JUDGMENT : Ravi Malimath, J. Miscellaneous First Appeal Nos.20602 of 2012, 20601 of 2012 and 20603 of 2012 are filed by the beneficiary challenging the award of the Reference Court in granting compensation at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per gunta, on the ground that the compensation is far too excessive. Cross objection No.923 of 2013 pertains to MFA No.20602 of 2012 on the ground that the grant of compensation is on the lower side. 2. The lands were acquired in terms of the preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 30.03.2006 and the award was passed on 26.05.2007. Rs.2,465/- per gunta was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. On reference, the same was enhanced to Rs.42,000/- per gunta. The same is questioned by the beneficiary on the ground that it is far too excessive. That the Reference Court wrongly relied on the award passed with reference to the adjoining acquisition of land. Those acquisitions were for the purpose of establishment of a railway line. The present acquisition is for establishment of the APMC yard. Since the object of acquisitions are different, the price determination should also be different. 3. The same is disputed by the claimants. They contend that when the adjoining land owners have received a particular sum as compensation, the claimants too should receive the same compensation. They also contend that the neighbouring lands were acquired for the purpose of establishment of a railway line in the year 2002. On contest, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, ultimately held, that the claimants are entitled for a compensation of Rs.53,905/- per gunta. The instant acquisition is of the year 2006. Therefore, an appropriate escalation be granted and the compensation be enhanced. 4. Heard learned counsels and examined the records. 5. Learned counsel for the beneficiary does not dispute the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. A copy of the said judgment is also placed for consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.19684-85 of 2017 and other connected matters, granted compensation of Rs.53,905/-. Therefore, we are of the considered view that based on the said judgment, the claimants would be entitled for a just enhancement of the compensation. A copy of the said judgment is also placed for consideration. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.19684-85 of 2017 and other connected matters, granted compensation of Rs.53,905/-. Therefore, we are of the considered view that based on the said judgment, the claimants would be entitled for a just enhancement of the compensation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another reported in (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 745 dealt with the question of determination of the price of the land based on the previous sale deeds. It came to the conclusion that in the case of neighbouring lands which have been acquired, an escalation of 10% per annum could be awarded in view of the lands receiving greater potential and possibility of improvement. It was held by the Supreme Court in paras 12 to 16 are as follows: “12. We have examined the facts of the three decisions relied on by the respondents. They all related to acquisition of lands in urban or semi-urban areas. Ranjit Singh related to acquisition for development of Sector 41 of Chandigarh. Ramanjulu related to acquisition of the third phase of an existing and established industrial estate in an urban area. Bipin Kumar related to an acquisition of lands adjoining Badaun-Delhi Highway in a semi-urban area where building construction activity was going on all around the acquired lands. 13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors: situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas, unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. 14. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. 14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same. 15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. 16. This is because, over the course of years, the “rate” of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. 16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine the market value of acquired lands with reference to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in 1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to the date of preliminary notification), the statistics relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the years 1994-95 or 1995-96 are taken as the base price and the market value in 1992 is worked back by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15% per annum. How far is this safe? One of the fundamental principles of valuation is that the transactions subsequent to the acquisition should be ignored for determining the market value of acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the consequential development would accelerate the overall development of the surrounding areas resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices. Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no development activity in a particular area. The appreciation in market price in such area would be slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial layout, there will be all round development and improvement in the infrastructure/amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as a result of which the surrounding lands will become more valuable. Even if there is no actual improvement in infrastructure, the potential and possibility of improvement on account of the proposed residential/commercial/industrial layout will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices. As a result, if the annual increase in market value was around 10% per annum before the acquisition, the annual increase of market value of lands in the areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on account of the development/proposed development. Therefore, if the percentage to be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. Therefore, if the percentage to be added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to be deducted to arrive at a market value with reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The percentage of standard increase becomes unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid determination of market value with reference to subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes inevitable, there should be greater caution in applying the prices fetched for transactions in future. Be that as it may.” 6. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said Civil Appeal is not disputed. Therein a sum of Rs.53,905/- was awarded. The acquisition was for the railways. It was of an acquisition in the year 2002. The present acquisition is of the year 2006. Therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, ONGC’s case, we deem it just and appropriate to grant an enhancement by 10% for a period of 4 years. Therefore, the enhanced valuation of the land would be a sum of Rs.75,467/- (Rs.53,905+10%(of 53905)x4) per gunta. 7. At this stage, it is contended by the appellant that the same should be restricted only to the cross objector. 8. We are unable to accept the said submission. In terms of Order LXI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellate Court can grant relief to a party even though cross objection has not been filed and make such orders which ought to have been passed in favour of such a claimant/respondent. The power can be exercised notwithstanding the fact that the appeal is only to part of the decree and although the respondents or parties, have not filed any appeal or objections. Hence, the said power contemplates that the Appellate Court could pass such orders which ought to have been passed or made. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that while dismissing the appeals filed by the beneficiary, the enhanced compensation would go to the benefit of the respective claimants in the appeals by the beneficiary. Consequently, MFA Nos. 20602 of 2012, 20601 of 2012 and 20603 of 2012 are dismissed. MFA Cross objection No.923 of 2013 is partly allowed with costs. The claimants are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.75,467/- per gunta. They will be entitled to all the statutory benefits. Consequently, MFA Nos. 20602 of 2012, 20601 of 2012 and 20603 of 2012 are dismissed. MFA Cross objection No.923 of 2013 is partly allowed with costs. The claimants are awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.75,467/- per gunta. They will be entitled to all the statutory benefits. The appeals and cross objections are disposed off accordingly. The claimants in MFA Nos.20601 of 2012 and 20603 of 2012 are entitled for the enhanced compensation subject to payment of court fee. Pending I.As. stand rejected.