JUDGMENT : MFA No.24829/2010 is filed by the land loser challenging the judgment and award dated 6.4.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Gadag sitting at Laxmeshwar in LAC No.135/2008. 2. MSA Nos.579/2012, 580/2012, 581/2012, and 598/2012 are filed by the land losers challenging the judgment and award dated 19.4.2012 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag in LAC (Appeal)/MA Nos.3/2011, 4/2011, 5/2011 and 6/2011 confirming the judgment and award dated 5.4.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Gadag sitting at Laxmeshwar in LAC Nos.136/2008, 121/2008, 137/2008 and 133/2008. 3. The following lands belonging to the appellants are the subject matter of these appeals. Sl.No. MFA/MSA LAC LAC.A./MA No. R.S.No. & Extent of Land 1. MFA No.24829/2010 135/2008 ­ 219/1, 219/2, 219/3 2 Acre­-12 Gunta 2. MSA No. 598/2012 133/2008 6/2011 183/1 31 Guntas 3. MSA No.581/2012 137/2008 5/2011 221/1 7 Gunta 4. MSA No.580/2012 121/2008 4/2011 170/1+2+3A 14 Guntas 5. MSA No. 579/2012 136/2008 3/2011 220/1 1 Acre­-2 Guntas 4. The lands belonging to the appellants were acquired by the 1st respondent by issuing a preliminary notification dated 29.9.2005 under Section 4(1) of Land Acquisition Act which culminated in passing of an award dated 6.7.2007. The possession of the lands in question was taken on 14.6.2006 i.e prior to passing of the award. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short `SLAO’) passed an award determining the market value of the lands in question at Rs.58,000/-per acre except land bearing R.S.No.221/1, the market value of which was fixed at Rs.32,000/-per acre. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed petitions under Section 18(1) of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court passed an award enhancing the market value of the lands in question which were the subject matter of LAC Nos.133, 135 and 136 of 2008 at Rs.87,000/-per acre. The market value of the land which was the subject matter of LAC No.137/2008 was enhanced to Rs.48,000/-per acre. 6. The appellant in LAC No.135/2008 has filed an appeal in MFA No.24829/2010 before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. The appellants in LAC Nos.121, 133, 136 and 137 of 2008 filed appeals before the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned District Judge confirmed the market value determined by the Reference Court. 6. The appellant in LAC No.135/2008 has filed an appeal in MFA No.24829/2010 before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 7. The appellants in LAC Nos.121, 133, 136 and 137 of 2008 filed appeals before the District and Sessions Judge, Gadag seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned District Judge confirmed the market value determined by the Reference Court. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed these appeals in MSA Nos.579, 580, 581 and 598 of 2012, seeking for enhancement of compensation. 8. Since all the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the same are heard and taken up for disposal. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the award passed by him at Ex.R1 has categorically stated that the lands in question have got NA potentiality and the market value of residential land in the village in question is fixed at Rs.18/per square feet by the Sub-Registrar. However, the Reference Court has re-determined the market value of the lands in question ignoring the Ex.P1 i.e. comparable sale deed at Ex.P1, Ex.P5 photographs and award passed by the SLAO. She further submits that having regard to the fact that the entire extent of acquired lands in question are utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, development like in the case of lay out for housing colony is not required, the market value may be fixed by treating the lands as NA potential lands by deducting 20% towards development cost. 10. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. V Narasaiah reported in AIR 2001 SC 1117 ; 2. Trishala Jain and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2011 (6) SCC 47 ; 3. Land Acquisition officer vs. Ashok reported in ILR 1985 Kar. 559; 4. Murari B Agarwal vs. the LAO and AC, Jamakhandi and others (MFA No.25482/2012) (DD 25.11.2019); 5. Sajjan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2020 SC 2354 ; 6. Atma Singh (dead) two L.Rs. vs. State of Haryana and another (Appeal (Civil) No.3148-3157/2000, DD 7.12.2007; 7. General Manager, Oil Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Ramesh Bai Jeevan Bai Patel and another reported in 2008 (14) SCC 745 ; 11. Sajjan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2020 SC 2354 ; 6. Atma Singh (dead) two L.Rs. vs. State of Haryana and another (Appeal (Civil) No.3148-3157/2000, DD 7.12.2007; 7. General Manager, Oil Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Ramesh Bai Jeevan Bai Patel and another reported in 2008 (14) SCC 745 ; 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 beneficiary would submit that Ex.P1 i.e. the sale deed cannot be considered as comparable land since the subject matter of Ex.P1 are three plots measuring 9436 sq. meters formed after developing the layout and also the said plots are abutting 30 feet main road on two sides. He further submits that the said plots are abutting the office of the Grama Panchayat and there is no development in the village. He further submits that, if Ex.P1 is considered for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands in question, the maximum cost has to be deducted towards development charges since the lands are not abutting the road. