prohibition. But the fact remains that normally, when larger extents are involved in an acquisition, it will be more prudent to rely on sale deeds of larger extents and not to base the assessment of the compensation on values fetched at sales of small extents. In this case, transactions involving sales of land in acres or of larger extent were imply ignored by the awarding officer without giving adequate reasons for such exclusion except vaguely stating that they were distantly located. Even those sale instances would have provided a basis for assessing the compensation due in respect of the acquired lands subject to adjustments for the distance or other disadvantages or advantages compared to the acquired lands. The basic sale deed relied on by the awarding officer was in respect of sale of a portion of hi property by a seller which had an extent of only 100 square metres and even there, the price fetched was only Rs. 80 per square metre.” 16. He further relied on the judgment reported in STATE OF HARYANA VS. GURBAX SINGH ( (2008) 11 SCC 65 ). The relevant portion is at paragraph 8, which reads as under: “The Division Bench ha only marginally increased the compensation from Rs. 99,668 per acre to Rs. 1,25,000 per acre. 80 per square metre.” 16. He further relied on the judgment reported in STATE OF HARYANA VS. GURBAX SINGH ( (2008) 11 SCC 65 ). The relevant portion is at paragraph 8, which reads as under: “The Division Bench ha only marginally increased the compensation from Rs. 99,668 per acre to Rs. 1,25,000 per acre. The Division Bench has merely given the benefit of the two sale deeds being Exhibits P-8 and P-9 in a very limited manner by ordering the enhancement at the rat of 12% per annum for two years since the acquisition in this case had taken place in the year 1983 whereas those sale deeds were of January and March 1981. We do not find anything wrong in this approach. The Division Bench has also justified this increase by observing that there was continuous rise in the prices of land. It has further justified that though the two transactions were in respect of the small pieces of lands, however, the State had not challenged the action of the learned Single Judge in accepting those sales as a valid basis. It has also further observed that there was no evidence that the market value of the land was lesser than the one mentioned in the two sale deeds. All that the Division Bench, however, did was to marginally increase the quantum of compensation by adding 12% per annum for a period of two years and dong so, the Division Bench rounded off the market value for the year 1983 at Rs. 1,25,000/-. We do not find anything wrong in this and, therefore, the appeals filed by the Government of Haryana (Civil Appeals Nos. 2461-65 of 2000) against this marginal increase would have to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. However, the matters do not stop here.” 17. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the Reference Court has considered the matter in a proper perspective so as to determine the market value of the land properly and what are the factors, which the Reference Court has noticed while enhancing the compensation? 18. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that small bit of land cannot be criterion or the basis or pointer to determine the market value. 18. The first contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that small bit of land cannot be criterion or the basis or pointer to determine the market value. We have considered that the acquisition made in this particular case is for the opening of New Mines KTK-2A incline and KTK-3 Magazine. The lands in question are agricultural land and the claimants have been deprived of their livelihood and they were raising cotton and chillies besides other crops and they are deprived of that income also. It is no doubt true that when a large extent of land is acquired, small piece of land cannot be the sole criterion but nonetheless that land cannot be discarded totally so as to dislodge the claim of the claimants when they seek adequate compensation. As regards the other contention that for the purpose of housing, deduction of 1/3rd has to be made towards developmental charges, making of roads and other amenities, but here, in this particular case as no such deduction was given some marginal deduction of 10% has to be given is merit less. No doubt, the land situated in Ex. A-11, copy of order in O.P.No. 38 of 1990 dated 16.8.1999 and the land in Ex. A1, Xerox copy of Award datd 3.6.1998 are located nearer to Parkal to Mahadevpur road which is passing through Bhupalapally (V) in 1988, but that cannot be the sole criterion, but nonetheless the point that is to be considered is whether the acquired land has got similar advantages or disadvantages. The acquired lands are situated nearer to the distance of 1.5 to 2.00 kms from the main road. In this case the acquired lands are small bits of agricultural lands and they have got similar potentiality, therefore, this contention is also equally merit less. The Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award has taken into consideration the sales statistics viz., Ex. B-4 and B7 which are for lower sale consideration while ignoring the higher sale considerations and that by itself does not prohibit or