JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 challenging the judgment and decree dt.29.03.2001 passed in O.P.No.1 of 1990 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad, Adilabad District. 2. The appellants herein are claimants in the above O.P. 3. An extent of Acs.3.22 gts. situate in Survey No.117 of Mandamarri Village belonging to the appellants/claimants had been acquired by respondents for the purpose of construction of workers' quarters of Singareni Collieries Company. This land of the appellants was part of extent Acs.66.18 gts acquired under a Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which was published in the Gazette on 06.03.1984. 4. Under Ex.A.10-Award dt.27.01.1986, the Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per acre. 5. Thereafter, reference was sought by the appellants under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim of the appellants in the O.P 6. In the O.P., the appellants contended that they had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per acre before the Land Acquisition Officer; though the acquired lands were situated by the side of P.W.D. road from Mancherial to Bellampally and were within the residential and commercial area of Mandamarri Village, and were also surrounded by residential as well as industrial area, and though the population of the Village was more than one lakh and the area has all the facilities such as electricity, road transport, water supply and railway service, meager compensation was granted by 1st respondent / Land Acquisition Officer ignoring this material. The stand of the 2nd respondent 7. Counter-Affidavit was filed by 2nd respondent - S.C.C.L. stating that prior to the date of acquisition, the lands in question had no value at all and the Land Acquisition Officer only considered the potential value of the land within the vicinity and rightly granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per acre; and that the compensation claimed by claimants is excessive and there was no necessity to enhance compensation. The judgment in the O.P 8. In the O.P., the appellants examined R.W.s.1 to 5 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.7, while the respondents examined P.W.s 1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. 9. The judgment in the O.P 8. In the O.P., the appellants examined R.W.s.1 to 5 and marked Exs.B.1 to B.7, while the respondents examined P.W.s 1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.10. 9. By judgment dt.29.03.2001, the Court below dismissed the O.P. holding that claimants were not entitled for any enhancement of compensation and that the 1st respondent had rightly fixed the compensation for the acquired lands. 10. While admitting that P.W.s.1 and 2, examined by respondents, had admitted with regard to development and potentiality of the area as on the date of notification, the Court below observed that Mandamarri Village was a 'notified area' since 1971; that sale transactions covered by Exs.B2, B4 and B6 were not close to the acquired lands, and they were documents where only small extents were transferred; that Ex.A.7 is a sale transaction filed by respondents of Andugulpet, which is situate at a distance of one or two kilometers from the acquired land; and on that basis, the 1st respondent had rightly fixed the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per acre. The present Appeal 11. Assailing the same, the present Appeal is filed. 12. Heard Sri J. Ashwini Kumar, counsel for appellants and Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondentCompany. Contentions of counsel for appellants 13. The appellants contended that the Court below erred in granting meager compensation of Rs.4,000/- per acre; that the lands had potentiality as house-sites and their proximity to a National Highway makes them very valuable costing a minimum of Rs.1 lakh per acre; that Mandamarri Village had transformed into an Urban area, and the acquired lands are situated in a well-developed area surrounded by residential and commercial buildings and industries; that Ex.A.7 sale transaction was of a different village far from Mandamarri and could not have been the basis for determining compensation; and in the absence of sale transactions in respect of large extents, transactions such as those like Exs.B.2, B4 and B.6 in respect of small extents can be taken into consideration by fixing market value. Contentions of Counsel for 2nd respondent 14. Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, counsel for 2nd respondent-Company, however, refuted the said contentions and supported the judgment of the Court below. Consideration by the Court 15. Admittedly, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued for acquiring Acs.66.18 gts. Contentions of Counsel for 2nd respondent 14. Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, counsel for 2nd respondent-Company, however, refuted the said contentions and supported the judgment of the Court below. Consideration by the Court 15. Admittedly, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued for acquiring Acs.66.18 gts. in various survey umbers in Mandamarri Village on 06.03.1984 including the lands of the appellants, but possession of the land was taken on 20.03.1983. 