JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 15th February 2003, passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Wardha in Land Acquisition Case No.220 of 1991. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant Shri Waman son of Rajaram Gabhane is the owner of Survey No.105, admeasuring 4.99 hectare situated at Mouza Jamb. For the purposes of extension of Gaothan, the respondent-State sought to acquire 40 R out of the aforesaid land of the appellant (for short, the “said land”). The Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) for acquisition of the said land was published on 3rd September 1987 in the Official Gazette, and thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 29th December 1988. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) passed an award on 27th December 1990 assessing the compensation in respect of the said land at Rs.3,600/- in addition to solatium at Rs.1,080/- and interest of Rs.1,283/-. Though, the appellant was aggrieved by the same, he accepted the amounts under protest. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation received, the appellant preferred an application before the District Court at Wardha being Reference No.220 of 1991 under Section 18 of the Act, making a claim of Rs.25,000/- per acre for the said land acquired by the Government in addition to solatium and further interest after deducting the amount already received by him. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference holding that the applicant was entitled to market price at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per hectare. Applying the said rate to appellant’s 40 R land acquired by the State, the Reference Court awarded enhancement in compensation and held that the appellant was entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,207/- in addition to interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of the award and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the amount was paid to him or deposited in Court. 3. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Reference Court, the appellant is in appeal before this Court inter alia on the following grounds : (a) The Reference Court has failed to take into consideration the material placed on record in respect of the potential value of land which at the relevant time could have fetched a minimum of Rs.25,000/- per acre as the market value was much higher. (b) The Reference Court has erred in not considering the evidence led by the appellant in its proper perspective and without application of mind has fixed the rate much lower than the market price. (c) The Reference Court has erred in not considering that the State of Maharashtra has acquired the said land for Gaothan viz. extension of Abadi i.e. for construction of houses and therefore it ought to have valued the land as non-agricultural land; that agricultural field properties have been converted into nonagricultural land in Arvi town and therefore the said land could not have fetched lower than Rs.25,000/- per acre, as the rate of non-agricultural land is always more than agricultural land. 4. Shri. Uday Changle, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the appellant had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre, whereas the LAO had granted a rate of Rs.9,000/- per acre and the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.13,500/- per acre. Learned counsel would submit that the market price assessed is very meagre and assessed without proper inquiry and without considering all aspects that the field was adjacent to Arvi-Talegaon road near village Jamb, which is also adjacent to Arvi town which is 3 km away. That the evidence of the two sale instances in the vicinity has not been considered by the Reference Court. 5. With respect to a field, which is just 3 Kms away from Arvi Town and adjacent to Arvi Talegaon Road in the same village Jamb and the market price in accordance with sale deed is shown as Rs.25,000/- for 55 R. Further, Chandani village is adjacent to village Jamb and field survey no.84/2 which is at a distance of 1 km. This land of 84R was sold for Rs.45,000/-. 6. This land of 84R was sold for Rs.45,000/-. 6. Learned counsel states that his client had filed Index-II in respect of the sale transaction of village Jamb at Exhibit 56 and submits that is sufficient and good evidence to demonstrate that this transaction is comparable. Another evidence placed on record is record Index II, copy of another sale transaction of adjacent village Chandani at Exhibit 57 between Asole family and Sheikh Haroon and others for Rs.45,000/-. Learned counsel refers to the cross-examination by Shri Dube, AGP for the State, where it is clearly stated that it is not true that the 7/12 extracts of field Survey No.84/2 and Survey No.132/1,2 and 3 were intentionally not filed. Further, the learned counsel submits that the Reference Court has itself observed that now a days quality of the land does not depend upon the land revenue because that depends upon the quality of cultivation. He submits that the Reference Court has also observed that if the unchallenged version of the applicant is believed that the portion of his field, which is acquired is adjacent to the village and just 2 kms away from Arvi town, it must be having more price than other fields. 7. He submits that the Reference Court further goes on to observe that if Rs.9,000/- per acre is taken to be a market value of other lands, the land adjacent to road should be taken to have some 40% to 50% more value because such land always has the potential of being used for residential purpose. 8. The Reference Court also goes on to give the reason that the Government have therefore acquired the said land for Gaothan. The Reference Court has also held that it was inappropriate or unrealistic to assess the said land at par with other agricultural fields, which can be used only for agricultural purpose. Accordingly, the Reference Court opined that 50% increase should have been given by the LAO over and above the market price assessed by him. The Reference Court therefore held that the applicant was entitled to a market price at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per acre. Accordingly, the Reference Court opined that 50% increase should have been given by the LAO over and above the market price assessed by him. The Reference Court therefore held that the applicant was entitled to a market price at the rate of Rs.13,500/- per acre. Learned counsel would submit that despite having observed that Rs.9,000/- per acre was inappropriate or unrealistic and despite holding that the said land was just 2 Kms away from Arvi town and had potential of being used for residential purpose, it has failed to consider the sale instances cited on behalf of the appellant. 