JUDGMENT : TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. These appeals take exception to the award passed by the learned Reference Court whereby the claimants/respondents have been held entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 5880/- per square metre in respect of the acquired land alongwith all other statutory benefits. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that after issuing the requisite notification as envisaged under the Land Acquisition Act, the Collector determined the true area of the acquired land as 1906.67 square metres and assessed its market value at the rate of Rs. 718/- per square metre and awarded the following compensation:- 1. Value of land Rs. 13,68,989/- 2. Value of House/Structure Rs.1,13,985/- 3. 30% compulsory acquisition u/s 23(2) Rs.4,44,892/- 4. 12% Additional amount u/s 23(1-A) from the date of publication of notification u/s 4 i.e. 20.09.2003 to 30.11.2005 3,91,505/- 5. Interest @ 9% for 1st year from the date of publication of notification u/s 4 i.e. 20.09.2003 to 19.09.2004 under Section 34 Rs.64,711/- 6. Interest @ 15% per annum w.e.f. 20.09.2004 to 30.11.2005 u/s 34 Rs.1,29,128/- 7. Loss of earnings Rs.34.000/- Total = 25,47,210/- 3. Aggrieved by the said award, claimants/respondents filed reference petitions, which were ordered to be consolidated vide order dated 25.11.2010 with petition titled Ashok Pal Sen vs. Collector. 4. As observed earlier, the learned Reference Court allowed these petitions by holding the claimants to be entitled to the enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.5880/- per square metre. 5. Aggrieved by the award so passed, the appellant has filed these appeals mainly on the ground that the learned Reference Court while determining the compensation ought to have taken all the sale exemplars of Muhal Seri and only thereafter should have awarded the compensation, whereas the court has conveniently ignored the last sale exemplar i.e. Ext.P3 by coming to the conclusion that the value reflected therein was very low and such finding has been arrived at without any basis and without there being any material available on record. 6. 6. At this stage, it needs to be mentioned that in all three reference petitions filed before the Reference Court, however, only two appeals that are pending adjudication before this Court, as the appeal filed by the appellant against one of the other claimant Jai Kumar being RFA No. 775 of 2012, was dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated 06.08.2013, after taking into consideration the meagerness of the amount involved therein and it was specifically observed that the judgment so rendered will have no bearing on the point of law as raised in the other connected appeals i.e. the instant appeals. 7. At the outset, it would be necessary to set out certain broad parameters and principles that are required to be borne in mind while determining the compensation under the Land Acquisition Act. 8. 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, the other well-known 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. 9. In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Land Acquisition Officer, (1998) 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. (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. (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 post-notification 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. (Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land.) (9) Even post-notification 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 be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet 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 vis-a-vis 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. 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 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. 10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid exposition of law, this Court shall not determine the merits of these appeals. 