debar the claim from seeking adequate compensation from the Reference Court. Accordingly, they sought for Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. B-4 and B7 which are for lower sale consideration while ignoring the higher sale considerations and that by itself does not prohibit or debar the claim from seeking adequate compensation from the Reference Court. Accordingly, they sought for Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is to be noticed that the settled preposition of law is that when the land is acquired, the persons who lost their lands claim higher compensation and for that they have to establish the claim stating that they are entitled for just compensation under the Act. Here in this particular case, the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act are compulsory acquisition by the State Government. 19. Be that as it may, coming to the evidence and marking of the documents, on behalf of claimants 11 witness were examined as PWs 1 to 11 and exhibits A1 to A18 were marked and on behalf of the appellant RW-1 to 3 were examined and Exs. B1 to B8 were marked. 20. PW-1 is claimant No. 9 in the OP, who deposed that the acquired lands are agricultural lands and they used to get a net income of Rs. 10,000/- per acre per year and the market value of the acquired land was at Rs. 1,00,000/-per acre at the time of acquisition. He also deposed that the land of Pocham is adjoining his land and Borra Komuraiah, who is son of his elder brother purchased Ac. 2.18 gts of land in S.No. 570 at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per acre under registered document from K. Pocham in January, 1986. He also deposed that the road which leads from Mahadevpur to Parkal goes via Bhupalapally Village. Bhupalpally Village is his village and the above said Mahadevpur Parkar road is the main road in his Bhupalpally Village. The Bupalpelli is developed as town and now known as Kakatiya Khani. 21. PW-2 is Claimant No. 22. He deposed about the market value of his land at Bupalpalli and about the cultivation raised by him as cotton and chilli crop etc., out of which he is getting income of more than Rs. 10,000/-per acre per year. That Bhupalpally is developed as a town and now known as Kakatiya Khani and at the time of acquisition his land value was Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. 22. PW-3 is Claimant No. 2 in Ex. A-11 to Ex. 10,000/-per acre per year. That Bhupalpally is developed as a town and now known as Kakatiya Khani and at the time of acquisition his land value was Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. 22. PW-3 is Claimant No. 2 in Ex. A-11 to Ex. A-13 and he speaks about his lands. His lands were acquired by SCCL by paying a compensation at the rate of Rs. 20,000/-per acre by Land Acquisition Officer on 3.6.1988 and the same was referred to the reference Court for enhancement of his land value and got numbered as OP No. 38 of 1990 and the same was decreed on 16.8.1999 by enhancing the market value for his lands from 20,000/- to Rs. 38,500/- per acre with all statutory benefits. Accordingly, the LAO without preferring any appeal has deposited and the same was received by the claimant through Ex. A-13 and further he deposed that his lands are nearer to the acquired lands and having same fertility . 23. PW-4 one Sri Akudari Rajamallu, who is son of the vendor Sri A. Pochaiah of Ex. A2 i.e., certified copy of Sale Deed vide Doc No. 12951/1985 of dry land in S.No. 401 to an extent of 0-18 guntas, situated at Bupalpelli Sold at the rate of Rs. 28,000/- per acre on 25.9.1985 to Katam Chendraiah and he deposed that his lands and acquired lands are similar and nearer. 24. PW-5, Sri Yerram Shyam Kumar who is the son of Yerram Sathemma the vendor of Ex. A3 i.e., certified copy of Sale Deed vide Doc.No. 541/1986 of his dry lands in S.No. 410 to an extent of 0.20 guntas, situated at Bhupalpally sold @ Rs. 96,800/- per acre on 17.7.1986 to Katam Chendraiah. He deposed that his lands and acquired lands are similar and nearer. 25. PW-9 is Claimant No. 41, who speaks about Exs A4, A6, A9, A10 and A14 to A16. He deposed that his lands were cultivated by raising commercial crops like cotton, chilli and groundnut out of which he used to get net profit of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per acre. 26. 25. PW-9 is Claimant No. 41, who speaks about Exs A4, A6, A9, A10 and A14 to A16. He deposed that his lands were cultivated by raising commercial crops like cotton, chilli and groundnut out of which he used to get net profit of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- per acre. 26. He Further deposed that his village is known as Kakatiya Khani/Coal City due to establishment of coal mine in the vicinity and the land value has been increased immensely due to undertaking commercial complexes and his land was also sold for plotting to the house site due to the above and that he personally attended the negotiations held on 18.4.2003 in the Chambers of the Land Acquisition Officer/Assistant, Collector, Mulug regarding the settlement of land value in the OP., in the presence of Respondent No. 2 i.e., Project Officer, SCCL, Bhupalpally along with his another four Senior Officers and all the petitioners/claimants are also present after thorough discussion the market value has been