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the following decisions: (1) Pannalal Ghosh and others vs. Land Acquisition Collector reported in AIR 2004 SC 1179 ; (2) Bhule Ram vs. Union of India reported in AIR 2014 SCW 2543 ; (3) Manoj Kumar vs. State of Haryana reported in 2018 (13) SCC 96 ; (4) Raj Kumar vs. State of Punjab reported in 1995 (3) SCC 121 ; (5) Shubharam and others vs. State of Haryana reported in 2010 (1) SCC 444 ; (6) Chandrashekar and others vs. LAO reported in 2012 (1) SCC 390 ; (7) The Assistant Commissioner, Bijapur vs. Smt.Shivalingaavva and another reported in ILR 2003 Kar. 2855; (8) Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma reported in 2018 (8) SCC 485 ; (9) Mohammad Usuf vs. State of Haryana reported in 2018 (16) SCC 105 ; (10) Jinnappa s/o Chayappa Chinagi vs. Asst. Commr. and Land Acquisition Officer, Dharwad (MFA No.100191/2016) (DD 21.8.2018). 12. I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 13. Admittedly, the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of construction of the right canal and the entire extent of acquired lands is utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. 12. I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 13. Admittedly, the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of construction of the right canal and the entire extent of acquired lands is utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired. The SLAO in the award passed by him has categorically stated that the lands in question are abutting the Hebballi village and the market value of residential land in Hebballi village is fixed at Rs.18/per sq. ft. by the Sub-Registrar. However, the SLAO refused to fix the market value of the lands in question by considering the Sub-Registrar value on the ground that the lands in question are not converted for nonagricultural purposes though they are adjacent to the Hebballi village. 14. Before the Reference Court, the land losers produced Ex.P1 i.e. sale deed dated 22.1.2002 executed by Mahadevappa Kanavalli and three others in favour of Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited (Government of India Undertaking) in respect of plot Nos.126, 127 and 128 formed in RS Nos.1A and 2/6 situated at Hebballi village for valuable consideration of Rs.1,46,250/, and the entire extent of the said plots measures 9436 sq.ft. But the Reference Court has not considered the exemplar land at Ex.P1 on the ground that the plots which are the subject matter of Ex.P1 are situated far away from the acquired lands which is evident from the village map at Exs.P7 and 13. 15. The land losers to substantiate their claims got examined PW1 Shivakumar Haveri who in his evidence has stated that the acquired lands in LAC Nos.133/2008, 136/2008 and 137/2008 were part of the lands acquired by the Taluk panchayat for the purpose of construction of house and school. He has further stated that the acquired land is in the vicinity of the plots in Ex.P1 and have got similar topography. He has further stated that the acquired lands are surrounded by developed lands which is evident from the photographs produced at Ex.P5. He has further stated that the lands in question are adjacent to Hebbal village and have got NA potentiality, which is evident from the award passed by the SLAO. 16. The respondents though appeared before the Reference Court did not choose to lead any evidence, but got marked the award copy at Ex.R1. 17. He has further stated that the lands in question are adjacent to Hebbal village and have got NA potentiality, which is evident from the award passed by the SLAO. 16. The respondents though appeared before the Reference Court did not choose to lead any evidence, but got marked the award copy at Ex.R1. 17. Perusal of village map at Exs.P7 and P13 would indicate that part of Sy.No.220/1 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas which is the subject matter of LAC No.136/2008 is not only situated within the village, but also is abutted by an asphalted road and that the plots at Ex.P.1 are also abutting the very same road . 