JUDGMENT : 1. The claimant in LAC No.5/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment dated 18/4/2011 passed therein. 2. Admittedly, the appellant herein is the owner of land bearing Survey No.299/2 of Halageri village, Ranebennur Taluk, Haveri District measuring to an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas which was subject matter of acquisition by S.L.A.O. Upper Tunga Project for construction of canal to Upper Tunga Project. The preliminary notification dated 14/6/2004 under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act is issued for acquisition in the land of appellant and others. Final notification dated 30/8/2005 was issued and thereafter, award was passed by the second respondent S.L.A.O. on 20/4/2007 where the compensation was quantified at Rs.37,732/- per acre for dry land. Records would indicate that the land of the appellant herein is dry land. He did not construct house, well and there were no other malkies. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, valuation was fixed Rs.37,732/- per acre. Since the extent of land which was lost by the appellant herein being 1 acre 2 guntas compensation of Rs.39,619/- was considered for acquisition of his land and same was communicated to him under 12(2) notice dated 14/6/2007 which was subject matter of challenge in an application filed under Section 18(1) of Land Acquisition Act which was filed on 25/6/2007. 3. The same was registered in LAC No.5/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur. In the said proceedings the appellant herein adduced evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner's land is much more valuable and the compensation of Rs.37,732/- fixed by S.L.A.O., is on lower side. In the proceedings before the Reference Court, based on compensation which was considered for similarly situated land acquired under 4(1) notification dated 24/6/2004 in LAC No.92/2008 at Rs. 1,32,000/-per acre was considered for appellant herein also. It is seen that the said compensation is accepted both by the claimant and the beneficiary in LAC No.92/2008 without any of the parties to the said proceedings approaching the Appellate Court seeking revision of the said compensation. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- per acre was considered as compensation to the appellant also. 4. It is seen that the said compensation is accepted both by the claimant and the beneficiary in LAC No.92/2008 without any of the parties to the said proceedings approaching the Appellate Court seeking revision of the said compensation. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, a sum of Rs. 1,32,000/- per acre was considered as compensation to the appellant also. 4. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed contending that the Reference Court failed to appreciate documents at Exs.P3 to P7, where the similarly situated land being sold for at higher price; that the impugned award by the Reference Court is passed mechanically. It is in this background, the said appeal was admitted for consideration. Thereafter, original records in LAC No.5/2008 and records from S.L.A.O. is secured. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that in the proceedings before the Reference Court, though the appellant herein relied upon some of the documents to demonstrate that the value of the land similarly situated in same locality is sold for higher consideration. The same is not taken into consideration by the Reference Court on the ground that the said sale deeds are with reference to small plots as against the value of similarly placed lands seen in the sales statistics considered by S.L.A.O. The denial to consider it is in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board and Others vs. K.S. Gangadharappa and Another, (2009) 11 SCC 164 wherein it is observed as under: "8. 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 The Collector of Lakhimpur vs. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, AIR 1971 SC 2015 , Prithvi Raj Taneja (dead) by LRs. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, AIR 1977 SC 1560 and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Others vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another, AIR 1984 SC 892 . 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. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another, AIR 1977 SC 1560 and Smt. Kausalya Devi Bogra and Others vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Aurangabad and Another, AIR 1984 SC 892 . 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, Bhopal (1989) 1 SVLR (C) 399) in a case under the Madhya Pradesh Town Improvement Trust 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 the case of Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizagapatam, AIR 1939 PC 98 , 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 be disregarded alike; 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). 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. Asafeguard 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." 5. Further one more judgment in the matter of State off J&K vs. Mohammad Mateen Want and Others, (1998) SCC 233 was also relied upon where the relevant paragraph 9 which reads as under:- "9. Coming to the challenge as regards the enhanced compensation for the land, we find that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants can hardly be treated as comparable instances. The sale instances relate to small parcels of lands not more than 3 to 4 marlas each. Only one sale instance was sought to be proved by the claimants through the evidence of Mohd. Shaban, who had stated that three marlas of land in the close vicinity of the acquired land was sold to a cooperative society @ Rs.33,000/- per kanal. Other sale instances were although produced on record, but the same were not proved by the claimants either by examining the vendor or the vendee. As stated earlier these sale instances are of a very smaller area and, therefore, they cannot be said to be comparable sale instances to determine the market price of such a big chunk of acquired land." 6. When the judgment of the Reference Court is seen along with the documents which are produced by the appellant herein in the said proceeding. In Exs.P3 to P7, it is clearly seen that they are instances of sale transaction of small extent of 2 guntas to 6 guntas under different sale deeds referred to therein. When the judgment of the Reference Court is seen along with the documents which are produced by the appellant herein in the said proceeding. In Exs.P3 to P7, it is clearly seen that they are instances of sale transaction of small extent of 2 guntas to 6 guntas under different sale deeds referred to therein. The said documents do not disclose the location of small plot in the large extent of land, where the total extent of land in each transaction is measuring between 3 to 9 acres. Considering the extent of land sold, it is obvious, that the same was not sold to carry out agricultural activity. In the said sale, there is no reference to whether it is N.A. potential land or for the purpose for which it is purchased is for residential use or for any other similar purpose has not been stated. In the Reference Court, the vendor and vendee in the said transaction are not examined by the appellant herein and the nature of the land which was subject matter of sale is also not properly explained to seek similar value referred to in the sale deed to be fixed for acquisition of these lands. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgments rendered by the Apex Court referred to supra would support the judgment rendered by the Reference Court in not accepting the sale deed as small piece of land of 2 to 6 guntas to consider the acquisition of large extent of 1 acre 2 guntas of land belonging to appellant herein. It is also seen some of the sale documents which are refereed to are subsequent to notification of lands of the appellant herein for acquisition. 8. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the compensation of Rs. 1,32,000/- per acre awarded by the Reference Court appears to be just and proper and question of interfering with same does not arise. Accordingly, appeal filed by the claimant in LAC No.5/2008 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur, is hereby dismissed.