16. The Award was passed by the 1st respondent - Land Acquisition Officer on 27.01.1986 relying on Exs.A.7-Sale Deed dt.20.04.1983 for an extent of Acs.1.5 gts. which was sold at Rs.4,000/- in Survey No.101 of Andugulpet Village. 17. The appellants relied on Ex.B.2 regd.sale deed whereunder 4.25 Sq.yds. in Mandamarri village was sold on 09.05.1978 for Rs.3,000/-, Ex.B.4- regd.Sale Deed whereunder 4 gunts in Survey No.96 of Mandamarri Village was sold on 29.05.1978 for Rs.2,500/-, and Ex.B.6 under which 1.81 gts in Survey No.146 of Mandamarri Village was sold on 22.04.1976 for Rs.1,000/-. 18. The respondents relied on Exs.A.7-Sale deed dt.20.04.1983 of Andugulpet Village. 19. Before we consider these transactions, we may mention that their appears to be no sale transactions for large area of land in Mandamarri Village just prior to the issuance of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act. 20. It is admitted by P.W.1 (examined by respondents in the O.P.) that the land under acquisition is on the western side of the road from Mandamarri to Bellampally and abuts the road from National Highway to KK2 and SMG3 mines on the southern side. He also admitted that there are residential houses on either side of the PWD road and the railway track passes on the PWD road from Mandamarri to Devapur and Municipal office was on the eastern side of the PWD road. According to him, there are private buildings on either side of the road and quarters were constructed by Government by the side of PWD road nearby MRO office which was dismantled 20 years back. He also stated that the distance from Bus Station to Andugulpet where inhabitants are living is 2 kilometers. 21. Pw.2 also stated that the acquired land is abutting the road from the National Highway to KK2 and SMG3 mines on the southern side. 22. Pw.3, a Revenue Divisional Officer, stated that the distance between Andugulpet and Mandamarri Village is one kilometer. 23. 21. Pw.2 also stated that the acquired land is abutting the road from the National Highway to KK2 and SMG3 mines on the southern side. 22. Pw.3, a Revenue Divisional Officer, stated that the distance between Andugulpet and Mandamarri Village is one kilometer. 23. Thus, there is no dispute that the land under acquisition is adjacent to a road from the National Highway to KK2 and SMG3 mines on the southern side. The said road is said to be PWD road and on both sides residential houses and municipal office are located and private permanent buildings are also there on either side of the road. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the acquired land is in a developed area adjacent to a road. 24. We are also of the opinion that when there are sale transactions such as Exs.B2, B4 and B6 of the same Village of Mandamarri , though of small extents, it is not open to the Land Acquisition Officer or the Court below to rely on Ex.A.7 which relates to land in Andugulpet Village, which according to PW.1, is at a distance of 2 kilometers from the acquired land. 25. Also the land covered by Ex.A.7 is not stated by PWs 1 to 3 to be adjacent to the road or in a developed area, and so, the said document Ex.A.7 on which reliance was placed by the Land Acquisition Officer, cannot be said to be a comparable sale at all. 26. Coming to Exs.B2, B4 and B6, no doubt these documents are registered sale deed for small extents of land, but the reason why these documents had been discarded by the Court below was that Mandamarri Village was a notified Village since 1971 and so no credence can be given to these documents. How the Notification of the village in the year 1971 has any bearing on the validity of the transaction is not explained by the Court below. In fact, under what Law it is notified, and for what purpose, is also not indicated by the respondents. The counsel for the 2nd respondent also could not throw any light on this aspect. 27. The principles relating to assessment of compensation in Land Acquisition cases have been set out in several cases of the Supreme Court. 28. In fact, under what Law it is notified, and for what purpose, is also not indicated by the respondents. The counsel for the 2nd respondent also could not throw any light on this aspect. 27. The principles relating to assessment of compensation in Land Acquisition cases have been set out in several cases of the Supreme Court. 