18. The plots in Ex.P1 are also adjacent to Hebballi village and are situated very near to the acquired lands in question. The respondents have not led any rebuttal evidence so as to disbelieve the evidence of PW1 who has categorically stated that the acquired lands are situated very near to the plots in Ex.P1. The Reference Court contrary to the evidence of PW1 and also Exs.P7 and P13 has recorded a finding that the acquired lands are situated far away from the exemplar plots at Ex.P1. The acquired lands bearing Sy.Nos.219/1, 2 & 3, 221/1, 170/1+2+3A and RS No.183 are abutting the mud road. The acquired land bearing Sy.No.220/1 is abutting asphalted main road which is the subject matter of LAC No.136/2008. The Reference Court has considered the award passed by the SLAO at Ex.R1 wherein it is categorically stated that the lands in question are agricultural lands and canal constructed on the said lands and there are no trees, plants and buildings on the lands in question and the said lands are situated adjacent to the village and have got NA potentiality. However, the Reference Court declined to determine the market value by treating it as NA potential lands on the ground that the lands in question are situated far away from the plots in Ex.P1. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer (supra) has held that the certified copy of the sale deed relating to the similar land situated in vicinity can be relied upon without examining the vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. 20. 19. The Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer (supra) has held that the certified copy of the sale deed relating to the similar land situated in vicinity can be relied upon without examining the vendee or vendor or anybody else connected with the sale. 20. In the case of Trishala Jain and another vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2011 (6) SCC 47 , the Supreme Court has held that a small piece of land can be taken into consideration with some reasonable deduction for determining the value of the large tract of land and 10% was deducted towards development charges. 21. In the case of Land Acquisition Officer vs. Ashok (supra) and in the case of Murari Agarwal (supra), this Court has held that the land acquired at the distance of six (6) furlong and one (1) kilometer from the exemplar land becomes relevant piece of evidence. 22. In the backdrop of the aforesaid position of law, the market value of the lands in question requires to be determined. 23. The photographs produced at Exs.P3 to P6 disclose that the lands in question are surrounded by developed lands. The respondents have not denied the genuineness of the photographs by leading rebuttal evidence and nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 to disbelieve the photographs produced at Exs.P3 to P6. However, the Reference Court has not considered the photographs at Exs.P3 to P6 stating that the negatives of Exs.P3 to P6 are not produced. The respondents have not disputed the genuineness of the photographs at Exs.P3 to P6. Hence, the Reference Court has committed an error in disbelieving the genuineness of the photographs in the absence of contrary evidence. By considering the evidence of PW1, award passed by the SLAO at Ex.R1, the exemplar at Ex.P1, photographs at Exs.P3 to P6 and the village map at Exs.P7 & P13, it is evident that the lands in question are situated adjacent to the Hebbal village and the land in Sy.No.220/1 is abutting the main road and the other lands are abuting the mud road. It is further established that the lands in question are situated in close proximity to the plots at Ex.P1. It is further established that the lands in question are situated in close proximity to the plots at Ex.P1. Hence, considering the materials evidence on record, it is evident that the lands in question have got NA potentiality and the sale deed at Ex.P1 can be relied on for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands in question, the genuineness of which is not disputed by the respondents. 24. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in the cases of Pannalal Ghosh, Bhuleram, Manoj Kumar are of no avail since the lands in question are situated in close proximity and similar to the plots in Ex.P1 and the lands in question are small tracts of the land, and whereas in the cases before the Apex Court, the lands involved were large tract of lands. 25. Admittedly, the lands in question are agricultural lands and if the market value is to be determined by taking the sale consideration of residential plots at Ex.P1, the question that would arise for consideration is, what is the extent of deduction to be made towards development cost. The entire extent of acquired lands is utilized for the purpose of construction of the right canal and there is no land left for future development. 26. In the case of Trishala Jain and another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in 2011 (6) SCC 47 , the Supreme Court has held that a small piece of land can be taken into consideration with some reasonable deduction for determining the value of the large tract of land and 10% was deducted towards development charges. 27. The Apex Court in the case of Sajjan vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2020 SC 2354 has held that where the lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of dam project, much of the development like in the case of layout for housing colony is not required and 20% was deducted towards development cost. In the said case, the acquired land was partly converted for nonagricultural purposes. 