JUDGMENT : (G.A. Sanap, J.) 1. Heard. 2. ADMIT. Taken up for final disposal forthwith, with the consent of learned Advocates for the parties. 3. In this appeal, the challenge is to the judgment and award dated 11.02.2020, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Amravati (for short 'the reference Court'), whereby the reference filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the compensation of the acquired land, determined by the land acquisition officer, was enhanced from Rs.1,57,500/- per hectare to Rs.10,00,000/- per hectare. 4. The land of respondent No.1 bearing Survey No. 192, admeasuring 0.21 H.R. situated at Mouza Sawanga, Tal. Warud, Distt. Amravati, was acquired for 'Loni-Dhawalgiri Prakalp' under medium project Amravati. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published in the official gazette on 15.11.2007. The land acquisition officer passed the award on 13.03.2009 and determined the market value of the acquired land @ of Rs.1,57,500/- per hectare. Respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the land acquisition officer, filed the reference before the Collector. The Collector made over the reference to the Civil Court. It is the case of respondent No.1 that his land was irrigated. The land was good quality black soil and fertile land. There were 14 orange trees planted by him on the said land. The compensation with regard to the trees was also inadequate. 5. The appellant filed the written statement and opposed the reference. In short, it was contended that the market price of the acquired land determined by the land acquisition officer was just, proper and reasonable. Respondent No.1 examined himself as PW-1. He has examined one independent witness to establish the prevailing rate of the yield of the orange trees. No evidence was adduced by the appellant. The learned reference Court, on consideration of the evidence, partly decreed the reference and enhanced the compensation for the land. The reference Court did not enhance the compensation for the orange trees. The acquiring body is in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree. 6. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. N. M. Gaidhane for the appellant, learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Shingane for respondent No.1 and learned AGP Ms. M. R. Kavimandan for respondent Nos. 2 and 3/State. 7. The acquiring body is in appeal before this Court against the judgment and decree. 6. I have heard learned Advocate Mr. N. M. Gaidhane for the appellant, learned Advocate Mr. S. S. Shingane for respondent No.1 and learned AGP Ms. M. R. Kavimandan for respondent Nos. 2 and 3/State. 7. In the facts and circumstances, following point fall for my determination: (i) Whether the market price of the acquired land determined by the reference Court and the compensation awarded on that basis is just, proper and reasonable ? 8. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the reference Court has considered the sale deed of a small tract of land for the purpose of determining the market price of the acquired land, which was 0.21 R. Learned Advocate submitted that the land at Exh. 36 sold by the owner was just 0.01 R land and that too for the purpose of digging well. Learned Advocate submitted that the sale deed at Exh. 36 could not have been made the sole basis for determining the market price of the acquired land. Learned Advocate submitted that the evidence adduced by respondent No.1 is not sufficient to prove that the market price of the acquired land on the date of the Section 4 notification was Rs.10,00,000/- per hectare. Learned Advocate submitted that the reference Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. It is submitted that the proper reasons have also not been recorded to arrive at this conclusion. In order to substantiate the submissions learned Advocate has relied upon the decision in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and others .v/s. Siddappa Omanna Tumari and others (SC) AIR 1995 SC 840 . 9. Learned Advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that the land acquisition officer, while determining the market price of the land, has failed to consider all the relevant factors for arriving at just and proper market price of the land. Learned Advocate took me through the award and pointed out that the proper inquiry was not made for determining the market price of the acquired land. Learned Advocate submitted that the sale deed at Exh 36 relied upon by the respondent was executed four years before the issuance of Section 4 notification. Learned Advocate took me through the award and pointed out that the proper inquiry was not made for determining the market price of the acquired land. Learned Advocate submitted that the sale deed at Exh 36 relied upon by the respondent was executed four years before the issuance of Section 4 notification. Learned Advocate submitted that therefore, the possibility of execution of the sale deed in question, to inflate the prices of the land in anticipation of the acquisition proceeding, has been completely ruled out. Learned Advocate submitted that for the purpose of determining the market price of the land, the Court has to co- relate the market value reflected in the most comparable sale instance, which provides the index of market value. Learned Advocate submitted that the sale instance at Exh. 36 has been proved to be a genuine sale deed. Learned Advocate submitted that there was no sale instance of large extent of agricultural land. The sale deed at Exh. 36 was the only sale deed to show the price index of the agricultural land in the said village. Learned Advocate for respondent No.1 relying upon the decision in the case of Atma Singh (died) through L.Rs and ors. v/s. State of Haryana and Another, AIR 2008 SC 709 submitted that a comparable sale instance of a small piece of land can be used as an exemplar, when exemplars of large piece of land are not available. Learned Advocate submitted that the land at Exh. 36 was agricultural land. Learned Advocate submitted that the land subject matter of sale deed Exh. 36 and the land of respondent No. 1 had the same potential. It is submitted that the land of the respondent No. 1 could have been used for the same purpose in the future. 