JUDGMENT : 1. M.F.A.No.7685/2013 has been filed by the beneficiary and M.F.A.No.4592/2014 has been filed by the State Government, whereas, M.F.A.No.5994/2013 has been filed by the claimant against the judgment dated 16.02.2013 passed by the trial court. Since, all the appeals arise out the common judgment, they were heard analogously are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the land owners were owners of the land measuring 1 acre 34 guntas of Survey No.39 situate in Gopala Village, Kasaba Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk. The aforesaid land was needed for the purpose of expansion of District Government Mc Gann Hospital. Thereupon proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) were initiated and a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 20.08.2002. Thereafter, a declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act was issued on 28.04.2004. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 30.04.2005 assessed the market value of the land at Rs.2,71,640/-per acre and awarded a sum of Rs.4,34,624/-as compensation in respect of the land in question along with the statutory payments such as solatium and interest. Being aggrieved, the land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. The reference court vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2013 inter alia assessed the market value at Rs.1,000/-per square feet and assessed the market value of the land of the land owners at Rs.1,22,50,687/-. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed. 3. Learned Senior counsel for the beneficiary in M.F.A.No.7685/2013 submitted that the reference court grossly erred in placing reliance on the circle rates while assessing the market value of the land in question without making any deduction on account of development charges. It is further submitted that the deduction from the market value of the land ought to have been made as the beneficiary has not utilized the entire site and was required to leave the land for the amenities. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL VS. COLLECTOR, VARANASI’, AIR 1988 SC 943 . It is also urged that as a general rule, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted towards development charges. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL VS. COLLECTOR, VARANASI’, AIR 1988 SC 943 . It is also urged that as a general rule, 1/3rd of the amount has to be deducted towards development charges. In support of the above submission reliance has also been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in ‘LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND ORS’, (2008) 1 SCC 554 . 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader has adopted the submissions made by Learned Senior counsel for the beneficiary in M.F.A.No.7684/2015. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant in M.F.A.No.5994/13 while referring to the evidence on record viz., the statement of PW1 and RW1 viz., M.K.Prashanth and Mr.Lepakshi B.G. has submitted that from perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it is evident that the land in question is a commercial land and is situate in the heart of Shivamogga City. It is also submitted that the trial court ought to have assessed the market value of the land in question on the basis of the circle rates at the rate of Rs.1,200/-per square feet. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in ‘THAKUR KULDEEP SINGH (D) THR. L.R. AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS.’, (2010) 3 SCC 794 and ‘LAL CHAND v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS’, AIR 2010 SC 170 . It is also submitted that since, the land was utilized for the purposes of expansion of the hospital, there is no scope for any deduction. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of this court dated 13.01.2020 in M.F.A.No.3364/2012 and other connected cases. Alternatively, it is also submitted that in any case, if any deduction is required to be made, the same should be made to an extent of 5%. 5. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of well settled principles with regard to determination of market value of the land. It is trite proposition that prices fixed for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land as two are not comparable properties. [SEE: ‘COLLECTOR OF LAKHIMPUR VS. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to take note of well settled principles with regard to determination of market value of the land. It is trite proposition that prices fixed for small plots cannot form safe basis for valuation of large tracts of land as two are not comparable properties. [SEE: ‘COLLECTOR OF LAKHIMPUR VS. B.C.DUTTA’, AIR 1971 SC 2015 , ‘PADMA UPPAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB’, AIR 1977 SC 580 ]. However, the prices of small developed lands can be used for determining the large tracts of land provided it is shown that the large tract of land is ripe for development after applying necessary deductions. In ‘BRIG. SAHIB SINGH KALHA VS. AMRITSAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST’, AIR 1982 SC 940 , Supreme Court indicated that the extent of deduction on account of development can be to the extent of 53%, but prices fetched for small plots cannot directly be applied in case of large areas for the simple reason that former reflects the retail price and the latter the wholesale price. The aforesaid well settled legal principles have been referred to with approval in 'ADMINISTRATOR GENL. OF WEST BENGAL VS. COLLECTOR VARANASI’, AIR 1988 SC 943 , ‘K.S.SHIVADEVAMMA V. ASST. COMMISSIONER AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER’, (1996) 2 SCC 62 , ‘ATMA SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA’, (2008) 2 SCC 568 AND ‘SHUBHARAM AND OTHERS VS,. STATE OF HARIYANA AND OTHERS’, 2010 (1) SCC 444 . In ‘MALLAPPA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUSITION OFFICER’, AIR 2019 SC 462 , it has been held that in case the land in question has potentiality for nonagricultural use, the same should be taken into account with reference to sale deeds even in respect of small piece of land by making appropriate deductions. The Supreme Court has also recognized the principle that the courts can always apply reasonable amount of guess work to balance the equities to fix a just and fair market value in terms of parameters specified under Section 23 of the Act. [See: ’TRISHALA JAIN AND ANR. VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.’, (2011) 6 SCC 47 AND ‘VITHAL RAO AND ANR. VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER’, (2017) 8 SCC 558 ]. It is equally well settled legal proposition that where several sale deeds are filed, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred for determining the market value. [See: ‘ANJALIK MOLU DESSAI VS. VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.’, (2011) 6 SCC 47 AND ‘VITHAL RAO AND ANR. VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER’, (2017) 8 SCC 558 ]. It is equally well settled legal proposition that where several sale deeds are filed, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred for determining the market value. [See: ‘ANJALIK MOLU DESSAI VS. STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER’, (2010) 13 SCC 710 , ‘MEHRAWAL KHEWAJI TRUST (REGD.) VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS’, (2012) 5 SCC 432 ]. 6. In the backdrop of the aforesaid well settled legal principles, the facts of the case on hand may be examined. In the instant case, from the evidence of PW1 as well as from the cross examination of RW1, it is evident that the land in question is situate within 800 meters of Ashoka Circle and RW1 has admitted in his cross examination that the aforesaid value of the property is Rs.1,200/-per square feet. There is ample evidence on record to hold that the land in question is situate in the midst of the city and the property is triangular in shape. The bus stand is situate within half kilometer from the land in question and in between the bus stand and aforesaid property SIMS Hospital, office of Superintendent of Police and fire station are situated. Thus, it is evident that the property in question is fit or commercial use. The claimants have produced the circle rate to show that the market value of the property is Rs.1,200 per square feet. The aforesaid fact has been admitted by the witness examined on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, we do not find any justification for assessing the market value of the property at Rs.1,000/-per square feet. Thus, the market value of the land of the of the claimant is assessed at Rs.1,200/-per square feet. 7. However, the beneficiary has acquired the aforesaid property for expansion of the existing hospital. The beneficiary could not have utilized the entire land for the purposes of expansion of the hospital and is required to leave the space for amenities and must have carried on construction in accordance with the sanction plan as per building bye laws of Shivamogga Municipal Corporation. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, we deduct 15% on account of developmental charges. Thus, we assess the market value of the property acquired at Rs.1,020/-per square feet. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, we deduct 15% on account of developmental charges. Thus, we assess the market value of the property acquired at Rs.1,020/-per square feet. In addition, the appellants shall also be entitled to solatium as well as statutory benefits, which are admissible to them under the provisions of the Act. To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment is modified. In the result, the appeals are disposed of.