28. The Apex Court in the case of Atma Singh (dead) through L.Rs. vs. State of Haryana and others reported in Appeal (Civil) Nos.31483157 of 2000 (DD 7.12.2007) has deducted 10% towards development cost in respect of land acquired for the purpose of construction of Cooperative Sugar Mill. 29. 28. The Apex Court in the case of Atma Singh (dead) through L.Rs. vs. State of Haryana and others reported in Appeal (Civil) Nos.31483157 of 2000 (DD 7.12.2007) has deducted 10% towards development cost in respect of land acquired for the purpose of construction of Cooperative Sugar Mill. 29. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma reported in AIR 2018 SC 3511 reiterating the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shubharam and others, Chandrashekar and others (supra) has held that for determining the market value of large tract of land by considering the market value of the exemplar pertaining to the small pieces of land, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing layout, carving of road, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plot, waiting for purchasers and hazards of an entrepreneur, the deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approximately between 20% to 50% to account for land requires to be set apart for carving of land and plotting of small plot. It was further held that the said discounting will have to some extent also depend on whether it is rural or urban area, whether building activities are taken up and whether the waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be no longer or shorter and the attendant hazard. 30. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.100191/2016 (DD 21.8.2018) while determining the market value of the subject land situated after the railway crossing and the exemplar parcel of residential plot which are situated before the railway crossing from the national highway has deducted 70% towards development from the exemplar value on the ground that the location of the subject land would undoubtedly impede the value of any development in the subject land vis-a-vis exemplar parcel of the land. 31. In the backdrop of the aforesaid position of law, the market value of the lands have to be redetermined by making suitable deductions. 32. Ex.P1 is the sale deed in respect of plots bearing Nos.126, 127 and 128 totally measuring 9436 sq.ft. situated in RS Nos.1A and 2/6 of Hebbal village. The plots were sold for a total consideration of Rs.1,46,250/which comes to Rs.16,878/per gunta. 32. Ex.P1 is the sale deed in respect of plots bearing Nos.126, 127 and 128 totally measuring 9436 sq.ft. situated in RS Nos.1A and 2/6 of Hebbal village. The plots were sold for a total consideration of Rs.1,46,250/which comes to Rs.16,878/per gunta. The part of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.220/1 is situated within the village and abutting the very asphalted road as that of the plots in Ex.P1. The acquired land bearing Sy.No.220/1 which is situated in a rural area measures 01 acre 20 guntas which is a small tract of land. Cost for developing a layout is less compared to development of layout in a semi or urban area. The entire extent of acquired land in Sy.No.220/1 is utilized for the purpose for which it is acquired and there is no scope for further development. The Apex Court in the recent decision in the case of Sajjan (supra), deducted 20% towards development costs in respect of acquired land which was partially converted and the entire extent of the said land was utilized for construction of the dam. The Division Bench of this Court in MFA No.25482/2012 has deducted 10% towards development cost in respect of 3.00 acres 19 guntas of land situated within the Municipal limits by considering the sale deed in respect of 600 sq. ft. of land situated at a distance of one kilometer. In the matter of fixation of compensation under land acquisition act, there is always some element of guess work and that has to be based on some foundation. The location of the subject land would not impede the value of any development in the subject land vis-a-vis exemplar parcels of the land in view of similarity in location of land in question and plots in Ex.P.1. This land in question is abutting the village and not situated within the Municipal limits. Hence, it would be appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards development costs for the purpose of determining the market value of the land. 33. When the market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase. Hence, it would be appropriate to deduct 1/3rd towards development costs for the purpose of determining the market value of the land. 33. When the market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase. The Apex Court in the case of the General Manager, Oil and Natural Corporation Ltd. (supra) has held that if the increase in market value in