JUDGMENT Arya, J., --1. This appeal under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’) is at the instance of the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board through its Executive Engineer, Khandwa (for short, ‘the Housing Board’) challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned order dated 26.9.2012 passed in case No. 245/2011 by First Additional District Judge Khandwa, East Nimad. Reference under section 18 of the Act (since repealed) is allowed enhancing the amount of compensation inrespect of 2.51 hectare of land falling in survey No. 246 situated at village Malipur Tahsil Khandwa, District East Niwar from Rs.1,44,553/- to Rs.8,17,778/- (deducted 25% towards development charges) thereby fixed the same as Rs. 6,13,334/- per acre with 30% solatium and payment of difference amount from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act till the date of award together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Total compensation worked out as Rs.56,01,682/- reduced by Rs.14,82,456/- already received by the respondents No.1 & 2 and they are held entitled for Rs. 41,19,226/-. 2. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are to the effect that : the Housing Board for plotting and construction of residential colony had acquired various parcels of land including 2.51 hectares of land falling in survey No. 246 situated in village Malipur Tahsil Khandwa, District East Niwar (for short, ‘the suit land’) from its owners. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 1611/2001; followed by section 6 notification on 15.11.2002. The award was proposed on 7.10.2004 by the Land Acquisition Officer, Khandwa (exhibit P/8). The amount of compensation was calculated at the rate of Rs. 8,17,778/- per acre based on the valuation submitted by Tehsildar, Khandwah who worked out the same on the basis of sale price of land during the previous one year in village Matipura District Khandwa. However, the said award was not approved. The Sub Divisional Officer had inquired about the justification of the price arrived at the rate of Rs.8,17,778/- per acre on 25/10/2004 (exhibit P/27).The Land Acquisition Officer replied and justified the said rate arrived at on 26/102/004 (exhibit P/28). However, the Sub Divisional Officer proposed the award dated 26.10.2004 at the rate of Rs.1,44,532/- per acre (exhibit P/10) and the same was approved by the Collector on 27.4.2004 and the Commissioner on 29.10.2004. However, the Sub Divisional Officer proposed the award dated 26.10.2004 at the rate of Rs.1,44,532/- per acre (exhibit P/10) and the same was approved by the Collector on 27.4.2004 and the Commissioner on 29.10.2004. Thereafter, final award was passed on 30.10.2004 working out the amount of compensation. Upon receipt of notice under section 12 of the Act, the respondents No.1 and 2 have preferred reference under section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.35.00 lakhs or more. But, the Housing Board disputed and denied the claim in paragraph 8 of its reply. 3. The reference Court framed the following issues : ljy dzekad okn iz'u 1& D;k vkosnd ds LoRo dh vf/kxzfgr Hkwfe dk cktkj ewY; 35 yk[k :i;s ls vf/kd gksdj vukosnd us mDr  Hkwfe dk vuqfpr ,oa vi;kZIr eqvkotk Lohdkj fd;k gS\ 2& D;k izdj.k esa vko';d i{kdkj ds vla;kstu dk nks"k gS\ D;k vkosnd us eqvkotk jkf'k lfojks/k izkIr dh gS\ D;k ;g fjQjsal ;kfpdk fu/kkZfjr ifjlhek vof/k esa is'k dh x;h gS \ lgk;rk ,ao O;; \ Answered issues No.1,2, 3 and 5 in favour of the respondents No.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant while taking exception to the impugned award submits that the compensation awarded is on the higher side and based on inflated valuation of neighbouring land treating it to be non-agricultural developed land. It is submitted that in fact the land in question is an agricultural land. Therefore, the competent authority had applied the correct market rate of land as Rs.1,44,532/- per acre while awarding the compensation. The reference Court has committed grave illegality while assessing the valuation of land as Rs.8,17,778/- per acre. The compensation worked out by the Sub Divisional Officer is reasonable and well explicit from the award dated 26.10.2004 (exhibit P/10) and in particular paragraph 8 thereof. It is submitted that since the land in question is ‘unirrigated agricultural land’, therefore, the competent authority has taken into consideration the memo prepared by Tehsildar to work out the average price of unirrigated land based on 114 sale deeds during the period of three years preceding the date of notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act and average of same was worked out as Rs.1,39,318/-. Thereafter, 37 sale deeds of the ‘irrigated agricultural land’ preceding the date of one year of final notification, i.e., 16.11.2000 to 16.11.2001 was also worked out; according to which its average market rate per acre of land was Rs. 2,40,322/-. Finally it was determined as Rs.1,44,532/- per acre. Thus, the reference Court has committed grave illegality substituting the rate from Rs.1,44,532/- to Rs.8,17,778/- (However, deducted 25% towards development charges to fix the market rate as Rs.6,13,334/-) per acre to work out the final amount of compensation as detailed above. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned award with the submission that the reference Court has taken into consideration the spot inspection panchnama dated 3.10.2004 (exhibit P/21) prepared in the presence of Land Acquisition Officer, Tehsildar, Assistant Engineer of Housing Board and land owners whereunder it is stated that the rates of developed plots in the area is Rs.150/- sq.feet, however the Assistant Engineer of the Housing Board had stated the same as Rs.90/- per sq.feet after deducting the development cost of Rs. 60/- per sq.feet. The Court below has also taken into consideration the reply dated 26.10.2004 (exhibit P/28) by which the Land Acquisition Officer had justified the rate as Rs.8,17,778/- per acre referred above. Besides, the other relevant documents, viz., exhibits P/30, 31 and 32. In exhibit P/32, it is stated that the suit land falling in survey No.246 is adjacent to the main road within the territorial municipal limits of. Khandwa and its average market rate is Rs.8.00 lakhs per acre. The Court has given plausible reasons for not accepting Rs.1,44,533/- per acre as determined by the Sub Divisional Officer, on the premise that the aforesaid rate has been worked out on the basis of sale deeds for more than one year preceding the date of notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act. That apart, the Sub Divisional Officer has not taken into consideration the location of suit land. Besides, it is situated on the main road within municipal limits of Khandwa and close to Khandwa B.T.College, Polytechnic College & ITI College, Soni Godam, Singaji Nagar; approved residential colonies [referred to exhibits P/33 to P/37 and paragraph 29 of the award]. Learned counsel further submits that the Court below has taken into consideration the deposition of D.W.1 R.K.Baseniya who has admitted that the suit land is situated at prime location of Khandwa. Learned counsel further submits that the Court below has taken into consideration the deposition of D.W.1 R.K.Baseniya who has admitted that the suit land is situated at prime location of Khandwa. Hence, based upon documentary evidence discussed above and the sale deeds of the adjacent lands preceding one year from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act dated 16.11.2001 had arrived the market rate as Rs. 8,17,778/- per acre and after deduction towards development charges at the rate of 25% has determined the market rate as Rs.6,13,334/- per acre with 30% solatium plus interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the dae of notification under section 4(1) of the Act till the date of award dated 26/10/2004. Accordingly, after reducing Rs.14,82,456/- already paid has worked out the difference amount of compensation payable to the respondents No.1 and 2 as Rs.41,19,226/-. Therefore, it is submitted that no interference is warranted in the impugned award. 6. Heard. 7. The impugned award has been perused. Undisputedly, the Housing Board intended to acquire 16.23 hectare (40.10 acres) of land from the private land owners under its Awas Yojana for development and establishment of residential houses to be provided to the weaker sections of society as well evident from the communication of Land Acquisition Officer to Tahsildar dated 0110/2004 (exhibit P/19) whereunder the land falling in survey No. 246 area 2.51 hectare has also been sought to be acquired. The suit land is situated on the main road of Khandwa – Bikichat within municipal limits of Khandwa and is surrounded by a constructed godown as well as residential townships of Sivaji Nagar & Ashok Nagar. Besides, railway line, Khandwa B.T.College, Polytechnic College & ITI College etc.,are situated. Therefore, firstly; the suit land was sought to be acquired for residential purpose and secondly; the market value of the land was required to be worked out with due regard to the potential value of the land regard being had to its location on the basis of saleable price of land adjacent thereto for the preceding one year from the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act and not of the sale deeds of agricultural lands of the nearby village during the preceding three years from the date of issuance of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. The spot inspection report dated 3.10.2004 (exhibit P/21) prepared by a team consisting of Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsildar, Assistant Engineer of Housing Board and land owners has recorded the valuation of developed plots in the area as Rs.150/- sq.feet, which according to the Assistant Engineer of the Housing Board was Rs.90/- per sq.feet after reducing the development cost of Rs.60/- per sq.feet. It is also mentioned that a plot at a distance of 100 feet from the main road of the same location has been sold at Rs.70/- per sq.feet. Based on the aforesaid spot inspection report and the relevant sale deeds of the preceding one year as discussed above, the Land Acquisition Officer Khandwa has rightly proposed the award dated 7.10.2004 (exhibit P-8) whereunder the average market value of the land per acre determined as Rs.8,17,778/- which was not approved by the Sub Divisional Officer, Collector and Commissioner but without any basis. The LAO/SDO ignored the spot inspection report dated 3.10.2004 (exhibit P/21) prepared in the presence of Land Acquisition Officer, Tahsildar, Assistant Engineer of Housing Board and the land owners which unequivocally suggest that the land in question was situated in urban area on the main road of Khandwa Bikichat surrounded by Soni godown, residential