JUDGMENT : ALOK ARADHE, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 52 of the State Land Acquisition Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as-the Act), the appellants have assailed the validity of the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008 passed by the trial Court. 2. Facts giving rise to this appeal in nutshell are that on requisition of Chief Engineer, Baglihar Hydro Electric Project, Chanderkote, an indent was placed on the Collector, Land Acquisition, Baglihar Hydro Electric Project, Camp Dada, for acquisition of land, details of which are given in the final Award for purposes of the Hydro Electric Project, Chanderkote. Thereupon notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was issued by which objections were invited. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.07.2002, in which it was stated that the land is needed for public purpose i.e. for construction of Baglihar Hydro Electric Project, Ram ban and the Collector was directed under Section 7 of the Act to take order for acquisition of the land. The Collector issued notification under Section 9 and 9-A of the Act by which the objections of the owners/interested persons were invited. An award was passed on 29.08.2008 by which compensation at the following rates was awarded depending upon the quality of land: which are reproduced below for facility of reference: (1) Hail Rs. 40000/- per kanal. (2) Warhal Changi/Mandi Rs. 30000/- per kanal. (3) Banjar Qadeen Rs. 22000/- per kanal (4) Gairmumkin Rs. 10000/- per kanal. 3. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed an application under Section 18 of the Act. The trial Court by an judgment and decree dated 29.08.2008, enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 1.00 Lac per kanal along with Jabrana @ 15% and interest @ 6% from the date of taking possession of the land on the enhanced amount of compensation till the final payment is made. In the aforesaid factual background the appellants have approached this Court. 4. Learned senior Additional Advocate General submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the respondents have produced the sale deeds in respect of small piece of land which could not be made the basis for determining the market value of the land. In the aforesaid factual background the appellants have approached this Court. 4. Learned senior Additional Advocate General submitted that the trial Court ought to have appreciated that the respondents have produced the sale deeds in respect of small piece of land which could not be made the basis for determining the market value of the land. It is further submitted that the deduction to the extent of ?rd on account of developmental charges has not been made and uniform market rate of the land has been applied for compensation even though the Collector Land Acquisition categorised the land into four categories. It is further submitted that the Financial Commissioner has rightly fixed the rates in respect of four categories of land depending upon the nature of the land. However, the same has been ignored by the trial Court. It is also submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated that the respondents have accepted the award while receiving the compensation. In support of the aforesaid submissions learned senior Additional Advocate General placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v. Jainul Islam & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 1028 . On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the evidence of the Patwari as well as Tehsildar Settlement in support of the market value determined by the trial Court. It is further submitted that one rate for compensation can be applied by taking into account the purpose for which the land has been acquired. In support of the aforesaid submissions reference has been made to the decision of this Court dated 14.10.2016 (2017 AIR CC 945 (J&K)) passed in CIA No. 163/2003; Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan & others. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled in law that price fetched for lands similar to acquired lands with similar advantages and potentialities at or about the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, constitute the best evidence. The fair and reasonable market value of land is always a question of fact depending on the nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities in each case. The fair and reasonable market value of land is always a question of fact depending on the nature of evidence, circumstances and probabilities in each case. When the Courts are called upon to fix the market value of the lands in compulsory acquisition, the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the acquired land to which the claimant himself is a party, in its absence the sales of the neighbouring lands. See: Administrator Genl. of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943 and Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195 : ( AIR 1990 SC 2192 ). In the case of Premvati v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 57 , it has been held that market value of the land can be determined on the basis of value of adjoining land. It is equally well settled legal proposition that value of small pieces of land can taken into consideration for determining even the value of a large tract of land but with a rider that the Court while taking such instances into consideration has to make some deduction keeping in view other attendant circumstances and facts of that particular case. See: Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 47 : ( AIR 2011 SC 2458 ); In Union of India v. Ghanshyam & Ors., 2008 (1) JKJ (SC) 261, this Court has held that assessment of market value of the land has to be made by keeping the purpose in view for which the land is to be utilized for compensation and uniform market rate of land can validly be applied for applying for compensation. 6. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal position, facts of the case may be seen. Admittedly, as per the Act the market value of the land has to be assessed on the date of notification under Section 6 of the Act. It is also not in dispute that reference is an original proceeding in which parties are required to adduce evidence and the material before the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be relied upon. In the instant case, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.07.2002. It is also not in dispute that reference is an original proceeding in which parties are required to adduce evidence and the material before the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be relied upon. In the instant case, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.07.2002. The respondents have placed on record certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.06.2000 and 11.07.2001 by which the land ad measuring 1 Kanal and 3 Marlas situate at Chanderkote has been sold for Rs. 2.00 Lacs. Similarly, by sale deed dated 11.07.2001, land ad measuring 6 Marlas has been sold for Rs. 40,000/-. The sale deeds in respect of small part of the land can be utilized to assess the market value of large chunks of land by making appropriate deduction in sale consideration. In the instant case, the market value has been assessed at 50% of the value shown in the sale deed. Thus, the trial Court has made appropriate deductions. Besides that, it is pertinent to note that the appellants have not adduced any evidence before the reference Court. 7. The basis for calculation of rates recommended by the Financial Commissioner which are based on different type of lands has neither been disclosed before the reference Court nor any evidence has been led. The appellants herein have failed to lead any evidence to disclose the actual market value on the date of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act, whereas the respondents have led oral and documentary evidence to prove market value of the land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 6 of the Act. It is also pertinent to note that the entire land has been acquired for use by Baglihar Hydro Electric Project and as per the evidence of the Patwari, namely, Javid Iqbal, the construction has been raised on the land. The findings recorded by the trial Court are based on meticulous appreciation of evidence on record and does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the deduction to the extent of ?rd on account of developmental charges was required to be made does not apply to the fact situation of the case as the land was acquired for the purpose of Baglihar Hydro Electric Project and not for residential purpose. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the deduction to the extent of ?rd on account of developmental charges was required to be made does not apply to the fact situation of the case as the land was acquired for the purpose of Baglihar Hydro Electric Project and not for residential purpose. Similarly, the contention that the compensation had to be determined on the basis of quality of land does not deserve acceptance in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Union of India v. Ghanshyam (supra). At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that the appellants have failed to adduce evidence before the reference Court which is an original proceeding. 9. In view of preceding analysis, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.