JUDGMENT Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - This appeal is filed by the land loser impugning the judgment and award passed by the reference Court in LAC No. 30/2010 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot (for short 'the Tribunal'). The land in question is Sy. No. 51/3 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas in Shigikeri village of Bagalkot taluk. The land was acquired in terms of Section 4(1) notification dated 14.4.2005 published under Land Acquisition Act, 1896 (for short 'L.A. Act'). The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO') vide order dated 29.3.2008 awarded compensation of Rs. 86,588/- per acre holding that 1 acre of the acquired land is wetland and awarded a compensation of Rs. 2,86,455/- in respect of 12 guntas of land, taking into consideration, pomegranate crop was standing in the said portion of the land. 2. Being aggrieved by the size of the award of SLAO, reference is sought by the land loser. The reference Court awarded compensation of Rs. 7,03,500/- for 1 acre of wetland. The remaining portion of the award in respect of 12 guntas of land is confirmed in terms of judgment and award dated 29.9.2012. The land losers have filed the instant appeal on the premise that the land acquired is very close to Belagavi-Raichur road, which is very near to the National Highway. It is also contended that the land is located within the Bagalkot Municipal Limit and the land is located very close to Bagalkot Railway Station, colleges, schools, hospitals, etc. Based on above said contentions, the market value of Rs. 200/- per Sq. Mtr is claimed to contend that the land had the potential for non-agricultural use. 3. Heard Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Patil, placing reliance on the documents placed before the Court particularly the Ex. P2-notification for including the Shigikeri village development limits would contend that the land is located very close proximity to the Bagalkot city and deserves higher compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Patil, placing reliance on the documents placed before the Court particularly the Ex. P2-notification for including the Shigikeri village development limits would contend that the land is located very close proximity to the Bagalkot city and deserves higher compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. 5. In addition to this submission, the reliance is also placed on additional documents namely the award dated 08.06.2007 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Bagalkot wherein higher compensation is awarded in respect of the lands acquired in Shigikeri village of Bagalkot taluk in terms of the notification dated 03.08.2006. By referring to this document, it is contended that the compensation of Rs. 192/- per Sq.ft. is awarded and this compensation is paid by the respondent and the appellant claims parity in respect of compensation to be awarded to his land. 6. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation awarded by this Court in MFA No. 100574/2016 was filed against LAC No. 83/2009. It is submitted in terms of the said judgment, a compensation of Rs. 192.89 per Sq.ft. is fixed for the adjoining lands in the same village. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Shivaraj Bellakki would submit that application seeking production of the additional document is not maintainable and valid reasons are not assigned for not producing the said documents before the reference Court. It is also urged that in previous proceedings, the compensation is awarded based on a document, which was fraudulently obtained to say that the land is falling within the municipal limits. He contends that the land for which the certificate was issued to say that it is within the limits is withdrawn and would submit that the judgments which have been delivered based on fraudulent documents cannot be the basis to determine the compensation in respect of this land. Learned counsel, Sri Shivaraj Bellakki would further submit that in the event of an application for production of additional documents to be allowed, the matter may be remitted back to the reference Court to lead further evidence in support of his defence. 8. We have considered the rival contentions raised by the parties and also documents placed on record including the additional documents. 9. The additional document sought to be produced are; (a). 8. We have considered the rival contentions raised by the parties and also documents placed on record including the additional documents. 9. The additional document sought to be produced are; (a). The award dated 8.6.2007 passed by SLAO in respect of lands located in Shigikeri village in terms of notification of the year 2006. (b). The award passed by the SLAO in respect of lands acquired in terms of the notification dated 10.5.2004 and said lands are also lands located in Shigikeri village. (c). The sketch prepared by the revenue department pertaining to the location of Sy. No. 51 of Shigikerei village. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention would place reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manoj Kumar and others Vs. the State of Haryana and others (2018) 13 SCC 96 and would submit that the compensation awarded in other proceedings concerning the same notification cannot be blindly accepted. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant Sri Jagadish Patil countering the submission of learned counsel, Sri Shivaraj C. Bellakki would place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Sardara Singh & Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Collector, Improvement Trust, Rupnagar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4269-4278 of 2019) and in support of his contention would submit that what is held in Manoj Kumar's case is an application to particular facts of the said case and cannot be taken as a ratio. 12. We have considered both the judgments referred to above. 13. It is to be noticed that the compensation payable in respect of the land, which is acquired is not determined based on the certificate which is said to be fraudulently obtained to the effect that the property is located within the municipal limits. However, the compensation is awarded based on the notification issued by the State, including Shigikeri village in town planning limits. The document is not in dispute. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Shivaraj Bellakki based on Manoj Kumar's case is not accepted. 14. Since all the documents are public documents, this Court feels that it is not necessary to remand the matter to consider these documents and the implication of these documents can be considered in this appeal itself. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent, Sri Shivaraj Bellakki based on Manoj Kumar's case is not accepted. 14. Since all the documents are public documents, this Court feels that it is not necessary to remand the matter to consider these documents and the implication of these documents can be considered in this appeal itself. Moreover, the objection of the respondents to produce these documents cannot be entertained for the simple reason that these public documents and these documents would be helpful to determine the just compensation in respect of the land in question. 15. From the sketch produced before the Court it is apparent that the Shigikeri village is adjacent to Bagalkot town. Ex. P2 i.e., the notification issued by the State would indicate that the entire Shigikeri village is included in the development plan of Bagalkot. This is the notification dated 02.03.2004. This document is not disputed. Under these circumstances, the contention that higher compensation is awarded in other cases based on the erroneous certificate to the effect that the Shigikeri village is within the Municipal Limit does not come to the rescue of the respondents. The sketch produced before the Court as well as the notification marked at Ex. P.2 would reveal that the land in question is adjacent to the Bagalkot town and is also included in the town development plan. Moreover, the respondent has not sought review of the judgment wherein the compensation is awarded in terms of the award passed in LAC No. 83/2009, where the compensation of Rs. 192.82 per Sq.ft. is awarded to the land in the same village. However, it is to be noticed that LAC No. 11/2018 is arising out of land acquisition where Section 4(1) notification is published on 04.12.2006. In the instant case, the 4(1) notification is on 14.04.2005. So more than 1 1/2 years earlier the land in question is acquired. Under these circumstances, a deduction of 15% per annum is to be made to determine the value of the land in question. Thus for 1 1/2 years, the deduction would be 22%. Thus, applying the said formula the market value of the land in question has to be reduced by Rs. 42/- per square feet. Thus, the compensation payable would be; Rs. 192-Rs. 42=Rs. 150/- per Sq.ft. 16. Hence, the following; ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. Thus for 1 1/2 years, the deduction would be 22%. Thus, applying the said formula the market value of the land in question has to be reduced by Rs. 42/- per square feet. Thus, the compensation payable would be; Rs. 192-Rs. 42=Rs. 150/- per Sq.ft. 16. Hence, the following; ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and award dated 29.09.2012 passed in L.A.C. No. 30/2010 on the file of II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot is modified awarding Rs. 150.00 per square feet in respect of acquired land. The appellants are entitled to all statutory benefits. The appellants are also entitled to the proportionate cost of the appeal, which is payable by the respondents. Pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are disposed of.