JUDGMENT : K.S. Mudagal, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of land acquisition notification dated 29.03.1990 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for acquiring the lands for the purpose of establishment of National Research Centre for Cashew. The said notification was issued in respect of land in Sy. No. 203/2A of Kemminje Village measuring 4 acres 5 cents and the land bearing Sy. No. 262/2A2 of Kemminje Village measuring 2 acres 66 cents and they were acquired. 2. Appellants in M.S.A. No. 8/2014 are the owners of the land bearing Sy. No. 203/2A and respondent No. 1 in M.F.A. No. 9405/2010 is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 262/2A2. 3. The land acquisition officer passed common award in No. 1/1991-92 dated 27.07.1991 fixing the compensation at the rate of Rs. 350/- per cent in respect of Sy. Nos. 262/2A2 and 203/2A. 4. On reference application of the claimants-appellants in M.S.A. No. 8/2014, the matter was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge registered in L.A.C. No. 10/1991. On recording the evidence and hearing the parties in L.A.C. No. 10/1991, the reference Court passed award dated 21.04.2009 fixing the compensation at Rs. 2000/- per cent on the following grounds: (i) Under Ex.P3 the sale-deed dated 03.06.1988, similarly situated land namely Sy. No. 126-1CB measuring 10 cents was sold on 03.06.1988 for Rs. 32,500/- (ii) The reference Court in L.A.C. No. 84/1990 which is the subject matter of the same notification has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,200/- per cent. 5. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (henceforth referred to I.C.A.R. in short) challenged the said award in M.A. No. 83/2012 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada. In the said appeal, I.C.A.R. filed application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC to produce the awards in L.A.C. Nos. 14/1991 to 16/1991 as additional evidence. The First Appellate Court rejected the said application of I.C.A.R. 6. The First Appellate Court by the judgment and award impugned in M.S.A. No. 8/2014 partly allowed the appeal and reduced the compensation to Rs. 1,600/- per cent on the following grounds: (i) Land in Ex.P3 sale-deed relied upon by the reference Court was non-agricultural land measuring only an extent of 10 guntas. If that has to be taken into consideration then as per the judgments of the Supreme Court in Basava vs. Spl. 1,600/- per cent on the following grounds: (i) Land in Ex.P3 sale-deed relied upon by the reference Court was non-agricultural land measuring only an extent of 10 guntas. If that has to be taken into consideration then as per the judgments of the Supreme Court in Basava vs. Spl. LAO, (1996) AIR SC 3168 and Saibanna vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, (2000) ILR (Kar) 1717 deduction of development charges at 53% has to be allowed. In that event the compensation payable in respect of the acquired land in L.A.C. No. 10/1991 comes to Rs. 1,626/- per cent. (ii) In L.A.C. Nos. 14/1991, 16/1991 and 22/1991 for the lands acquired under the same notification, compensation was fixed at Rs. 1,600/- per cent. In the absence of specific sale statistics or other method of calculation of compensation award on L.A.C. Nos. 14/1991, 16/1991 and 22/1991 have to be followed. 7. On the reference application of respondent No. 1 in M.F.A. No. 9405/2010, the matter was referred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Puttur and registered in L.A.C. No. 11/1991. In L.A.C. No. 11/1991 dated 05.07.2010, the Court passed award granting compensation of Rs. 1,31,735/- per acre to the claimant. 8. I.C.A.R. challenged the said award in W.P. 16730/1996 before this Court on the ground that, being the beneficiary that was necessary party to the proceedings, the award was passed in L.A.C. No. 11/1991 without arraying that as a party. 9. This Court allowed the said writ petition on 15.11.1996 and directed the reference Court to array the ICAR as party and decide the matter afresh. Thereafter, ICAR was impleaded as party respondent in L.A.C. No. 11/1991. The reference Court on recording the evidence and hearing the parties, relying on the award dated 21.04.2009 in L.A.C. No. 10/1991 fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs. 2000/- per cent along with the other statutory benefits. 10. In M.S.A. No. 8/2014 the claimants of L.A.C. No. 10/1991 challenge the judgment and award of the First Appellate Court M.A. No. 83/2012. In M.F.A. No. 9405/2010, the I.C.A.R. beneficiary of the acquisition has challenged the award passed in L.A.C. No. 11/1991. The claimants in L.A.C. No. 11/1991 have filed MFA Crob. No. 17/2013 claiming enhancement of compensation. 11. 10. In M.S.A. No. 8/2014 the claimants of L.A.C. No. 10/1991 challenge the judgment and award of the First Appellate Court M.A. No. 83/2012. In M.F.A. No. 9405/2010, the I.C.A.R. beneficiary of the acquisition has challenged the award passed in L.A.C. No. 11/1991. The claimants in L.A.C. No. 11/1991 have filed MFA Crob. No. 17/2013 claiming enhancement of compensation. 11. Sri Sachin B.S. learned counsel for the appellants/claimants in MSA No. 8/2014 and Sri Y.K. Narayana Sharma for the claimants in M.F.A. No. 9405/2010 and MFA Crob. No. 17/2013 seek to assail the impugned judgments and decrees on the following grounds: (i) RW-1 has given clear admission that the acquired lands are close to tar road and another pathway and close to Puttur KSRTC Depot, Julex Kettle feed factory, they are close to Mangalore-Madikeri road, they are surrounded by residential houses and have telephone line. (ii) Evidence on record shows that the acquired property has non agricultural potentiality. (iii) The sale-deed Ex.P3 produced in L.A.C. No. 10/1991 which is also relied in L.A.C. No. 11/1991 showed that two years prior to the 4(1) notification, the said land was sold at the rate of Rs. 350/- per cent. Having regard to such aspects, the award of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- per cent is on the lower side. 12. Sri. Sachin B.S. learned counsel submits that the First Appellate Court though rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC produced by the acquiring authority, took into consideration the awards passed by way of additional evidence without giving opportunity to the claimant to show that the lands in those cases were not comparable with the acquired lands. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is unsustainable. 13. Per contra, Sri. Subramanya, learned counsel for I.C.A.R. and S.B. Shahapur, learned High court Government Pleader submit that the land purchased under Ex.P3 in L.A.C. No. 10/1991 was non-agricultural land and house was constructed on the said property. Therefore, that could not be compared to the acquired lands which were the agricultural lands. They further submit that the acquired lands were not leveled lands and were not in cultivable condition, therefore, the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- per cent was fair and reasonable. 14. Therefore, that could not be compared to the acquired lands which were the agricultural lands. They further submit that the acquired lands were not leveled lands and were not in cultivable condition, therefore, the compensation awarded at the rate of Rs. 1,600/- per cent was fair and reasonable. 14. Having regard to the rival contentions, the question that arises in these cases for consideration is what would be the just and fair compensation payable to the claimants in these cases? 15. As already pointed out in L.A.C. No. 10/1991, the reference Court awarded compensation of Rs. 2,000/- per cent relying on Ex.P3 the sale-deed dated 03.06.1988. Under Ex.P.3, 10 cents of land in Sy. Nos. 126/1C4B, 226/12P, 226/12A2 was sold for consideration of Rs. 3,250/- per cent. No doubt that was non-agricultural property. Though the acquired properties in these cases were the agricultural lands, the question is whether they had non-agricultural potentiality. 16. RW-1 in L.A.C. No. 10/1991 had admitted that, the subject matter of L.A.C. No. 10/1991 was surrounded by residential houses and has tar road connecting Mangalore- Madikeri main road passing near the land. He further admitted that, close to the acquired property, there is Campco factory and telephone line passes near the land. His evidence goes to show that though the lands were agricultural lands they had non-agricultural potentiality. 17. Apart from that the sale-deed Ex.P3 was two years prior to the 4(1) notification. The subject matter of L.A.C. No. 10/1991 admittedly was having cashew trees and firewood trees. Therefore, Ex.P3 could have been considered as a comparable sale statistics. After deducting 53% developmental charges as required in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Basava vs. Spl. LAO, (1996) AIR SC 3168, the First Appellate Court itself assessed the value at Rs. 1,848/- per cent. 18. In Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah, (1976) 8 Laws (SC) 60, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in similar circumstances held that "Questions relating to value of particular pieces of land depend upon the evidence in the particular case in which those facts are proved." It was further held that the existence of a judgment would not prove the value of some piece of land not dealt with at all in the judgment admitted in the evidence and such judgments are irrelevant unless a party has given opportunity to meet those awards. 19. 19. The First Appellate Court's judgment reducing the compensation to Rs. 1600/- per cent relying on the awards in L.A.C. Nos. 14, 16, 22 and 15 of 1991 is unsustainable for the reason that though the First Appellate Court rejected application under Order XLI Rule 27 of Civil Procedure Code, again relied upon the very same evidence. Before relying on such evidence, the First Appellate Court did not give any opportunity to the claimants to demonstrate whether the properties acquired in those cases were comparable to the subject matter of L.A.C. No. 10/1991. 20. Sri Subramanya, learned Counsel for I.C.A.R. made available a statement for the perusal of this Court regarding the compensation awarded in the connected matters starting from L.A.C. Nos. 10/1991 to 22/1991 etc. which shows that the highest rate fixed for the land acquired under the same notification was Rs. 1,650/- per cent and that was accepted by I.C.A.R. and the acquiring body. 21. There cannot be any dispute that every year there would be appreciation of value of the landed property. This Court has already observed that acquired land had the non- agricultural potentiality. Having regard to the fact that Ex.P.3 was two years prior to the 4(1) notification, atleast 10% appreciation per annum on the rate fixed under Ex.P3 was reasonable one. 22. As admitted, in the other cases Rs. 1650/- compensation per cent was granted which was accepted. While arriving at the rate of Rs. 1626/- based on Ex.P3, the First Appellate Court had not given 10% appreciation on the consideration paid under Ex.P3. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that compensation of Rs. 1650/- per cent is fair and reasonable. 23. Therefore, M.S.A. No. 8/2014 and M.F.A. No. 9405/2010 are partly allowed and Cross-Objection No. 17/2013 in MFA No. 9405/2010 is hereby rejected. 24. The judgment and award dated 15.12.2012 in M.A. No. 83/2012 and the judgment and award dated 05.07.2010 in L.A.C. No. 11/1991 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada are hereby modified granting compensation of Rs. 1650/- per cent to the acquired lands. Rest of the award in both the cases are maintained. 25. The amount deposited, if any, in both these cases shall be transmitted to the Reference Court and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. I.A. No. 1/2019 in M.F.A. No. 9405/2010 is disposed of accordingly. 26. Sri. 1650/- per cent to the acquired lands. Rest of the award in both the cases are maintained. 25. The amount deposited, if any, in both these cases shall be transmitted to the Reference Court and the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same. I.A. No. 1/2019 in M.F.A. No. 9405/2010 is disposed of accordingly. 26. Sri. S.B. Shahapur, learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance before the Registry within four weeks. 27. Return the records of M.F.A. No. 2770/1995 to the concerned branch.