9. Learned counsel would submit that there is no cross-examination on the facts that have been cited by him and as such those facts would deem to have been admitted/accepted by the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Digamber and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 406 to submit that while fixing market value of the acquired land, the market value of other land situated in the adjacent or very near the acquired land should be kept in mind. Learned counsel submits that the LAO as well as the Reference Court ought to have considered that the land has been acquired for the purposes of construction of houses for project affected persons, and therefore, the compensation calculated is erroneous as the sale instances cited ought to have been considered. He therefore urges that this Court to allow the appeal. 10. On the other hand Shri B.T. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, Executive Engineer, Upper Wardha Left Bank Canal, Wardha, the Acquiring Body opposes and submits that only two sale instances have been cited by the appellant to claim enhancement, which have been rejected by the Reference Court. He would submit that the appellant has only brought on record certified copies of Index – II register being Exhibits 56 and 57 of the two sale deeds, one of land in village Jamb and another at village Chandani, but no sale deeds have been brought on record. He submits that the information contained in Index II is cryptic. There is need for some more evidence to prove the nature of the other land sold, its situation, quality thereof etc. He submits that the information contained in Index II is cryptic. There is need for some more evidence to prove the nature of the other land sold, its situation, quality thereof etc. He would therefore submit that for the purpose of establishing that the sale transactions are comparable, it is necessary to ascertain the boundaries, the type/quality of land whether the same is barren, arable, fertile and cultivable. He submits that merely saying that the sale transactions are of land in the same village or nearby village and that the price should be much higher than that assesed by the LAO or the Reference Court would not be sufficient. The land acquired is in village Jamb whereas one sale transaction relied upon by the applicant is from village Chandani. He relies upon the finding of the Reference Court, which records that there is a statement in the report of the LAO himself that he had been to the field and found it fallow and one kilometer away from existing Abadi, but there is no statement that the subject land is in fact similarly situated like that of the field in respect of which, the sale transactions have been relied upon or that the field was near about the said road. He would submit that there is also no statement that the subject land is similarly situated or having same or similar potential. Only quoting sale instances, in his view, is not sufficient. Learned counsel also submits that there is no indication whether the crop is dry or not. Learned counsel would submit that the appellant has purposefully not filed the sale deeds in respect of 7/12 extract. He relies upon the cross-examination of witness no.2 to submit that he has intentionally not filed the agreements. Learned counsel submits that despite rejecting the two sale instances cited by the appellant, the Reference Court has been lenient enough to award enhanced compensation of Rs.13,500/- per hectare to the appellant. He accordingly submits that the appeal be dismissed. 11. I have heard Shri. Uday Changle, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri. M.A.Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State and Shri. B.T.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and with their able assistance, I have perused the papers and proceedings. 12. He accordingly submits that the appeal be dismissed. 11. I have heard Shri. Uday Changle, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri. M.A.Kadu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State and Shri. B.T.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and with their able assistance, I have perused the papers and proceedings. 12. It is not in dispute that 40R out of 4.99 hectare situate at Village Jamb, Tahsil Arvi, District Wardha, has been acquired for extension of Gaothan, viz. extension of Abadi i.e. for construction of houses for project affected persons, pursuant to Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act dated 3rd September 1987 and Section 6 Notification dated 29th December 1988. That the said land is adjacent to Arvi-Talegaon road and also adjacent to Arvi town which is about 3 kms away. It is also not in dispute that the said land is situated nearby village Chandani, Dautpur on Talegaon Road where most of the cultivators reside. That, the said village is a deserted village. The Reference Court rejected comparison on the basis of land revenue and observed that nowadays quality of the land does not depend upon the land revenue because that depends upon the quality of cultivation. Further, if the unchallenged version of the claimant was to be believed that his field is adjacent to village and just 2 kms away from Arvi town, it must be having more price than other fields. The Reference Court has observed that if Rs.9,000/- per acre is taken to be the market price of other lands, the land adjacent to road should be taken to have some 40 to 50 percent more value because such land always has got potential value of being used for residential purpose. The Reference Court appears to be correct in its observation and that, since the acquired land was adjacent to the road and also that it would not be appropriate to assess the land with other agricultural lands. The Reference Court enhanced the valuation to Rs.13,500/- per hectare. The Reference Court appears to be correct in its observation and that, since the acquired land was adjacent to the road and also that it would not be appropriate to assess the land with other agricultural lands. The Reference Court enhanced the valuation to Rs.13,500/- per hectare. However, as mentioned above, being aggrieved that his claim of Rs.25,000/- per acre was rejected, despite the valuation of the two sale instances being between Rs.25,000/- for 55 R and Rs.45,000/- per acre for 84 R as evidenced by the extract of Index II registers of the two sale instances at Exhibit 56 (for village Jamb) and Exhibit 57 (for village Chandani), the appellant has preferred this appeal relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Digamber and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra). There is no doubt that the appellant has not produced the sale deeds in respect of the subject sale instances. That would definitely have aided in ascertaining the nature of the land that was conveyed in the two sale instances. However, it is settled law that market value of other lands situated in the same locality / village / area or adjacent or very near the acquired land is to be considered while fixing the market value of the acquired land. Also, the geographical location of the land, as also the advantages such as proximity of road are factors that are required to be considered while fixing the market value of the acquired land. The potentiality or capacity of changing the use of the land is also an important factor to be considered. 