28. We shall refer to the decision in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 4 SCC 789 wherein the Supreme Court had held that the principle for determination of amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer and the price which he would offer to purchase the land which was notified for acquisition. It observed that market value is ordinarily the price the property may fetch in the open market, if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase, and where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighborhood, at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other witnesses have to be considered. It held as under : "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--vis the land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. The positive and negative factors are as under: Positive factors Negative factors (i) smallness of size largeness of area (ii) proximity to a road situation in the interior at a distance from the road (iii) frontage on a road narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth (iv) nearness to developed area lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up (v) regular shape remoteness from developed locality (vi) level vis--vis land under acquisition 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 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."(emphasis supplied) 29. It also observed that normally 1/3rd deduction of the land value covered by the comparable sale is adopted. It approved the judgments in Land Acquisition Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer vs. L. Kamalamma, (1998) 2 SCC 385 that when no sales of comparable land were available within large chunks of land have been sold, even land transactions in respect of smaller extents of land can be considered as indicating the price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by making appropriate deductions for development of land. 30. In Ravinder Narain vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 481 the Supreme Court held that there is no absolute rule that the rates fixed for small plots cannot be basis for fixation of the rate of market value and where there is no other material, it may be open to the adjudicating Court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land by making necessary deductions / adjustments while determining the prices. 31. This principle was also reiterated in Hans Raj Sharma vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, (2005) 1 SCC 553 and it was also stated that nature of the land acquired would be determinative of the issue as to how much deductions are to be made in respect of development charges and other related expenses. 32. Among the transactions which are being relied upon by the appellants, Exs.B.2 and B.6 transactions are for very small extents and cannot be taken as comparable sales. 33. Ex.B.4 - Sale Deed though is for a larger area of 4 gts. sold for Rs.2,500/- on 29.05.1978. Ex.B.4 transaction is of the same village of Mandamarri and, in our opinion, the same cannot be taken into account after making allowance for some deductions. 34. From the evidence on record, it is clear that Mandamarri, where appellants' land is located, is a semi-urban area with several facilities, that it is adjacent to a road and in the said area there are several residential and commercial buildings. 34. From the evidence on record, it is clear that Mandamarri, where appellants' land is located, is a semi-urban area with several facilities, that it is adjacent to a road and in the said area there are several residential and commercial buildings. According to appellants, the Mandamarri area is five times more than the area of Andugulpet. There are residential houses in number more than 45 times than that in Andugullpet, and the population of Mandamarri Village was 30 times more than that of Andugulpet. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 also corroborates the case of appellants that the acquired land is located in a developed area adjacent to a road. It appears to be in almost an urban area. 35. The court can take judicial notice that in Urban and semi-Urban areas there would be enhancement of rate by at least 10% every year - [ Ranjit Singh vs. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), (1992) 4 SCC 659 and Land Acquisition Officer vs. Ramanjulu, (2005) 9 SCC 594 ]. 36. Keeping in mind the location of the acquired land and the nature of development in surrounding area, we are of the opinion that it is reasonable to consider an escalation in market price every year of 10%. 37. Applying this standard and taking Ex.B.4 dt.29.05.1978 as the base year and the sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- per acre mentioned in it as the base price, we are of the opinion that by giving 10% escalation, the market value by March, 1984 would be around Rs.45,000/-. From this, taking into account the fact that deduction is to be made of 30%, we arrive at the market value of Rs.32,000/- per acre for the acquired land. 38. Consequently, we are of the opinion that the Court below erred in confirming the market value of the acquired land at Rs.4,000/- per acre and ought to have granted compensation at the rate of Rs.32,000/- per acre to the appellants. 39. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed fixing the market value of the land of appellants of extent Acs.3.22 gts. in Survey No.117 of Mandamarri Village at Rs.32,000/- per acre with all statutory benefits as per Act 68 of 1984. No order as to costs. 40. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.