11. The record reveals that the parties had produced various sale deeds, details whereof are as under:- Sale deed Muhal Area sold (Sq. metres) Sale Price Date Price per sq. metre Ex.P1 Seri 122.60 Rs. 12,50,000/- 19.03.1999 Rs. 10,195.75 Ex.P2 -do- 24.18 Rs. 1,80,000/- 22.03.1999 Rs. 7444.16 Ex.P3 -do- 31.62 Rs. 63,000/- 29.05.1999 Rs. 1992.40 Ex.P4 Agwahan 11.62 Rs. 1,00,000/- 13.06.2003 Rs. 8605.85 Ex.R1 Magwain 63.00 Rs. 60,000/- 21.08.2001 Rs. 952.38 Ex.R2 -do- 177.98 Rs. 11,000/- 30.01.2003 Rs. 61.80 Ex.R3 -do- 246.70 Rs. 4,33,500/- 23.12.2002 Rs. 1757.19 Ex.R4 -do- 101.90 Rs. 10,000/- 24.10.2002 Rs. 98.13 Ex.R5 -do- 43.18 Rs. 1500/- 10.07.2003 Rs. 34.73 Ex.R6 -do- 18.83 Rs. 40,000/- 21.03.2003 Rs. 2124.26 Ex.R7 -do- 18.76 Rs. 1,00,000/- 08.10.2002 Rs. 5330.49 Ex.R8 -do- 120.00 Rs. 46,000/- 30.07.2000 Rs. 383.33 Ex.R9 -do- 292.34 Rs. 21,000/- 08.05.2003 Rs. 11,000/- 30.01.2003 Rs. 61.80 Ex.R3 -do- 246.70 Rs. 4,33,500/- 23.12.2002 Rs. 1757.19 Ex.R4 -do- 101.90 Rs. 10,000/- 24.10.2002 Rs. 98.13 Ex.R5 -do- 43.18 Rs. 1500/- 10.07.2003 Rs. 34.73 Ex.R6 -do- 18.83 Rs. 40,000/- 21.03.2003 Rs. 2124.26 Ex.R7 -do- 18.76 Rs. 1,00,000/- 08.10.2002 Rs. 5330.49 Ex.R8 -do- 120.00 Rs. 46,000/- 30.07.2000 Rs. 383.33 Ex.R9 -do- 292.34 Rs. 21,000/- 08.05.2003 Rs. 71.83 Ex.R10 -do- 36.77 Rs. 1,11,000/- 20.06.2002 Rs. 3018.76 Ex.R11 -do- 105.62 Rs. 6,000/- 10.07.2003 Rs. 56.80 Ex.R12 -do- 41.25 Rs. 21,000/- 19.06.2003 Rs. 509.09 Ex.R13 -do- 80.00 Rs. 57,000/- 11.07.2003 Rs. 712.50 12. Admittedly, the land as acquired is situated in Muhal Seri and, therefore, in absence of there being any evidence to indicate that the land situated in Muhal Magwain and Muhal Agwahan is comparable to the acquired land, it would neither be safe nor prudent to rely upon the sale exemplars of these Muhals, especially when sale exemplars of Seri itself are available. 13. Evidently, only Exts.P1 to P3 pertain to Muhal Seri, out of which only the first two sale exemplars i.e. Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 were considered by the learned Reference Court whereas the sale deed Ext.P3 was excluded as according to it the rate reflected therein was quite low considering the value reflected in the other sale deeds. 14. After placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. P. Housing Board vs. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 , the learned Reference Court worked out the average value of the sale deeds Ext. P1 and Ext. P2 to be Rs. 8820/- per square metre. Thereafter taking into consideration the fact that the sale exemplars pertain to small piece of land, the deduction at the rate of 33% has been made and held the claimants to be entitled to Rs.5880/- per square metre. 15. Strong exception is taken by the appellant(s) to the non-consideration and exclusion of the sale exemplar Ext. P3 on the ground that the claimants after having themselves produced this on record, were bound by the document and the sale consideration reflected therein and in case Ext. P3 is the average value of Ext. P1, Ext. P2 and Ext.P3, then the average value would have far less and would only be Rs.6544.10 instead of Rs. 8820/- the average value of sale exemplars Ext. P1 and Ext. P2 as worked out by the learned Reference Court. 16. P3 is the average value of Ext. P1, Ext. P2 and Ext.P3, then the average value would have far less and would only be Rs.6544.10 instead of Rs. 8820/- the average value of sale exemplars Ext. P1 and Ext. P2 as worked out by the learned Reference Court. 16. Even though this argument appears to be attractive at the first blush but in case it is examined in detail then it would be revealed that the same has no merit. What probably has been overlooked by the appellant while making this submission is the fact that the sale exemplars Ext.P1 was executed on 19.09.1999, Ext.P2 on 22.03.1999 and Ext.P3 on 29.05.1999 whereas the notification under Section 4 was published subsequently on 31.07.2003 i.e. more than 4 years after the sale deeds Exts.P1 to P3 had been executed. 17. It cannot be disputed that the value of the land normally increases with the passage of time subject to evidence to the contrary being produced by the contesting parties. Therefore, it cannot be imagined that the value of the land on the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 in the year 2003 remained static for four years. Even if a very reasonable increase of 7 to 10% per year on the value of land is made even then the value thereof after taking into consideration Ext.P3 would be much much higher than Rs.5880/- per square metre as awarded by the learned Reference Court would definitely be above Rs.6000/- per square metre. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the award as passed by the learned Reference Court. Accordingly the same is upheld. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellant(s) are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 19. However, before parting, it needs to be clarified that the entitlement to the award impugned shall be subject to the decision of the Civil Suit No. 4 of 2007, which is pending inter se claimants before this Court and the amount released to any of the parties during the pendency of these appeals shall be liable to be set off against his/their share as per the final decision in the aforesaid suit.