ORDER : 1. Heard, Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Swami Dayanand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. These First Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 22.04.2008 and award dated 07.05.2008 passed by learned Sub-Judge-II-cum-Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh, in L.R. Case No. 95 of 1993 [in F.A. Case No. 144 of 2008] and L.R. Case No. 97 of 1993 [in F.A. Case No. 145 of 2008] and L.R. Case No. 98 of 1993 [in F.A. Case No. 147 of 2008] all arising out of L.A. Case No.21/1985-86. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents/petitioners are the raiyats of Village Kuju, P.S.-Mandu, District-Hazaribagh. The Government Authority has acquired the land of the raiyats for benefit of Central Coalfields Limited. It was stated in the objection petitions that the acquired lands are surrounded by collieries and factories. There were so many collieries near the acquired lands before acquisition. The acquired land is nearer to market Kuju where there are Cinema Halls, Schools, Colleges, Hospitals etc. It has further been stated that the area of Kuju is with facility of electricity and water supply and in that locality at the time of acquisition the rate of land was Rs.10,000/- per decimal. Earlier, the acquired lands were being irrigated and the raiyats were growing up crops. But the character of acquired lands have been changed due to industrialization. In spite of that, the State Authority has not considered the above said facts, while determining the compensation amount that has been fixed at lower rate which was contended to be enhanced. It was prayed that the amount of compensation be fixed on enhanced rate. 4. A proposal for acquisition of 18 acres of land have been referred before the Government by Central Coalfields Ltd. in Village Kuju. After measurement, the Government Authority has acquired 7.02 acres of land in Village-Kuju for which, a notification was made vide notification No.21/88 and 2273 dated 23.06.88. Later on, declaration No. L.A., Haza-55/89-49 dated 11.01.1990 was also made. The Government Authority during verification of land has classified the acquired land into four categories like Dhan-I, Dhan-II, Tanr-III and Rasta. They have also collected several registered deeds executed in the year 1987-88. Later on, declaration No. L.A., Haza-55/89-49 dated 11.01.1990 was also made. The Government Authority during verification of land has classified the acquired land into four categories like Dhan-I, Dhan-II, Tanr-III and Rasta. They have also collected several registered deeds executed in the year 1987-88. The Government Authority has assessed the compensation amount on the basis of a registered deed of sale executed in the year 1987, which has been mentioned at serial no. 12 of Ext.-B. However, though the acquired land has been classified in four categories but a flat rate was given to the awards which is at the rate of Rs.216.22/- per decimal. Aggrieved with that, objection was raised under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and in pursuance of the same reference was made before the competent authority which was registered as L.R. Case No. 95/93 and 99/93. 5. On behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag only a declaration has been filed by the O.P. No. 2. while the appellant has filed show-cause before the court below. The appellant has stated that the acquired land is situated far away from National Highway-33 and surrounded by dense forest, which is hilly valley and undulated land, not fit for construction of houses. All the collieries are 10 to 15 Kilometers far from the acquired land. At the time of acquisition there was no market in Village Kuju and no facilities like electricity and water supply was available at that time as well as Cinema Hall and Colleges were also not available in that area. The real fact is that Kuju, where the land has been acquired is a small village of Mandu Block and hence, the respondents are quite wrong stating that the locality was developed one. After considering the entire facts, the State Authority has determined the rate of compensation correctly. 6. On the basis of above facts and pleadings of the case, the learned court below proceeded to decide the reference case. The respondents adduced 10 witnesses before the Reference Court and exhibited the documents i.e., Ext.-1 and Ext. 1/1, which are registered deeds of sale executed in the year 1987. The respondents have also filed two certified copies of the judgment passed by the court of the Land Acquisition. 7. The appellant, herein, examined two witnesses and three documents were exhibited i.e. Ext.A-copy of the rate report, Ext.B.- copy of sale figure and Ext. 1/1, which are registered deeds of sale executed in the year 1987. The respondents have also filed two certified copies of the judgment passed by the court of the Land Acquisition. 7. The appellant, herein, examined two witnesses and three documents were exhibited i.e. Ext.A-copy of the rate report, Ext.B.- copy of sale figure and Ext. C- certified copy of the sale deed executed in the year 1987. Almost all the witnesses adduced on behalf of the respondents have stated in their evidence that the acquired land is situated half kilometer far from Kuju Bazar. Near the acquired land there is National Highway crossing Hazaribagh to Ramgarh and in that locality there are market, school, colleges and hospitals etc. The witnesses have also stated that the entire locality, now, has been converted into an industrial area. There are so many mines around that area and the area is being developed day-by-day. 8. The witnesses of the appellants herein, have also accepted in their evidence that the acquired land is 50 to 60ft. far from the Kuju Valley (Ghati). Appellants has also accepted in their evidence that the mining work is going on in that locality. 9. The learned court below came to the conclusion that the acquired land is situated near Kuju Market and National Highway is also passing through that locality as well as mining work is going on and certainly the area has been converted into an industrial area and now the area is also developing day-by-day. 10. The trial court while considering Ext.B which is the basis of determination of rate of the land by the authorities, came to the finding that rate fixed by the authority was not correct. By referring serial nos. 2, 5, 26 and 45 of Ext.B, the Reference Court came to finding that the rate of compensation would be fixed at the rate of 4,000/- per decimal and by way of considering Ext.C which is the registered sale deed, the Reference Court came to the finding that transaction has been made between the parties concerned at the rate of Rs.1052.63 per decimal. The Reference Court has also considered Ext.C, Ext.1 and Ext.1/1 and considering the submissions of the respondents and accepting the Ext.1 and 1/1 came to the finding that the rate of Rs.4,000/- per decimal or near the rate of Rs.4,000/- are available in Ext.B and the rate of Rs.4,000/- per dec. seems as per the market value of land. The court below also came to the finding that the area where the lands have been acquired is developed. Ignoring the above facts, the Government Authority has assessed a very low rate and that’s why it has been enhanced by the Reference Court. While assessing the compensation at the rate of 4,000/- per dec, it was also ordered by the court below that the respondents will be entitled to solatium, interest and other monetary benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act. 11. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the appellants-CCL submits that the learned court below has not considered that the land in question was acquired in the year 1988 and at that time at any corner the rate of Rs.4,000/- per dec. cannot be imagined. He further submits that it is well settled proposition of law that if the land is being acquired in a large scale the rate of compensation should be different. He further submits that in the award the Reference Court has wrongly considered serial no.2, 5, 26, 45 of Ext. B which are the sale deeds with respect of lessor area of acquisition of land and in that view of the matter, the formula adopted by the court below is not tenable. 12. To substantiate his argument, Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board & Others. Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa and Another as reported in 2009(11) SCC 164 . Relevant Paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment are quoted herein below:- 8. “16. ‘6. Where [a] large area is the subject-matter of acquisition, rate at which small plots are sold cannot be said to be a safe criterion. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of this Court in Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P. and Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer. 7. Reference in this context may be made to three decisions of this Court in Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, Prithvi Raj Taneja v. State of M.P. and Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer. 7. It cannot, however, be laid down as an absolute proposition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate. For example, where there is no other material it may in appropriate cases be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land. However, in such cases necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices. 8. In Suresh Kumar v. Town Improvement Trust, in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trusts Act, 1960 this Court held that the rates paid for small parcels of land do not provide a useful guide for determining the market value of the land acquired. While determining the market value of the land acquired, it has to be correctly determined and paid so that there is neither unjust enrichment on the part of the acquirer nor undue deprivation on the part of the owner. It is an accepted principle as laid down in Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju v. Revenue Divl. Officer that the compensation must be determined by reference to the price which a willing vendor might reasonably expect to receive from the willing purchaser. While considering the market value disinclination of the vendor to part with his land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to buy it must alike be disregarded; neither must be considered as acting under any compulsion. The value of the land is not to be estimated as its value to the purchaser. But similarly this does not mean that the fact that some particular purchaser might desire the land more than others is to be disregarded. The wish of a particular purchaser, though not his compulsion may always be taken into consideration for what it is worth. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the matters to be considered in determining compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. The first criterion to be taken into consideration is the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under Section 4(1). Similarly, Section 24 of the Act enumerates the matters which the court shall not take into consideration in determining the compensation. A safeguard is provided in Section 25 of the Act that the amount of compensation to be awarded by the court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11. Value of the potentiality is to be determined on such materials as are available and without indulgence in any fits of imagination. Impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guesswork involved while determining the potentiality. 9. It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made: (i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages. 10. It is only when these factors are present, it can merit a consideration as a comparable case (see Special Land Acquisition Officer v. T. Adinarayan Setty).’ These aspects have been highlighted in Ravinder Narain v. Union of India, SCC pp. 483-84, paras 6-10. 17. The deduction to be made towards development charges cannot be proved in any straitjacket formula. It would depend upon the facts of each case.” 9. “It is right as contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that deductions can be made for development. But the deductions have to be made from some definite figure. In the instant case the High Court has not indicated any basis but has come to an abrupt conclusion that the claim of the owners for enhancement has to be accepted but not for Rs 9,00,000 per acre as claimed but at Rs 4,00,000 per acre. Market value has a definite concept and it cannot be evaluated without any foundation or basis”. 13. Market value has a definite concept and it cannot be evaluated without any foundation or basis”. 13. By way of referring the above judgment learned counsel for the appellant submits that impracticability of determining the potential value is writ large in almost all cases. There is bound to be some amount of guesswork involving while determining the potentiality. He also submits while determining the rate that it has to be kept in mind as to whether the area is developed or being developed and whether certain percentage are need to be deducted from the awarded amount. 14. He further relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Others as reported in 2008(1) SCC 2009 554. Relevant paragraph Nos.17 and 19 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow :- 17. “The deduction to be made towards development charges cannot be proved in any straitjacket formula. It would depend upon the facts of each case”. 19. “A reference may also be made to what has been stated in Kiran Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority, State of W.B. v. Kedarnath Rajgarhia Charit. Trust Estate and V. Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer. 15. By referring the above judgments learned counsel submits merely saying that the area adjoining the land is developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of land is abutting the main road in the developed area, it does not give the character of the land as developed area. He submits that at least 1/3rd compensation amount has to be deducted, out of the amount of compensation payable towards the acquired land. He further submits that compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical average. For determining the market value of the lands under acquisition suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors. He further submits that such development charges may range between 20% to 50 % of the total price. He further submits that this aspects of matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (dead) by L.RS. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789 . Relevant paragraph Nos. He further submits that such development charges may range between 20% to 50 % of the total price. He further submits that this aspects of matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Viluben Jhalejar Contractor (dead) by L.RS. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2005) 4 SCC 789 . Relevant paragraph Nos. 20 and 21 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- Positive factors Negative factors (i) smallness of size (i) largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road (ii) situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road (iii) narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed area (iv) lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape (v) remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis-à-vis land under acquisition (vi) some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser (vii) special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage 20. The amount of compensation cannot be ascertained with mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has to be identified having regard to the proximity from time angle as well as proximity from situation angle. For determining the market value of the land under acquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having regard to various positive and negative factors vis-à-vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under :- 21. “Whereas a smaller plot may be within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed preparing a layout plan, carving out roads, leaving open spaces, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers and the hazards of an entrepreneur. Such development charges may range between 20% and 50% of the total price”. 16. He further submits that in a plethora of judgments decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, general trend is to deduct 33% from the value of such small plot of land. 17. On the basis of above judgments, he argues that the award of the Reference Court is not tenable in the eyes of law, as the land in question was acquired in the year 1988 and Ext.B series, on which the court below has relied upon is the sale deed with regard to lessor area of the land. 17. On the basis of above judgments, he argues that the award of the Reference Court is not tenable in the eyes of law, as the land in question was acquired in the year 1988 and Ext.B series, on which the court below has relied upon is the sale deed with regard to lessor area of the land. He further submits that in view of the matter, flat rate of Rs.4,000/- per decimal cannot sustain in the eyes of law in view of the well settled of proposition of law. 18. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Sahani assisted by Mr. Swami Dayanand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that there is no illegality in the award and the witnesses have categorically stated that the land in question was in Kuju area which was by the side of National Highway where there were Cinema Halls, Hospital etc. and stated that there is no illegality in passing the award by the learned court below. So far as Ext.1 and Ext. 1/1 are concerned, they show that the rate should be Rs.8,000/- per decimal but the Reference Court has only awarded the amount at the rate of 4,000/- per decimal that too on the basis of Ext.B, the documents of the appellant. He further submits that so far as the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the appellants are concerned, were passed in relation to the facts of those cases and that judgments are not applicable in these cases. He further submits that so far as deduction of certain percentage out of the compensation amount is concerned, it depends upon the development of the area whereas the land in question has already been developed, and thus, there is no question of deduction of any percentage out of the compensation amount. 19. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking into the award passed by the learned court below and after examining the Exts. as well as evidences of the witnesses adduced by parties, this court also comes to the conclusion that so far as the finding of the learned court below with regard to fixing the amount at a flat rate of Rs.4,000/- per dec. is concerned, being correct and fit, it does not warrant any interference by this court. as well as evidences of the witnesses adduced by parties, this court also comes to the conclusion that so far as the finding of the learned court below with regard to fixing the amount at a flat rate of Rs.4,000/- per dec. is concerned, being correct and fit, it does not warrant any interference by this court. However, this Court further finds that in the award, the Trial Court has failed to take into consideration the law laid down by the Hon’ble Superme Court in cases of Lucknow Development Authority Vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti and Others (supra) and Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board & Others. Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa and Another (supra). It should be modified that the land in question was acquired for housing purposes. The fact that an area is being developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in that area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracks are acquired, for development purpose. This court also sustain the market value fixed by the trial court at Rs.4,000/- per decimal but instead of 25% development charges are to be deducted which the trial court has failed to do so in this case. 20. However, this Court is not accepting the argument of Mr. A.K. Das with regard to larger chunk of land, accordingly, if the deductions are made from the assessed value of Rs.4,000/- per decimal, the final valuation is bound to decrees in terms of 25% is deducted from the aforesaid grant award, the amount will come to Rs.3,000/- per decimal approximately. 21. In view of the above discussions, this Court finds that the correct value of land so acquired should be fixed at the rate of Rs.3000/- per decimal. The remaining part of the award with regard to the solatium, additional compensation and interest will remain the same. 22. In view of the above discussions, these appeals stand allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned award is modified to Rs.3,000/- per decimal to be payable by the appellant court in favour of the land losser along with the statutory provision such as solatium, additional, compensation and interest. 23. 22. In view of the above discussions, these appeals stand allowed and the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Judge by the impugned award is modified to Rs.3,000/- per decimal to be payable by the appellant court in favour of the land losser along with the statutory provision such as solatium, additional, compensation and interest. 23. With the above modification, the award dated 22nd April, 2008 is modified to the above extent and these appeals stand allowed in part and accordingly, disposed of. 24. Office is directed to proceed in terms of the modification. 25. Office is directed to send back the Lower Court Records forthwith along with judgment to these appeals to the learned court below.