fixed @ Rs. 37,000/- per acre plus all other statutory benefits. Respondent No. 1 &2 and same was admittedly attested by Respondent Nos. 1 &2 as well as MRO, Bhupalpally and other four Senior Singareni Officers and other claimants including him and the same was marked as Ex. A-9. He further deposed that he filed certified copies of decree in O.P.No. 63/1986 and certified copy of the order of the Hon’ble High Court in Appeal No. 1560/1989 and certified copy of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 4310/1987 in Appeal No. 1560/1989 in O.P.No. 63/1986 and these lands situated at Chityal Mandal were also acquired in the year 1986 by the Government and finally the market value has been fixed by the Supreme Court at the rate of Rs. 60,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits. The same was marked as Ex. A-14 to A-16 herein, which is the neighbouring Mandal and these rates are confirmed by all the lower courts and high courts pertiaing to all the villages under Chityal Mandal where the lands were acquired for some other purposes and admittedly this is adjoining Mandal he also deposed that most of the lands in Bhupalpally Village have already been acquired by the SCCL, and there are no agricultural lands for further acquisition, the left over lands being put to plotting for house sites, hence, immensely increased the land values. Finally he deposed hat market value for his lands may be enhanced as prayed for in his claim statement. 27. PW-10 is claimant No. 10, who is son of vendor Pokkuri Mallaiah of Ex. A7 i.e., certified copy of sale deed vide Doc.No. 2251 of 1987 dated 18.2.1987 of his dry lands in S.No. 399 to an extent of 0.10 guntas situated at Bupalpelli for a total sale consideration of Rs. 10,000/- @ Rs. 40,000/-per acre sold to Smt. G. Bharathamma. He deposed that his lands and acquired lands are similar and nearer. It is also deposed that his father sold through Ex. A-8 i.e., certified copy of sale deed vide Doc. No. 2252 of 1987 dated 18.2.1987 of his dry lands in S.No. 399 to an extent of 0.15 guntas situated at Bupalpelli for a total sale consideration of Rs. 15,000/- @ Rs. 40,000/-per acre to one Chaduvu Venkata Ramana Reddy. He deposed that his lands and acquired lands are similar and nearer and also deposed that they were used to raise the commercial crops and their lands are being plotted due to the development of the Coal City. 28. PW-11, is son of the vendor Angothu Dulfu Naik of Ex. A5 i.e., certified copy of sale deed vide Doc.No. 929/1987 dated 23.6.1987 of his dry lands in S.No. 270 to an extent of 0.02 guntas, situated at Bhupalpalli for a total sale consideration of Rs. 4,840/-@ Rs. 92,000/- per acre sold to Sri Podishetty Ramulu. He deposed that his lands and acquired lands are similar and nearer and also he further deposed that they used to raise the commercial crops and their lands are being plotted due to the development of the Coal City. 29. RW-1, Sri Naveen Mittal, IAS, Sub-Collector, Mulug examined on behalf of the appellant deposed that SCCL has acquired Ac. 108-16 guntas out of various survey numbers at Bhupalpally in the year 1988 by fixing the market value @ Rs. 4,000/-for dry and Rs. 6,000/- for wet and also he deposed that there were wells and trees existing in the said land. The award was marked as Ex. B1 and award proceedings was marked as Ex. B2 and he stated that the then Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value for the acquired lands. In his cross-examination he admitted that he is giving his evidence basing on record, in Ex. The award was marked as Ex. B1 and award proceedings was marked as Ex. B2 and he stated that the then Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value for the acquired lands. In his cross-examination he admitted that he is giving his evidence basing on record, in Ex. B-2 sale statistics and there were registered sale deeds which are higher rates. 30. RW-2, Sri A. Ramchandra Murthy, who is working as Deputy Estate Manager deposed that he is not the Project Officer as such he is not the second respondent in this OP and on oral instructions of the second respondent he is deposing chief examination on behalf of the second respondent In his chief examination it is stated that the then Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market value for the acquired lands reasonably and the claimants are not entitled for any enhancement. He further admitted that in Ex. B-2 he persuade 19 sales statistics for the year 1985 and 12 statistics for the year 1986 and 13 sale statistics for the year 1987 and that out of 44 sales statistics sale transactions he has deposed that only 5 sale statistics are nearer to the acquired lands which are very low rates, the purchasers might have to avoid the stamp duty for their registration of their lands have registered for low rates but originally they purchased at higher rates. There are several simple sale deeds at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. But, he did not mention in his chief remaining 39 sale statistics of sale considerations and he also filed a Revenue Map which was marked as Ex. B-8. The distance shown between Ex. A2 to 5,7 & 8 to acquired lands are about 1 ½ kms but he did not mention the distances of the remaining sales statistics covered under Ex. B2 i.e., Award