JUDGMENT : Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of the judgment dated 05.05.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the appeal preferred by the respondent has been allowed and the order passed by the District Judge awarding compensation at the enhanced rate in favour of the appellants herein has been set aside and the award passed by the Collector has been restored. In order to appreciate appellants’ challenge to the impugned award, relevant facts need mention which are stated infra. 2. Admittedly, the appellants are owners of land admeasuring 44 kanals and 15 marlas situate at Village Rampur, Tehsil Rajouri. The aforesaid land was required for public purpose for construction of District Institute of Education and Training Complex. A notification under Section 4(1) of the J & K Land Acquisition Act, Svt. 1990 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued on 15.09.1989 by which the interested persons were asked to file objections within a period of fifteen days. Thereafter a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 10.09.1990. The Collector invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and permitted the indenting department to take possession of the land vide order dated 07.12.1989. Thereafter, the notices under Section 9, 9-A and 9(2) of the Act were issued on 22.01.1990 and 23.03.1990, and interested persons and indenting department were asked to submit their objections, if any, with regard to possession and measurement of the land. Thereupon, the appellants filed the objections. After considering the objections, the Collector, Land Acquisition, Rajouri passed the award on 01.01.1993 by which the Collector, inter alia, by taking into account the location, productivity, commercial value of the land assessed the market value of the land at Rs.26,000/- per kanal and awarded the interest as is admissible under various statutory heads. 3. Being dis-satisfied with the quantam of compensation, the appellants filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference for enhancement of the amount of compensation. It is pertinent to mention here that in the application under Section 18 of the Act, the enhancement of compensation was sought to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per kanal by the appellants. Thereupon, the matter was referred to the District Judge. It is pertinent to mention here that in the application under Section 18 of the Act, the enhancement of compensation was sought to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- per kanal by the appellants. Thereupon, the matter was referred to the District Judge. The District Judge by a judgment dated 31.03.2000, enhanced the amount of compensation to Rs.2.60 lacs per kanal and held the appellants, entitled solatium @ 15 per cent from the date of issuance of the notification till realization of the amount awarded in favour of the appellants. Being aggrieved, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.05.2006 inter alia held that there was no material on record with regard to assessment of market value of the land in question so as to enhance the market value of the land by ten times from Rs.26,000/- to Rs.2.60,000/- per kanal. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the judgment passed by the District Judge was set aside and the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed. In the aforesaid background, the appellants have filed this appeal. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants while inviting the attention of this Court to the statement of the Collector recorded before the learned District Judge submitted that Collector in his evidence has admitted that the land in question is irrigated and situate alongside the road leading from Rajouri to Thanamandi and is adjacent to the limits of Notified Area Committee, Rajouri. The Collector has further admitted that the land in question is situate within the limits of notified area committee as well as located by the side of inhabited area of town of Rajouri. It has further been admitted by the Collector according to the award, the amount is of high commercial value and is of good productivity. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has further invited the attention of this Court to the judgments passed by this Court in CIMA N.163/1991 and CIA No.66/1994 and has submitted that in the aforesaid appeal in respect of the land which was acquired in the year 1987, the compensation was assessed at Rs.60,000/- per kanal in respect of the land ad-measuring 19 kanals and 19 marlas and the market value of the land was assessed at Rs.75,000/- per kanal in respect of the land which was acquired in the year 1987, respectively. 5. 5. It is submitted that the market value of the land of the appellants ought to have been assessed taking into account its market value as on 10.09.1990. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has referred to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh and ors v. State of J&K, AIR 2017 SC 1518 and a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Mohd. Arif Mughal and ors, 2016 Legal Eagle (J&K) 148. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Ehsan Mirza, learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the appellants’ land is situate two kilometers away from the Rajouri town and the appellants had produced two agreements of sale which pertains to small pieces of land and therefore the same could not have been formed the basis of ascertaining the market value in respect of the large chunk of land which was acquired. It is further submitted that the agreement of sale/sale deeds were produced which were executed after six to eight years of the passing of the award and therefore the same could not have been taking into account. