JUDGMENT Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - The present appeal is preferred under Section 54(1) of the Land Acquisition Act calling in question the judgment and award passed in LAC No.48/2007 dated 07.10.2017 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Sindagi (hereinafter referred to as 'reference court'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Sy.Nos.610 and 610/1 of Almel village which has subject matter in this appeal were acquired by the preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for short 'the Act') dated 22.07.2000 for the purpose of construction of Indi Branch Distributory Channel No.16. The Special Land Acquisition Officer/appellant herein has determined market value at Rs.10,027/- per gunta. 3. The respondent being land loser claiming to be aggrieved by the same had filed protest petition under Section 18(1) of the Act, which came to be referred to the reference Court in LAC No.48/2007. The reference Court after considering the case had fixed market value @ Rs.40,293/- per gunta and has awarded other statutory benefits as per the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the reference Court determining the market value @ Rs.40,293/- per gunta, the State has preferred appeal raising grounds inter alia as stated below: * Without there being documentary evidence the reference Court had stated that the acquired lands are similarly situated to the lands in Ex.P.5 i.e. in respect of LAC No.62/2007, but granted compensation misconstruing that lands are situated in the same region. * The reference Court had lost sight of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bombay vs. Lakhamsi GhelaBhai,1960 AIR Bombay 78; Girimallappa vs. SLAO M and MIP and Another, (2012) 11 SCC 548 calculation of de-escalation @ 5% p.a. is on the lower side but the reference Court ought to have been calculated de-escalation @ 8% p.a. and accordingly compensation ought to have been calculated. 5. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record. The points arise for our consideration in this appeal is- "Whether the judgment and award passed by the reference Court determining the market value of the land @ Rs.40,293/- per gunta requires any interference by this Court?" 6. 5. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the record. The points arise for our consideration in this appeal is- "Whether the judgment and award passed by the reference Court determining the market value of the land @ Rs.40,293/- per gunta requires any interference by this Court?" 6. Learned AGA submitted that the observations made by the reference Court that the lands situated in LAC No.62/2007 and the land in question in the present appeal having similarity and same nature of lands is not correct. Thus, by relying on the judgment in LAC No.62/2007 determining market value is not correct. Further more, the reference Court has deescalated only for the period of one year seven months. But in the present case the preliminary notification made on 22.07.2000. The reference Court has erred in computing the difference between the two notifications and wrongly calculated the period between the two notifications i.e. 09.04.2002 (LAC No.62/2007) and 22.07.2000 in the present case. Therefore, contended exorbitant compensation is awarded which requires interference. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant supported the judgment and award of the reference Court and requested to dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits. 8. The reference Court had observed at para 22 and by relying on the judgment passed in LAC No.62/2007 (Ex.P5) in respect of acquired land situated in Almel village and wherein the market value is fixed at Rs.40/- per sq.ft., and was determined the rate at Rs.43,560/- per gunta and in the said case 4(1) notification issued on 09.04.2002. But in the present case 4(1) notification issued on 22.07.2000 and thus observed that in the present case the notification was issued earlier to one year seven months and thus for the said period of one year seven months de-escalation at the rate 5% was made and accordingly worked out the rate at Rs.37 per sq.ft., and determined Rs.40,293/- per gunta. Thus, reference Court has taken the judgment in LAC No.62/2007 (Ex.P5) as yardstick in determining the market value. 9. The method adopted by the reference Court as above described is taking into consideration the comparable determination of the market value in respect of the land in question situated in the same village. Thus, reference Court has taken the judgment in LAC No.62/2007 (Ex.P5) as yardstick in determining the market value. 