Proceedings. In his cross examination RW-2 admitted and identified the signatures of respondent No. 2 and the signatures of other four Singareni Officers in Ex.B9 & 10 and he further admitted that in O.P.No. 61/2001 the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warnagal by order dated 1.3.2006, where the lands were taken the possession in the year of 1990 decreed recently @ Rs. 64,553/- per acre in toto for the lands situated at Bhupalpalli Village and the same was marked as Ex. A-18. He admits that in Ex. 64,553/- per acre in toto for the lands situated at Bhupalpalli Village and the same was marked as Ex. A-18. He admits that in Ex. A-11 and 12 they are not the parties i.e., they are not impleaded as respondent No. 2 and also admitted that they have not preferred any appeals on the order of Ex. A-11 and Ex. A-12 and also admitted that they did not preferred to file any writ petition to implead them as an interested party in it. 31. Like wise RW-3 –Sri M. Madan Mohan, Senior Survey Officer for SCCL. He admitted that in Ex. B-8 the distance mentioned for various survey numbers are written by him, but he has signed for his officer. He also admitted that the area between acquired lands and main road from Parkar to Mahadevpur have been covered by houses and there is no vacant land at all. 32. We have scrutinised and analysed the evidence adduced by the parties. It is to be noticed that the reference Court has considered Ex. A2, registration extract of sale deed dated 25.9.1985. The value of the land as on 25.9.1984 shown in Ex. A2 is at Rs. 12,600/- per acre. Apart from that, Ex. A3 is the registered document dated 17.7.1986 in respect of land measuring 2 guntas and the value shown as on 17.7.1986 is Rs. 4,840/-. Ex. A4 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 13.3.1986. The value of the land as on 11.3.1986 was shown as Rs. 15,000/- per acre. Ex. A5 is the registration extract of sale deed dated 23.6.1987 in respect of S.No. 270/3 measuring 2 guntas of Bhupalapally and its value as on 23.6.1987 was shown as Rs. 4,840/- per acre. Ex. A-6 is the copy of the decree passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal on 31.12.1998 in O.P.No. 144/90 in respect of the land which was acquired for opening of new mines KTK-1 Incline and magazines at Janged Village and the learned Judge fixed the market value of the acquired lands at Rs. 25,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for wet land. Ex. A-7 is also registration extract of document dated 18.12.1987 in respect of land in S.No. 399 measuring 0.10 guntas at Rs. 10,000/- per acre as on 18.12.1987. Ex. 25,000/- per acre for dry land and Rs. 30,000/- per acre for wet land. Ex. A-7 is also registration extract of document dated 18.12.1987 in respect of land in S.No. 399 measuring 0.10 guntas at Rs. 10,000/- per acre as on 18.12.1987. Ex. A-9 is the minutes of the negotiation held on 18.4.2003 regarding the settlement of land value in O.P.No. 141 of 1993 and after prolonged discussion, the land owners have reduced the rate to Rs. 37,000/- per acre. Ex. A-10 also is minutes of negotiation held on 16.7.2003 and it is subsequent to Ex. A9. In this, the land owners have reduced the rate to Rs. 36,000/- per acre. Ex. A-11 is the order of the then Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal dated 16.8.1999 in O.P.No. 38 of 1990 and it is in respect of S.No. 394 of Bhupalapally Village measuring Ac. 9.07 gts and the same was acquired in 1985 and the value fixed by the learned Senior Civil Judge in O.P. 38 of 1990 on 16.8.1999 was at Rs. 38.500/- per acre apart from additional market value, solatium, interest etc. 33. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and have also perused the material made available on record. 34. As seen from the record, the claimants have discharged the burden of proofing the necessary documentary evidence as well as oral evidence and the reference court has fairly and reasonably determined the market value under the principles of Land Acquisition Act. The Apex Court in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHORI AND OTHERS (supra-6) has considered the matter elaborately and found that some marginal deductions must be given in respect of agricultural land or undeveloped land which has potential value for housing or commercial purposes. The Supreme Court in ATMA SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA ( (2008) 2 SCC 568 ) regarding giving of margin at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 held as under: “13. The reasons given for the principle that price fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracks of land, according to cases referred to above, are that substantial area is used for development of sites like laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and other civic amenities. Expenses are also incurred in providing these basic amenities. Expenses are also incurred in providing these basic amenities. That apart it takes considerable period in carving out the roads making sewers and drains and waiting for the purchasers. Meanwhile the invested money is blocked up and the return on the investment flows after a considerable period of time. In order to make up for the area of land which is used in providing civic amenities and the waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets locked up a deduction from 20% onward, depending upon the facts of each case, is made. 14. The question to be considered is whether in the present case those factors exist which warrant a deduction by way of allowance from the price exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which have been filed by the parties. The land has not been acquired for a Housing Colony or Government Office or an Institution. The land has been acquired for setting up a sugar factory. The factory would produce goods worth many crores in a year. A sugar factory apart from producing sugar also produces many by-product in the same process. One of the by-products is molasses, which is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no utility and its disposal used to be a big problem. But now molasses is used for production of alcohol and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another by product degases is now used for generation of power and press mud is utilized in manure. Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year but will accrue every year so long as the factory runs. A housing board does not run on business lines. Once plots are carved out after acquisition of land and are sold to public, there is no scope for earning any money in future. An industry established on acquired land, if run efficiently, earns money or makes profit every year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of Housing Colony, or Offices, or Institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory or industry. An industry established on acquired land, if run efficiently, earns money or makes profit every year. The return from the land acquired for the purpose of Housing Colony, or Offices, or Institution cannot even remotely be compared with the land which has been acquired for the purpose of setting up a factory or industry. After all the factory cannot be set up without land and if such land is giving substantial return, there is no justification for making any deduction from the price exhibited by the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is possible that a part of the acquired land might be used for construction of residential colony for the staff working in the factory. Nevertheless where the remaining part of the acquired land is contributing to production of goods yielding good profit, it would not be proper to make a deduction in the price of land shown by the exemplars of small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned in various decisions of this Court are not applicable in the case under consideration. 15. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that a deduction of 10% from the market value of the land, which has been arrived at by the High Court would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the market value of the acquired land for the purpose of payment of compensation to the land owners has to be assessed at Rs.1,08,000/- per acre.” 35. Coming to the next contention that when a large extent of land is acquired , a small bit of land cannot be the pointer so as to determine the compensation, the Supreme Court in RAVINDER NARAIN AND ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA (supra –5) observed that where large area is the subject matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be the safe criteria. 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 the 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. 36. For example, where the 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. 36. When each land holders land is clubbed together then the area becomes large and it cannot be said to be the small piece of land so also the distance is not criterion that the quality and potentiality of such land is important. The distance between the land in Ex. A-16 and the present land is about 5 kms and that could not be relevant. We have also gone through Ex. A1, award proceedings of the Land Acquisition Officer and Sub-Collector, Mulug dated 3.6.1988 and it is in respect of Bhupalapally Village lands, which is at the distance of 1 ½ km, even then the Reference Court has taken into account cumulatively the sale transactions which were produced by the claimants to justify claim for enhancement. The reference Court has determined the compensation taking into account cumulative effect of all the sale deeds. Therefore, this contention is also merit less. RW-1 and RW-2 also deposed that the lands are having trees and PWs 1 to 8 in their evidence deposed that they were raising commercial crops and getting yearly income of Rs. 10,000/- from the yield. By virtue of compulsory acquisition, claimants are deprived of their livelihood and the sole avocation of the small marginal farmers. 37. We have gone through the entire material made available on record. We are of the view that the learned Judge has not committed any error or perversity. It is to be noticed that the reference Court is under original authority who is well versed with the demur of the witnesses and while analysing evidence determined the market value appropriately. We do not find perversity that is to say that the finding is based on justifiable material and relevant criterion. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 38. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.