JUDGMENT : 1. On the indent placed by Deputy Director, Horticulture (Planning and Marketing), Srinagar, vide No.DDK/98-99/302/145-50 dated 12.04.1999, the Collector Land Acquisition, Budgam – respondent no.10 herein, initiated proceedings for acquisition of land measuring 48 Kanals and 19 Marlas under survey Nos.3042, 3047, 3048, 3049, 3051, 3052, 3053 at Charisharief, Zaloora. Respondent no.10, after completing formalities and acquisition proceedings passed the Award, fixing Rs.50,000/- per kanal as compensation for all kinds of land. The land owners, however, filed application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, for making reference. Accordingly, respondent no.10, made reference to the court of Principal District Judge, Budgam (for short “Trial Court”). 2. The Trial Court, after recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the owners – respondents herein, were entitled to compensation @ Rs.1.15 lakh per Kanal along with Jabrana @ 15% and also interest @ 6% from the date of filing of Reference. Feeling aggrieved of this order, the indenting department, viz. District Horticulture Officer, Budgam, has filed instant Appeal throwing challenge to judgment and decree dated 27.06.2006, passed in the aforesaid Reference on the grounds mentioned therein. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also gone through the record of the file. 4. It is contended on behalf of appellant that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. It is maintained by appellants that they were not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. It is also stated though there is no evidence on record to suggest that market value of acquired land was Rs.1.15 lacs, the Trial court wrongly held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation @ Rs.1.15 lac per Kanal. The award was passed by the Collector on the basis of the market value of the land acquired. The rate of interest awarded by Trial Court is also not justifiable when Jabrana was allowed. Appellant has also submitted that there is no evidence to justify the enhancing the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1.15 lacs per Kanal. 5. As is evident from the record on the file, five witnesses, namely, Ghulam Ahmad Thokar, Abdul Rashid Thokar, Ali Mohmad Thokar, Ab. Rashid Shah and Ghulam Mohmad Mir have been examined and documentary evidence in the shape of Sale Deeds of three years has also been produced before the Trial court. 6. 5. As is evident from the record on the file, five witnesses, namely, Ghulam Ahmad Thokar, Abdul Rashid Thokar, Ali Mohmad Thokar, Ab. Rashid Shah and Ghulam Mohmad Mir have been examined and documentary evidence in the shape of Sale Deeds of three years has also been produced before the Trial court. 6. The contention that appellant was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses is falsified from the fact, as is also discernible from impugned judgment, that the witnesses have been very much cross-examined by counsel appearing for respondents before Trial Court. All the five witnesses have been cross-examined by counsel appearing for department before Trial Court and questions have been put to witnesses, which fact is also ascertainable from impugned judgment. 7. As regards assessment of compensation for land acquisition matters it has been held by the Supreme Court in Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal (2011) 6 SCC 47 , that more often than not, it is not possible to fix compensation with exactitude or arithmetic accuracy. Depending on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court may have to take recourse to some guesswork while determining the fair market value of the land and the consequential amount of compensation that is required to be paid to the persons interested in the acquired land. Paras 42, 43 and 44 of the above judgment are taken note of: “42. This Court in Bhagwathula Samanna v. Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer, stated that it is permissible to take into account exemplars of even small developed plots for determining the value of a large tract of land acquired, if the latter is also fully developed with all the facilities requiring little or no further development. In the facts and circumstance of that case the Court felt that it was not appropriate to resort to deduction of 1/3rd value of the comparable sale instances as development charges. 43. The Court in Bhagwathula Sammana case reiterated the general rule that if the market value of a large property is to be fixed on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, a deduction is to be made taking into consideration the expenses required for development of that larger tract and make smaller plots within that area and held as under: (SCC pp. 509-11, paras 7, 11 & 13) “7. 509-11, paras 7, 11 & 13) “7. In awarding compensation in acquisition proceedings, the court has necessarily to determine the market value of the land as on the date of the relevant notification. It is useful to consider the value paid for similar land at the material time under genuine transactions. The market value envisages the price which a willing purchaser may pay under bona fide transfer to a willing seller. The land value can differ depending upon the extent and nature of the land sold. A fully developed small plot in an important locality may fetch a higher value than larger area in an undeveloped condition and situated in a remote locality. By comparing the price shown in the transactions all variables have to be taken into consideration. The transaction in regard to smaller property cannot, therefore, be taken as a real basis for fixing the compensation for larger tracts of property. In fixing the market value of a large property on the basis of a sale transaction for smaller property, generally a deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of a larger tract to make smaller plots within that area in order to compare with the small plots dealt with under the sale transaction. This principle has been stated by this Court in Tribeni Devi Case. 11. The principle of deduction in the land value covered by the comparable sale is thus adopted in order to arrive at the market value of the acquired land. In applying the principle, it is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not the extent of the area covered under the acquisition which is the only relevant factor. Even in the vast area there may be land which is fully developed having all amenities and situated in an advantageous position. If smaller area within the large tract is already developed and suitable for building purposes and have in its vicinity roads, drainage, electricity, communications, etc. then the principle of deduction simply for the reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may not be justified. 