ORDER : IN CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 7774-7778 OF 2013 1. The only question involved in the appeals is about the yardstick applied by the High Court for award of the compensation at Rs.40,000/-per acre. The land had been acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short' the Act') dated 13.12.1984. 2. The Land Acquisition Collector awarded compensation at Rs.2392/-per acre. Reference was sought under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/-per acre. Relying upon another award, the High Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.40,000/-per acre. 3. These appeals have been preferred by Karnataka Water Supply and Drainage Board mainly on the ground that Award which has been relied upon was with respect to a piece of land situated abutting a road, whereas, the land in question was not abutting any road. As such, the said Award could not have formed a legal basis for determination of compensation by the High Court. The other Awards, wherein compensation had been granted by the reference court at the rate of Rs.20,000/-per acre ought to have been accepted. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that though situation of the land was not abutting in the instant case as the award that has been relied upon by the High Court was based upon capitalization of profits method. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the land abutting the road has higher value as compared to the land which is not abutting the road, as the land abutting the road is capable of being used for residential as well as for commercial purposes. However, in the instant cases, it is apparent that in the award that has been relied upon by the High Court, the Notification was issued on the same date, and the award was not based upon the market value of the property; the value of the land had been determined by the method of capitalisation of the profits of ten years yield. Since capitalisation of profits method, based upon ten years' yield, was adopted, thus, in such a factual matrix, the situation of the land, whether it was abutting the road or whether it was away from the road, would not make any difference. The award was not based upon the market value of land. 6. Since capitalisation of profits method, based upon ten years' yield, was adopted, thus, in such a factual matrix, the situation of the land, whether it was abutting the road or whether it was away from the road, would not make any difference. The award was not based upon the market value of land. 6. In the absence of evidence with respect to market value of the acquired land, the capitalisation of profit method could have been resorted to, and that has been precisely done by the High Court. The award that has been relied upon is with respect to the notification of the same date, of the same village; we find the decision of the High Court to be appropriate, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/-per acre. Thus, in our opinion, no case is made out for reducing the compensation. Accordingly, the appeals being bereft of merits are hereby dismissed. IN CIVIL APPEAL No(s). 7783-7786 and 7779-7782 of 2013 7. The respondent-land owners are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/-per acre; however, the same shall be subject to the payment of the court fee on the remaining amount. The orders passed by the High Court in C.A. Nos. 7783-7786 of 2013 and C.A. Nos. 7779-7782 of 2013 stand accordingly modified. Accordingly the appeals are disposed of.