13. Paragraphs 16.3 and 16.4 of the decision in the case of Digamber and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra) are usefully quoted as under : “16.3. Also paras 16 and 17 from Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla vs. Land Acquisition Officer [ (2012) 7 SCC 595 ] are quoted hereunder: (SCC p.603) “16. We have considered the respective arguments and carefully perused the record. It is settled law that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors: (i) Existing geographical situation of the land. (ii) Existing use of the land. (iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area. It is settled law that while fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Collector is required to keep in mind the following factors: (i) Existing geographical situation of the land. (ii) Existing use of the land. (iii) Already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area. (iv) Market value of other land situated in the same locality/village/area or adjacent or very near the acquired land. 17. In Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat [ (2005) 4 SCC 789 ] this Court laid down the following principles for determination of market value of the acquired land: (SCC pp. 796-97, paras 17-19) ‘17. Section 23 of the Act specifies the matters required to be considered in determining the compensation; the principal among which is the determination of the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under subsection (1) of Section 4. 18. One of the principles for determination of the amount of compensation for acquisition of land would be the willingness of an informed buyer to offer the price therefore. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which a willing and informed buyer would offer would be different in the cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment of the property and in the cases where he is not. 19. 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. Where definite material is not forthcoming either in the shape of sales of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) or otherwise, other sale instances as well as other evidences have to be considered.” 16.4 Further, it would be worthwhile to refer to the portion which is extracted from Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana [ (2008) 2 SCC 568 ] which para is referred to at para 18 in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla’s case (supra) which reads thus: (Atma Singh case, SCC p.572, para 5) “5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration. Potentiality means capacity or possibility for changing or developing into state of actuality. It is well settled that market value of a property has to be determined having due regard to its existing condition with all its existing advantages and its potential possibility when led out in its most advantageous manner. The question whether a land has potential value or not, is primarily one of fact depending upon its condition, situation, uses to which it is put or is reasonably capable of being put and proximity to residential, commercial or industrial areas or institutions. The existing amenities like water, electricity, possibility of their further extension, whether nearabout town is developing or has prospect of development have to be taken into consideration.” 14. It is observed that although the land in question is deserted and the cultivators reside at nearby villages but the purpose of the land appears to be for extension of Gaothan viz. for extension of Abadi i.e. for construction of houses for rehabilitating project affected persons, which means that this land has been acquired for non-agricultural purposes. Also, admittedly, the said land is adjacent to Arvi-Talegaon road and about 3 kms from Arvi town; the adjacent village is Chandani village. The Index II in respect of the two sale instances produced in the Record and Proceedings : one at Exhibit 56 with respect to the sale transaction by Madhukar Deshpande (Agreement dated 28th June 1986) is from the same village Jamb, the consideration thereof is stated to be Rs.25,000/- for 55 R. The sale instance at Exhibit 56 evidenced by the Index II refers to a sale transaction between Asole family and Sheikh Haroon and others is for Rs.45,000/- (Agreement dated 25th July 1986) in respect of 84 R is in respect of village Chandani. In my view, the two sale instances are quite close to the date of Section 4(1) Notification dated 3rd September 1987 in respect of the subject land. As such, the land of the appellant and the land referred to in the two sale instances appear to be similarly placed. 15. In my view, the two sale instances are quite close to the date of Section 4(1) Notification dated 3rd September 1987 in respect of the subject land. As such, the land of the appellant and the land referred to in the two sale instances appear to be similarly placed. 15. In my view, an average of the two sale considerations can be considered to be the price, the said land may fetch in the open market if the same was sold by a willing seller and a willing buyer. 16. The compensation for 40 R is worked out as under : Sr.No. Transaction date and details Rate Rate per R 1 Sale transaction in Village Jamb by Madhukar Deshpande vide agreement dated 28.6.1986 in respect of 55 R Rs.25,000/- Rs.455/- 2 Sale transaction in Village Chandani between Asole family and Sheikh Haroon and others vide agreement dated 25.7.1986 in respect of 84 R Rs.45,000/- Rs.536/- Average 455+536 = 991 = 495.5 = 496 ----------=  --- 2            2 If 1 R = Rs.496/- For 40 R = 496 x 40 = Rs.19,840/- per acre 17 In view of above, the impugned order of the Reference Court is hereby modified and the respondents are directed to pay compensation to the appellant @ the rate of Rs.19,840/- per acre for the said acquired land, by depositing the enhanced amount of compensation in respect of 40 R calculated as above in the savings bank account of the appellant within a period of six months in addition to interest and statutory charges, less the amount already received, subject to verification. 19. The appeal stands allowed in the above terms. No costs.