10. It is undisputed that the learned reference Court relying upon a sale deed of a land bearing survey No. 19 situated at village Sawanga dated 06.05.2003 has determined the market price of the acquired land. The reference Court has observed that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant to discard this sale deed. The reference Court has also observed that the land acquisition officer was required to consider all relevant factors while determining the market price of the acquired land. The reference Court has observed that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant to discard this sale deed. The reference Court has also observed that the land acquisition officer was required to consider all relevant factors while determining the market price of the acquired land. The question is whether the sale deed of a small piece of land can be made the basis to determine the market price of a large piece of land. It needs to be stated that the acquired land of the respondent No.1 was admeasuring 0.21 R. The land, which is the subject matter of sale deed at Exh. 36, was admeasuring 0.01 R. The evidence on record is sufficient to conclude that the land of respondent No.1 and the land subject matter of Exh. 36 are otherwise similarly situated in all respects. There is hardly any dispute about the same at the behest of the appellant. This fact has been proved by leading cogent and concrete evidence by respondent No.1. The land was irrigated land. At the time of acquisition, 40 fully grown orange trees were existing on the acquired land. The compensation was paid for the acquisition of the land as well as for orange trees. The reference Court, for want of sufficient evidence, has recorded the finding that the compensation awarded for the orange trees was just, proper and reasonable. In my view, the above stated facts are required to be borne in mind while considering the legal position. 11. The market price of the acquired land can be determined by applying the capitalization method; by relying on the genuine sale instances and; by relying on the earlier decisions of the Court in respect of acquisition. In this case, the sale instance method was adopted. Perusal of the award would show that it is silent about the adoption of any concrete method to determine the market value of the acquired land. In this context, it is necessary to consider the law laid down in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Supra). For ready reference para Nos. 13 and 14 are extracted below. "13. Perusal of the award would show that it is silent about the adoption of any concrete method to determine the market value of the acquired land. In this context, it is necessary to consider the law laid down in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Supra). For ready reference para Nos. 13 and 14 are extracted below. "13. Where the court has to determine the market value of large extents of acquired agricultural lands, it may not be desirable to be guided on the price fetched by sale of small extents of agricultural lands as the possibility of genuine agriculturists buying such small extents for their cultivation purposes is, rather remote and it may not also be desirable to determine the market value of the acquired agricultural lands on the basis of value fetched by sales of small extents agricultural land even if they had been purchased for building purposes, for that would involve the consideration of too many imponderables. However, if sale deed or agreement to sell relating to the small extent of land on the basis of which the market value of the large extent of the agricultural land has to be determined is a portion of the acquired agricultural land itself or other land in its close proximity, it may be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired large extent of agricultural land but has to be done when there is satisfactory evidence of the absence of sales or agreements to sell of bigger extent of land pertaining to the acquired land or other lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. Even then, the price fetched or to be fetched by such small extents of land has to be made the basis for determining the market value of the larger extents of acquired agricultural lands, all material factors which would reduce the value of the larger extents of acquired land as on the date it was notified for acquisition must necessary be taken into account, for it is well-known as is held by this Court in the Collector of Lakhimpur v. Bhuban Chandra Dutta, (1972)4 SCC 2365 : AIR 1971 SC 2015 . that when a large area of land under acquisition is the subject matter, it cannot fetch the price at the rate at which smaller plot or plots are sold. that when a large area of land under acquisition is the subject matter, it cannot fetch the price at the rate at which smaller plot or plots are sold. One aspect, which however, should weigh is that determination of the value of large extents of acquired lands on the basis of the prices fetched by smaller plots must be a matter of last resort and should be adopted when there is no possibility of determining the market value of acquired lands on the basis of comparable transactions of larger extents. 