urban/semi urban areas is 10% to 15% p.a., the corresponding increases in the rural area would be at best only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% p.a. It was further held that this rule of some refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to the increase in prices. It was further held that when there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in price, then the increase to be applied would be dependent upon the same. The lands in question were acquired in 2005 and the increase in market value of land was higher compared to the nineties. Hence, it would be appropriate to assess the escalation in price of land at 8% instead of 10% which is normally assessed. The sale deed at Ex.P1 was executed on 22.1.2002 at Rs.16,880/per gunta. The 4(1) notification was issued on 29.9.2005 after more than three years and six months from the date of execution of the sale deed at Ex.P1. Hence, by adopting an annual increase at 8%, the market value of the plot in Ex.P1 will approximately come to Rs.21,606/. 34. By taking the sale consideration of plots in Ex.P1 at Rs.21,606/ per gunta and deducting one third towards development cost, the market value of land bearing Sy.No.220/1 is redetermined and rounded of to Rs.14,400/per gunta. 35. The other acquired lands are contiguous parcels of lands to land bearing RS No.220/1 having similar topography except that they are abutting the mud roads. The object of the repealed Land Acquisition Act which was a beneficial legislation was to protect the interest of land losers. 35. The other acquired lands are contiguous parcels of lands to land bearing RS No.220/1 having similar topography except that they are abutting the mud roads. The object of the repealed Land Acquisition Act which was a beneficial legislation was to protect the interest of land losers. The Section 28A of the Act specifies that if the court allows to the applicant any amount of compensation in excess of the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the persons interested in all other lands covered under the same notification and who have not made an application under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court by written application to the LAO within three months from the date of award of the court require that the amount of compensation payable to them may be redetermined on the basis of amount of compensation awarded by the court. Hence, it can be implied that the object of the act was to award uniform compensation for acquired lands covered under the same notification. 36. In the present case, all the subject lands are small tracts of lands and similar in nature except that land bearing R.S.No.220/1 is abutting the asphalted road and other lands are abutting the mud road. The owners of these lands which are small tracts of lands cannot be deprived of uniform compensation, when their lands are acquired for the same purpose covered under the same notification and their entire extent of acquired lands is utilized for the purpose of construction of the canal and there is no scope for further development. It would be discriminatory, if the land losers of small tracts of lands who are farmers are deprived of uniform compensation when their lands are compulsorily acquired and any amount of enhanced compensation with interest will be inadequate for them to purchase an alternative land since by passage of time, the market value of agricultural land would have increased manifold. The enhanced compensation with interest will be paid to the land losers after knocking the doors of the Courts of law and the enhanced compensation is paid to the land losers after several years though they are legally entitled to receive just and proper compensation immediately after passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further it would be impractical to adopt belting method for determining the market value of these lands. Further it would be impractical to adopt belting method for determining the market value of these lands. So as to avoid discrimination in the matter of fixing market value of these lands and also having regard to the fact that these lands are small tracts of lands, and to meets the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to redetermine the market value of these lands also at Rs.14,400/per gunta. 37. In view of the discussions in the preceding paras, the market value of the lands in question is fixed at Rs.14,400/-per gunta which comes to Rs.5,60,000/-per acre. Accordingly, appeals are allowed in part. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court as well as 1st Appellate Court are modified. The market value of land bearing Sy.No.219/1, 219/2, 219/3 measuring 2 acres 12 guntas, RS No.183/1 measuring 31 guntas, RS No.220/1 measuring 7 guntas, RS No.170/1+2+3A measuring 14 guntas and RS No.220/1 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas is redetermined at Rs.14,400/per gunta with all statutory benefits including cost. Deficit court fee, if any, to be good at the time of drawing the award.