Judgment L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The appellants owned lands in Sy.Nos.23/1 and 24/6, admeasuring Ac.10.72 cents (dry) and Ac.1.79 cents (wet) respectively, in Vadlapudi village of Visakhapatnam District. Through Notification, dated 15-09-1989, published under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short ‘the Act’), the Government proposed to acquire the said lands for the purpose of accommodating the persons displaced in the course of acquisition of land for Steel Plant. In the award enquiry, the appellants claimed compensation @ Rs.200/- per Sq.Yd. The Land Acquisition Officer, however, passed award on 24-10-1992, fixing the market value @ Rs.1,270/- per acre for dry land and Rs.2,215/- per acre for wet land. Not satisfied with the same, the appellants submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act. The matter was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, and the same was taken up as O.P.No.107 of 1999. The trial Court enhanced the market value to Rs.1,600/- per acre for dry land and Rs.2,667/- per acre for wet land. Hence, this appeal under Section 54 of the Act seeking further enhancement. 2. Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that though two sale deeds, Exs.A-1 and A-2 were filed before the trial Court, the same were not taken into account on the ground that the persons connected with them were not examined. He submits that the view taken by the trial Court is contrary to Sec.51A of the Act and the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah ( 2001 (3) ALD 1 (SC) and Himmat Singh and others v. State of M.P. and another ( 2013 (8) Supreme 798 ). He contends that even if the sale statistics relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer, as mentioned in Ex.B.1, are taken into account, the market value for the land deserved to be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. Learned counsel submits that the acquired land was abutting the developed area and that the market value fixed by the trial Court is too meagre.3. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals, on the other hand, submits that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the trial Court have taken into account, the sales statistics that were available for the relevant period in respect of the lands in the locality. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals, on the other hand, submits that the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the trial Court have taken into account, the sales statistics that were available for the relevant period in respect of the lands in the locality. He submits that Exs.A.1 and A.2 relate to a small bits of land, that too located at a different place, and by no means, they can be taken as basis for determining the market value for a large extent of Ac.12.47 cents. 4. There was hardly any comparison between what was claimed by the appellants and what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. While the claim was @ Rs.200/- per Sq.Yd., the award was passed fixing the market value @ Rs.1,270/- per acre, which works out to 25 paise per square yard, for dry land and Rs.2,215/- per acre, i.e., 50 paise per square yard, for wet land. In view of the claims before it, the trial Court framed only one point for consideration, namely, whether the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is abnormally low and inadequate and therefore the claimants are entitled to enhance of compensation? 5. Before the trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the appellants and two sale deeds, dated 19-7-1989 were filed as Exs.A-1 and A-2. No oral evidence was adduced by the Land Acquisition Officer and they have filed the Registration Statistics pertaining to the village as Ex.B.1. The trial Court passed a decree slightly enhancing the market value. 6. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the market value for the acquired lands as determined by the trial Court can be treated as proper and correct and whether it needs enhancement? 7. The purpose of acquisition was to accommodate the persons that were displaced in the course of acquisition of vast extent of lands for the Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. In other words, it is meant for house sites. The extent involved is Ac.12.47 cents. It is not a case where the statistics were not available for comparison. Obviously, because the village Vadlapudi was undergoing the urbanization, being adjacent to Visakhapatnam city, fairly, large number of sales have taken place, that too in respect of small plots. Ex.B.1 reflects the sales that have taken place in the village in between 25.07.1987 and 24.05.1990. It is not a case where the statistics were not available for comparison. Obviously, because the village Vadlapudi was undergoing the urbanization, being adjacent to Visakhapatnam city, fairly, large number of sales have taken place, that too in respect of small plots. Ex.B.1 reflects the sales that have taken place in the village in between 25.07.1987 and 24.05.1990. About 125 transactions have taken place and all are in respect of plots of various sizes, and nowhere it is in terms of acres. 