Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellants owned small extents of land in various survey numbers in Alair revenue village of Nalgonda District. Through a notification, dated 27.02.1986, published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), the Government proposed to acquire an extent of Acs.26.05 guntas of land owned by the appellants, for the purpose of providing house sites. In the award enquiry, the appellants claimed the market value at Rs.100/- per square yard. The Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein, passed an award on 14.07.1987, fixing the market value for the acquired land at Rs.2,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with that, the appellants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer acceded to the request and made reference to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir. The reference was taken up as O.P.No.53 of 1987. Through its order, dated 29.08.2000, the trial Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,000/- per acre. Not satisfied with the same, the appellants filed this appeal, under Section 54 of the Act. Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that there is cogent oral and documentary evidence to establish that the market value of the acquired land, at the relevant point of time, was not less than Rs.50/- per square yard, and there was absolutely no basis for the trial Court in denying the same. He contends that the acquired land abuts the existing village, and it has an added advantage, inasmuch as it is located between a railway line and a highway. Learned counsel submits that though the trial Court was of the view that the land of the appellants had a very high potential for house sites, and that even otherwise, it was a valuable agricultural land; the enhancement was restricted to Rs.10,000/- per acre. Learned counsel further submits that Exs.A.1 and A.3, that witnessed the sale transactions in the village two years prior to the acquisition, reflected the market value @ Rs.40/- per square yard and Rs.60/- per square yard respectively, and that the appellants are entitled to, at least for that. Learned counsel further submits that Exs.A.1 and A.3, that witnessed the sale transactions in the village two years prior to the acquisition, reflected the market value @ Rs.40/- per square yard and Rs.60/- per square yard respectively, and that the appellants are entitled to, at least for that. Learned Government Pleader for appeals, on the other hand, submits that though the land was acquired for providing house sites, it was remaining vacant and barren, and the mere fact that it has acquired high potential for house sites after acquisition, cannot be a ground for further enhancing the compensation. He submits that the trial Court has taken a balanced view, duly appreciating the relevant facts, and has enhanced the compensation to a proper level. Quite a large extent of land, namely, Acs.26.00, was acquired for providing house sites for weaker sections of Alair village. The appellants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the respondent. Reference was made, under Section 18 of the Act. The trial Court framed only one issue for its consideration, namely, whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation. On behalf of the appellants, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and three sale deeds, marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3, were filed. No evidence whatever was adduced by the respondent. The trial Court enhanced the market value from Rs.2,000/- per acre to Rs.10,000/- per acre. The point, that arises for consideration before us, is as to whether the appellants are entitled for any further enhancement of compensation. There is vast disparity between what is claimed by the appellants and what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the trial Court. The appellants insisted on fixation of the market value @ Rs.100/- per square yard before the Land Acquisition Officer and the trial Court. However, they restricted the same to Rs.30/- per square yard, in this appeal. As many as six witnesses are examined, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the claimants. Any amount of their deposition would not be of any help to the Court, in the context of determining the market value. Three documents, being Exs.A.1 to A.3, were filed. They relate to the sale transactions of plots or house sites in Alair village itself. While Exs.A.1 and A.3 are of the year 1984, Ex.A.2 is dated 18.06.1986 i.e., subsequent to the date of notification. Therefore, it can safely be eschewed from consideration. Three documents, being Exs.A.1 to A.3, were filed. They relate to the sale transactions of plots or house sites in Alair village itself. While Exs.A.1 and A.3 are of the year 1984, Ex.A.2 is dated 18.06.1986 i.e., subsequent to the date of notification. Therefore, it can safely be eschewed from consideration. Added to that, it is in relation to a very small bit of 100 square yards. Ex.A.1 is dated 25.10.1984 and it is in relation to a plot of 250 square yards. The consideration mentioned therein is Rs.40/- per square yard. P.W.3, the vendor in Ex.A.1, is examined. Since the transaction took place more than 1 1/2 years prior to the acquisition, it cannot be said to be a device brought into existence, in anticipation of the acquisition. Nothing objectionable, touching upon the genuinity of the transaction, was elicited from P.W.3. Similarly, Ex.A.3 is in relation to a plot of 248 square yards in Alair village and it is contemporaneous to Ex.A.1. The consideration mentioned therein is Rs.60/- per square yard. P.W.6, the vendor in Ex.A.3, is examined. Here again, nothing was elicited from this witness to doubt the genuinity of the transaction. It is true that the extents of the land covered by Exs.A.1 and A.3 are small. The fact, however, remains that they are in relation to the plots, which are in close proximity to the acquired land. May be on account of the location or importance or the dire need of the purchaser, higher amount of consideration was paid under Ex.A.3. In the course of comparison of the sale transactions, it is always safe to take the one, which reflects the lowest of the consideration. Viewed in this context, the consideration reflected in Ex.A.1 can be taken as basis, and Rs.40/- per square yard can be said to be the prevailing market value of smaller plots in the locality. It is settled principle of law that whenever the market value reflected in a transaction for a small extent is taken as basis for determination of the compensation for larger extents, necessary deductions have to be made. The proportion between a plot of land on one hand, and the larger extents of acquired land on the other hand, would have its own relevance. When large extent of land of Acs.26.00 is acquired, necessary arrangements for main roads, approach roads, etc. are required to be made. The proportion between a plot of land on one hand, and the larger extents of acquired land on the other hand, would have its own relevance. When large extent of land of Acs.26.00 is acquired, necessary arrangements for main roads, approach roads, etc. are required to be made. Added to that, provision must be made for common areas like parking and community halls. The deduction also needs to be made towards making developments, such as, providing drainage and electricity lines which is mostly in terms of expenditure, than extent of land. Taking both those aspects into account, the deduction in the present case can be effected to the extent of 50%. Thereby, the market value for the acquired land can be enhanced to Rs.20/- per square yard. Though this may appear to be a steep enhancement, it becomes inevitable, if one takes into account, the market value that is reflected in the contemporaneous transactions. Further, what is determined is the figure that emerged after effecting the maximum deductions. We, therefore, allow the Appeal Suit, by enhancing the market value to Rs.20/- per square yard. It is needless to mention that the appellants shall be entitled for statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand disposed of.