townships of Sivaji Nagar & Ashok Nagar, railway line, Khandwa B.T.College, Polytechnic College & ITI College etc (exhibits P/31 to P/37). In fact, it is a developed plot. There was no challenge to the spot inspection report before the LAO/SDO. The SDO has also ignored the reply dated 26.10.2004 (exhibit P/28) whereunder the then Land Acquisition Officer has justified the rate as Rs.8,17,778/- per acre based on sale deeds of the adjacent lands of preceding one year, i.e., 16.11.2000 to 16.11.2011, i.e., the date of notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act. The SDO has treated the land as unirrigated agricultural land while working out the average price on the basis of memo prepared by the Tahsildar purportedly worked out with reference to sale deeds of 02 to 03 years preceding the date of notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act. The same runs contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted (infra). Therefore, this Court is in agreement with the Court below while considering the suit land as ‘developed land’ for working out the rate of the land based on relevant material available on record as discussed above. The same runs contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted (infra). Therefore, this Court is in agreement with the Court below while considering the suit land as ‘developed land’ for working out the rate of the land based on relevant material available on record as discussed above. The Court below has given plausible reasons for not agreeing with the SDO in the matter of fixation of rate as summarized in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned order. In fact, the SDO could not have resorted to work out the average rate of the land in question on the basis of average formulae prepared by the Tahsildar. Moreso, such sale deeds were never produced before the said authority. That apart, the aforesaid average formulae is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court quoted (infra) because if a person is deprived of his land through compulsory acquisition, he is entitled to the highest value of the land which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction. The valuation of such land cannot be based on average formulae on the basis of old sale deeds in respect of lands during the period 2002 to 2004 which are neither denied nor disputed. As such, no fault can be found with the findings of the Court below fixing the rate of land in question at the rate of Rs.8,17,778/- per acre. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others [ (2012) 5 SCC 432 ] has reiterated the law as regards the valuation of land in the context of sections 23 and 18 of the Act as under : “17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a bona fide transaction has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/Court for fixing fair compensation. “ The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana [(2014) 5 SCC 801], it has been held as under : “26. We are not impressed by the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant when he submitted that we should take into consideration the fair market value of the adjacent land determined by the Court which was acquired 10 years subsequent to the acquisition in question in 1989-1990 and then go on reducing its value 10% every year to determine the fair market value of the land in question. To say the least, this submission is wholly misconceived being against the settled principle of law relating to land acquisition cases. 27. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the respondent, the fair market value of the acquired land is required to be determined under section 23 of the Act on the basis of the market rate of the adjacent lands similarly situated to the acquired lands prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date of acquisition. In appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the market value of the acquired land may be permitted. Such is, however, not the case in hand. In appropriate cases, addition of 10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the market value of the acquired land may be permitted. Such is, however, not the case in hand. Here is the case where firstly, no sale deeds were filed by the appellants to prove the fair market value of the acquired land and secondly, what they now want this Court to do is to take into consideration the rate of those lands which were acquired ten years after the date of acquisition in question and then reduce the value of such land by 10% every year so as to determine the fair market value of the acquired land in question. In our view, such procedure for determination is not provided in the Act.” 9. In view of the foregoing discussion and the law holding the field, no illegality is found in the impugned order based on material on record well discussed in paragraphs 16, 18, 21, 23, 33 and 35 of the order while determining the market value of the suit land as Rs.8,17,778/- per acre. 10. Resultantly, no interference is warranted in the appeal. Appeal sans merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost. 11. Registry is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the the concerned Court and parties through their respective counsel for necessary compliance. It is made clear that this e-copy order be treated as Certified copy in terms of the advisories issued by the High Court from time to time.