13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. 13. The proposition that large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold is not absolute proposition and in given circumstances it would be permissible to take into account the price fetched by the small plots of land. If the larger tract of land because of advantageous position is capable of being used for the purpose for which the smaller plots are used and is also situated in a developed area with little or no requirement of further development, the principle of deduction of the value for purpose of comparison is not warranted.” 44. It is thus evident from the above enunciated principle that the acquired land has to be more or less developed land as its developed surrounding areas, with all amenities and facilities and is fit to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired without any further expenditure, before such land could be considered for no deduction. Similarly, the sale instances even of smaller plots could be considered for determining the market value of a larger chunk of land with some deduction unless, there was comparability in potential, utilization, amenities and infrastructure with hardly any distinction. On such principle each case would have to be considered on its own merits.” 8. Parties in this case have produced documentary evidence as also oral evidence. It is on the basis of witnesses produced and documents placed on record, that the Trial court came to the conclusion that the compensation, awarded by Collector, Land Acquisition, was not adequate on the basis of evidence available before it. The Trial court also came to the conclusion that compensation @ Rs.1.15 lacs per Kanal was reasonable amount of compensation to be awarded. 9. Before the Trial Court, it had been a contention of counsel appearing for the department that adequate compensation had been paid to respondents as land acquired was away from Charari Sharief town. However, the said contention was found misconceived in view of the evidence on record including copies of documents produced by respondents which established that compensation paid as per the Award of the Collector, was inadequate because land, which was inferior in quality to the land, had been purchased at a higher rate than the amount paid by way of award. However, the said contention was found misconceived in view of the evidence on record including copies of documents produced by respondents which established that compensation paid as per the Award of the Collector, was inadequate because land, which was inferior in quality to the land, had been purchased at a higher rate than the amount paid by way of award. While saying this, the Trial court has taken into consideration the sale deed executed way back in 1997 by one Mohammad Yaqoob and Mohammad Sarfaraz and the land acquired by PWD measuring 02 Kanals 09 marlas for an amount of Rs. 2,75,250/-. The Trial court has also taken into consideration mutation regarding land of Wali and others and also land acquired by PWD of Abdul Qayoom which established compensation awarded to respondents was inadequate. It appears that the Trial court has also taken into consideration evidence and documents and came to the conclusion that the compensation given by Collector was inadequate and accordingly awarded compensation in the amount of Rs. 1.15 lacs per Kanal. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that assessment of compensation to be paid for land acquired must take into account certain factors which include nature of land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, use to which neighbouring land was put to use, impact of such use on the land acquired and so on. The Supreme Court in Manomegalali vs. The Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition Officer) Adi Dravidar Welfare, has held as under: “…An assessment of the compensation payable for land acquired must take into account several factors, including the nature of the land, its present use and its capacity for a higher potential, its precise location in relation to adjoining land, the use to which neighboring land was put to use, the impact of such use on the land acquired, and so on. In the case at hand, the respondent determined the value of the suit land based on the sale deed under which 26 cents was sold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per cent which has happened five months prior to the date of acquisition of the suit land and that land was taken as date land. In the case at hand, the respondent determined the value of the suit land based on the sale deed under which 26 cents was sold at the rate of Rs. 400/- per cent which has happened five months prior to the date of acquisition of the suit land and that land was taken as date land. Learned subordinate Judge very correctly appreciated the fact that there was a railway track between the date land and the acquired land and in that view of the matter, both the lands could not be considered as similar. It was also evident that the acquired lands were in the midst of a railway track ad national highway having capacity for higher potential. An extent of land which was adjacent to the suit land was sold at the rate of Rs, 4,919/- per cent. Similarly, under the sale deed, no doubt that the lands which are situated adjacent to the main road will fetch good market value than the lands which were situated beyond the road. Though learned Single Judge of the High Court was of the opinion that there was no basis of granting Rs, 2,500/- per cent for the suit lands, the present Court was of the considered opinion that on the basis of the alleged sale deeds which were done in the proximity within a very short time amply proves its value in relation to the adjoining land.” 11. Having regard to law laid down in above cited and discussed judgments of the Supreme Court and all that has been discussed above, impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference and consequently, appeal on hand is liable to be dismissed. 12. For the reasons discussed above, the instant Appeal is dismissed with connected CM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. 13. Copy of this judgment be sent down.