JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J —This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ''Act'') is directed against the award passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Karsog, in Reference Petition No. 49 of 2007 whereby he awarded enhanced compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs.1, 32, 900/ per biswa in respect of the acquired land. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land of the respondents measuring 085 bighas situated in Muhal Tattapani, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. was acquired by the State of Himachal Pradesh for construction of Tattapani bridge. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 29.10.2005 and lateron notification under Sections 6 and 7 of the Act were issued and thereafter award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Mandi whereby he awarded compensation of Rs.3, 97, 908/ per bighas i.e. Rs. 19, 895/ per biswa. 3. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Land Acquisition Collector, the respondents filed a Reference Petition under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the Reference Petition by enhancing the compensation and awarding a sum of Rs.1, 32, 900/ per biswa irrespective of the classification of the land acquired. 4. Aggrieved by the award so passed by the learned Reference Court, the State has filed the instant appeal on the ground that the sale exempler as relied upon by the learned Reference Court in enhancing the compensation was inadmissible in evidence as it was executed amongst the family members and further that the learned Court below has ignored the number of sale transactions effected in the Muhal during the relevant time which otherwise has represented the true and factual market rate prevailing in the area at the time of notification. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 5. At the outset, it is necessary to set out certain principles that are required to be borne in mind while determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 6. The first and foremost is the price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer subject to transaction being for the land adjacent to the land, proximity to the date and possessing similar advantages. 6. The first and foremost is the price paid in a bona fide transaction of sale by a willing seller to a willing buyer subject to transaction being for the land adjacent to the land, proximity to the date and possessing similar advantages. Of course, there are other wellknown methods of valuation like opinion of experts and yield method. In absence of any evidence of a similar transaction, it is permissible to take into account the transaction of nearest land around the date of notification under section 4 of the Act by making suitable alliance. There can be no fixed criteria as what would be the suitable addition or subtraction from the value of the land relied upon. 7. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Land Acquisition Officer , (1988) 3 SCC 751 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court summed up the principle as follows: [4] The following factors must be etched on the mental screen : (1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the Court. (2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial Court open or exposed to challenge before the court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the court to sit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an appellate Court. (3) The Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose. (5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under Ss. 6 and 9 are irrelevant) . (6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under S. 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. (7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value. (8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land.) (9) Even postnotification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects. (10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations : (i) proximity from time angle (ii) proximity from situation angle. (11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors visavis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balancesheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (12) A balancesheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors: Plus factors Minus factors 1. Smallness of size. 1. largeness of area. 2. Proximity to a road. 2. situation in the interior at a distance from the road. 3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth. 4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up. 5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from developed locality. 6. level visavis land under acquisition. 6. some special disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser. 7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage. (15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say 10000 eq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction byway of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction byway of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense. 8. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court shall not determine the merits of the appeal. 9. The petitioner in support of his case had examined Thakur Dass as PW2, who stated that he had sold 0714 bighas of land to Salig Ram for consideration of Rs.15, 35, 000/. He proved on record the copy of sale deed Ex.PW2/B which was executed on 29.3.2005. He further stated that the acquired land was located adjacent to the road, whereas the land sold by him was located at a distance of about 100150 ft. from the road. He admitted in crossexamination that he had sold this land to his father, but denied that excessive amount was mentioned and that this money in fact had not been paid. 10. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that the sale deed Ex.PW2/B could not have been relied upon as the same was executed between the son and the father. However, I find no merit in this contention and really fail to understand why much capital is made from the fact that the land is being sold by son to his father. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General that the sale deed Ex.PW2/B could not have been relied upon as the same was executed between the son and the father. However, I find no merit in this contention and really fail to understand why much capital is made from the fact that the land is being sold by son to his father. There is no legal bar for effecting such kind of transactions and that apart, the appellants themselves have failed to place on record any contemporaneous official record which may prove that the value of the land was less than the one as reflected in the sale deed Ex.PW2/B. Moreover, the appellants had every right to crossexamine this witness and also lead evidence and in absence of any material coming on record to show that the transaction was not bonafide or the price mentioned in the sale deed was exorbitant. The sale deed was bound to be accepted. 11. The learned Reference Court was necessarily required to fall back on the sale deed Ex.PW2/B, more particularly, when it was executed on 29.3.2005, whereas the notification was subsequently issued on 29.10.2005. The learned Reference Court was therefore correct in observing that the sale deed cannot be said to have been executed in anticipation of the acquisition and therefore have to be taken into consideration in determining the market value. 12. As regards the contention of the appellants that the learned Reference Court has not taken into consideration the number of sale transactions effected in the Muhal during the relevant time, suffice it to say that the appellants led no evidence in this behalf by placing and proving on record the sale exempler(s) pertaining to the Muhal in question. 13. The learned Additional Advocate General would then vehemently argue that the enhanced compensation as awarded by the learned Reference Court is excessive. However, I find no merit in this contention because the learned Reference Court after taking into consideration the sale exempler which pertained to only 0714 bighas has consciously deducted 33% and only thereafter awarded the compensation in question. 14. Indubitably, the sale deed Ex.PW2/B pertained to the land measuring 0714 bighas that was sold for consideration of Rs. 15, 35, 000/ and on these basis the average value of the land worked out to be Rs.1, 99, 350/ per biswa and after deduction of 33% i.e. Rs. 14. Indubitably, the sale deed Ex.PW2/B pertained to the land measuring 0714 bighas that was sold for consideration of Rs. 15, 35, 000/ and on these basis the average value of the land worked out to be Rs.1, 99, 350/ per biswa and after deduction of 33% i.e. Rs. 66, 450/ the value of the acquired land has been determined at Rs.1, 32, 900/ per biswa. 15. For the reasons already stated above, I see no reason to interfere with the said award. Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of.