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly set aside the judgment of the District Judge as District Judge has awarded a sum of Rs.2.60 lacs per kanal as compensation in contravention of the claim made by the appellants themselves in their application under Section 18 of the Act. In support of his submissions, learned Deputy Advocate General has referred to Section 25(1) of the Act and has submitted that the amount of compensation cannot exceed the amount which has been claimed by the appellants. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is well settled that when a large area is acquired, it is not fair to assess the market value of the land on the basis of sale deeds pertaining to small area. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Administrator General of West Bengal v. Collector, Varanasi ( AIR 1988 SC 943 ), wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held that the prices fetched for the land similar to the acquired land with similar advantages and potentially at about the time of preliminary notification constitutes the best evidence. It has further been held that the sale transaction subsequent to the preliminary notification in respect of the land acquired can be relied upon for determining market value of land under acquisition on proof that market value was stable between date of preliminary notification and transaction in question. The burden to prove the aforesaid fact is on the party wanting to rely on it. It is trite law that in land acquisition proceedings, compensation has to be fixed on the basis of hypothetical sale or about the time of the notification under the Act. In this regard reliance may be made to (1990) 4 SCC 495 (Tek Chand (dead) by LRs and others v. Union of India and others). Similarly, in the case of State of M.P. and others v Harishankar Goel and another reported as (1997) 2 SCC 487 , it has been held that if large chunk of land is required for acquisition the market value of the land cannot be determined on square feet basis. In the case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (dead) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat reported as (2005) 4 SCC 789 , it has been held that comparable instances of sale of lands, which have proximity from time angle as well as situation angle, can be considered and suitable adjustments to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors. Reliance can also be made to the decision in the cases of Lal Chand v. Union of India and another, reported as (2009) 15 SCC 769 and Valliyammal and another v. Special Tehsildar (Land Acquisition) and another, reported as (2011) 8 SCC 91 . While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the land acquisition officer is required to keep in mind the following factors: (i) existing geographical situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iii) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area; and (iv) market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/are or adjacent or very near to the acquired land. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value. [See: (2015) 2 SCC 262 ]. 8. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, facts of the case at hand may be seen. In the instant case, the Collector was examined as a witness in the proceeding before the District Judge and has admitted that the land belonging to the appellants is an irrigated land and situate alongside the road leading from Rajouri to Thanamandi and is situate within the limits of notified area committee and by the side of the inhabited area of town of Rajouri. It has further been admitted by the Collector that the land is of high commercial value and is of good productivity. It is also pertinent to note that the land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of District Institute of Education and Training complex. The Court while ascertaining the market value of the property has also to take into account the potential use for which the land has been acquired. In the connected cases, the compensation was assessed at Rs.60,000/- per kanal in respect of the land ad-measuring 19 kanals and 19 marlas and the market value of the land was assessed at Rs.75,000/- per kanal in respect of the land which was acquired in the year 1987. The notification under Section 6 of the Act in case of appellants has been issued on 10.09.1990 i.e. after three years. Therefore, in the state of evidence on record, learned Single Judge in our considered opinion erred in interfering with the judgment passed by the District Judge. The notification under Section 6 of the Act in case of appellants has been issued on 10.09.1990 i.e. after three years. Therefore, in the state of evidence on record, learned Single Judge in our considered opinion erred in interfering with the judgment passed by the District Judge. Taking into account the situation of the land as well as the statement of the collector that the land is situate within the notified area committee of Rajouri town and has high commercial value and is of good productivity as well the fact that the same has been acquired for construction of District Institute of Education and Training complex as well as taking into account the trend in increase of prices of immovable property, we assess the market value of the land as on the date of publication of notification under Section 6 of the Act at Rs.1,00,000/- per kanal. The compensation shall be awarded to the respondents computing the market value of the land at RS.1,00,000/- per kanal along with statutory interest admissible under the various heads as well as solatium. Let the aforesaid amount be paid to the appellants if not already paid within a period of three months from today along failing which the same shall carry interest @ 10 per cent per annum after the expiry of period of three months till it is actually paid. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of, along with connected MPs.