9. The method adopted by the reference Court as above described is taking into consideration the comparable determination of the market value in respect of the land in question situated in the same village. It is an admitted fact that the land in LAC No.62/2007 are situated in Almel Village and in the present case also the land in question is situated in Almel village. Therefore, the determination of market value arrived at by the reference Court in LAC No.62/2007 can be made basis in this case also because the lands in both the cases are situated in the same village but the only difference is the period of notification. Therefore, where the lands are situated in the same village the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is guiding the factor how to determine the market value of the land situated in the same village and in this regard we place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M., O.N.G.C.Ltd., vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others, (2005) 7 JT 465 , at para 11 observed as follows ;- "11. While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, indisputably, the market value therefore has to be ascertained. Although, there exist different modes for arriving at market value for the land acquired; the best method, however, as is well-known would be the amount which a willing purchaser of the land would pay to the owner of the land as may be evidenced by deeds of sale. In absence of any direct evidence on the said point, the court may take recourse to other methods; viz. judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and / or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of expert and other relevant evidence, however, would have only evidentiary value." 10. The lands in the judgment passed in LAC No.62/2007 as per Ex.P5 are also situated in Almel village. In the present case also the acquired land is situated in Almel village. Therefore, the land in LAC No.62/2007 and land in the present case are situated in the same village. The lands in the judgment passed in LAC No.62/2007 as per Ex.P5 are also situated in Almel village. In the present case also the acquired land is situated in Almel village. Therefore, the land in LAC No.62/2007 and land in the present case are situated in the same village. It is not in dispute the fact that in the present case land is non-agricultural (NA) land. The reference Court has described in and around the land in question there are bus stand, hospital, police station etc and Almel village is a hobli head quarter. These factual matrix are not disputed by the learned AGA. Therefore, on these aspects the reference Court has taken into consideration to determine the market value as it was done in LAC No.62/2007. But by adopting de-escalation of 5% for the reason that the land acquired in LAC No.62/2007 by way of 4(1) notification dated 09.04.2002 and in the present case 4(1) notification is issued on 22.07.2000. It is held by the reference Court that the time gap between two notifications is one year seven months and accordingly applied 5% de-escalation for one year and seven months and awarded compensation. 11. Considering the period of the above stated two notifications the time gap is two years ten months but not one year seven months. The reference Court ought to have taken into consideration the time gap of these two notifications is two years ten months and accordingly ought to have made de-escalation for this period. Therefore, in this regard the reference Court has committed error while calculating and determining the market value. In this regard the market value is liable to be determined considering the time gap of two years ten months by adopting 5% de-escalation. If in LAC No.62/2007 compensation determined at Rs.40/- per sqft then it was Rs.43,560/- per gunta in the said case. Considering the time gap between the two notifications if 5% de-escalation is made for the period of two years ten months then de-escalation amount would be as follows ;- 43,560x5/100=2,178/- (for one year). Therefore, for two years de-escalation at 5% it would be 2,178x2 = 4,356/-. Then for ten months de-escalation is at Rs.1,815/- (Rs.2,178x1/12x10=1815). Therefore, for two years ten months the 5% de-escalation is of Rs.6,171/- (2178x2+1815=6171). Therefore if this amount of Rs.6,171/- is deducted from Rs.43,560/- then it would be Rs.37,389/-. Therefore, for two years de-escalation at 5% it would be 2,178x2 = 4,356/-. Then for ten months de-escalation is at Rs.1,815/- (Rs.2,178x1/12x10=1815). Therefore, for two years ten months the 5% de-escalation is of Rs.6,171/- (2178x2+1815=6171). Therefore if this amount of Rs.6,171/- is deducted from Rs.43,560/- then it would be Rs.37,389/-. Therefore, in the present case the market value is re-determined at Rs.37,389/- per gunta. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the reference Court is liable to be modified and accordingly by fixing at the rate of Rs.37,389/- per gunta it is modified. In terms of this the appeal succeeds in part. Hence, we proceed to pass the following - ORDER Appeal is allowed in part. For the acquired land the compensation is redetermined at Rs.37,389/- per gunta. The other statutory benefits awarded by the reference Court is not disturbed and shall pay accordingly.