14. Therefore, where a sale deed or an agreement to sell relating to a small extent of land is produced by the claimant, in the enquiry held for determination of compensation payable for his large extent of land, the Court is not always bound to determine the market price of such large extent of acquired land on the basis of the price fetched or to be fetched by small extent of land covered by such sale deed or agreement to sell" 12. Learned Advocate for the appellant, relying on these two paragraphs, submitted that the sale deed of a small piece of land cannot be made basis to determine the value of the large extent of the agricultural land. Perusal of this decision would show that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if a sale deed or agreement to sell relating to the small extent of the land on the basis of which the market value of the large extent of the agricultural land has to be determined is a portion of the acquired agricultural land itself or other land in its close proximity, it may be made the basis for determining the market value of the acquired large extent of the agricultural land. It is held that the reliance can be placed on the sale deed of a small extent of land when there is absence of evidence of sales or agreement to sell of larger extent of land pertaining to the acquired land or other lands in the vicinity of the acquired land. It is further held that while placing reliance on sale deed of small extent of land all material factors which would reduce the value of the larger extent of acquired land as on the date it was notified for acquisition must necessarily be taken into account. It is further held that while placing reliance on sale deed of small extent of land all material factors which would reduce the value of the larger extent of acquired land as on the date it was notified for acquisition must necessarily be taken into account. This decision, therefore, does not lay down that the small piece of land cannot be taken into consideration for determining the market price of the large extent of the agricultural land. 13. It would be appropriate to consider at this stage the law laid down in the case of Atma Singh (supra). In this case, the Apex Court has held that the sale instances of small pieces of land can be used as comparable sale instances. It is further held that the exemplars of small piece of plots cannot be discarded in such cases specially when exemplars of large piece of land are not available. 14. Perusal of the judgment and award passed by the learned reference Court would show that the reference Court has recorded the cogent reasons for relying on the sale instance. Learned reference Court has also considered the number of decisions in the judgment to record the findings that Exh. 36 can be made the basis to determine the market value of the acquired land. In my view, the evidence on record adduced by respondent No.1 is sufficient to prove that the land subject matter of Exh. 36 and his land are similarly situated in all respects. The lands are situated at the same village. The survey numbers of both lands would show that both lands are adjacent to each other. The sale deed at Exh. 36 has been proved to be a genuine sale instance. It is the most comparable instance which provides the index of a market value of the lands in the area. The sale deed was executed four years prior to the Section 4 notification. It needs to be stated that the market price of the acquired land on the date of the notification is the price which a willing prudent purchaser in the open market is prepared to pay to the seller. It has also to be assumed in such cases that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. The sale deed at Exh. 36, therefore, is sufficient to provide the index of the market value. It has also to be assumed in such cases that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price. The sale deed at Exh. 36, therefore, is sufficient to provide the index of the market value. The price reflected in Exh. 36 can be taken as the norm. Learned reference Judge was right in placing reliance on the said sale deed. It is further pertinent to mention that the market value of the acquired land cannot only be its value with reference to the actual use to which it was put on the relevant date envisaged under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, but ought to be its value with reference to the better use to which it is reasonably capable of being put in the immediate or near future. In my view, the sale deed at Exh. 36, being a genuine sale transaction, was rightly relied upon by the learned reference Court. The land in Exh. 36 as well as the acquired land were irrigated agricultural lands. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the sale deed at Exh. 36 was of 0.01 R land and as such, ought not to have been made the basis to determine the market price of the acquired land, cannot be sustained. It is further pertinent to note that the acquired land was 0.21 R and as such, it could not be said to be a large extent of the agricultural land acquired by the appellant. In view of this, I conclude that the market price determined by the land acquisition officer relying upon Exh. 36 was just, proper and reasonable. As such, I answer above point in the affirmative. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the appeal. As such the appeal stands dismissed. 15. The first appeal stands disposed of, accordingly. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.