8. The appellants filed Exs.A.1 and A.2, the sale deeds, dated 19-07-1989. The transactions took place, just two months earlier to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. The consideration reflected therein would indicate that plots of about 600 Sq.Yds., were sold @ Rs.216/- per Sq.Yd. The trial Court refused to take these documents into account, mainly on the ground that the persons associated with them were not examined as witnesses. That observation, however, does not hold good in view of the amendment brought through introduction of Section 51A of the Act. To overcome the views expressed by various Courts that unless the persons associated with the transaction reflected in a particular document, though marked as exhibit, are examined, it cannot be taken into account, the Parliament introduced Section 51A of the Act. It reads: 51A. Acceptance of certified copy as evidence -In any proceeding under this Act, a certified copy of a document registered under the Regulation Act, 1908 (16 of 1908 ), including a copy given under section 57 of that Act, may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document. It therefore becomes clear that, once the certified copy of a document i.e., sale deed is filed, it would not be necessary to examine the persons associated with the transaction. The concentration would be mostly about the comparability of the land covered by the transaction, with the one that is acquired. The time gap between those two transactions would also become relevant. 9. The Supreme Court in the two decisions referred to above held that once Section 51A of the Act has been inserted in the Act, no Court can insist on examination of parties connected with a document, which is relied upon in the context of determining the market value. 10. 9. The Supreme Court in the two decisions referred to above held that once Section 51A of the Act has been inserted in the Act, no Court can insist on examination of parties connected with a document, which is relied upon in the context of determining the market value. 10. Notwithstanding the fact that Section 51A of the Act would help the appellants to rely upon Exs.A.1 and A.2, we do not intend to take them on the face value. Firstly, they came into existence just two months prior to the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. Secondly, they are in relation to a small area. The evidence on record does not throw any light as to the distance between the acquired land, on one hand, and the one covered by Exs.A.1 and A.2, on the other hand. Had there not been any other material to fall back, we would have considered the feasibility of taking into account Exs.A-1 and A-2, may be in a limited context. 11. Ex.B.1 is a list of transactions, spread over three years between 1987 and 1990, in relation to the lands in Vadlapudi village. It is important to note that the list contains the particulars of some transactions, which are in relation to the sub-division of survey Nos.23 and 24. For example, under a sale deed, dated 27-02-1989, is in relation to a plot of 502.44 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.24/2, was sold. The consideration therein works out to Rs.72,600/- per acre. On the same day, a plot in the same survey number, may be at a prime locality, was sold and the consideration for this works out to Rs.1,69,400/- per acre i.e., more than double. Three months thereafter i.e., on 15.05.1989, a plot of about 260 Sq.Yds., in Sy.No.24/2 was sold @ Rs.72,600/- per acre. Examples can be multiplied. 12. On a close scrutiny of Ex.B.1, we find that the market value for the land in and around Sy.Nos.23 and 24 in the year 1989 was ranging between Rs.72,000/-and Rs.1,69,000/- per acre. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in this context is that when comparable sales are taken into account, it is safer to take the higher one into account. The same statistics at Sl.No.43 reflect the sale of plot of 1111.19 sq. yards, for which, the consideration works out to Rs.8,27,640/- per acre. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in this context is that when comparable sales are taken into account, it is safer to take the higher one into account. The same statistics at Sl.No.43 reflect the sale of plot of 1111.19 sq. yards, for which, the consideration works out to Rs.8,27,640/- per acre. Since it is purchased by the APIIC, it is quite possible that what was sold under the document was not a plot alone but was with superstructure or industry thereon. The other particulars furnished in Ex.B.1 would disclose that sales have taken place at the relevant point of time for consideration of about Rs.1.00 lakh to Rs.1.60 lakhs per acre. As a matter of fact, the two transactions reflecting Rs.72,600/-per acre are the lowest, and rest of them indicate the consideration of more than Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, we are of the view that on an average, the consideration can be taken at Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. If 1/3rd thereof is deducted, the market value can be fixed at Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. 13. We are conscious of the fact that the enhancement which we are granting is phenomenal, and has no comparison with the one mentioned in the decree passed by the trial Court. However, if the statistics support, the owner of the land cannot be deprived by the adequate compensation. If Exs.A-1 and A-2 are taken into account, the compensation would work out about Rs.10.00 lakhs per acre and even if 50% is deducted, it will be Rs.5.00 lakhs per acre. Viewed in this context, the enhancement ordered by us cannot be treated as abnormal or phenomenal.14. We, therefore, allow the appeal by enhancing the market value of the acquired land to Rs.1.00 lakh per acre. It is needless to mention that the appellants are entitled for all the statutory benefits on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous petitions, if any filed, shall stand disposed of accordingly.