JUDGMENT : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. 1. Heard Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer. 2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the claimants challenging the order and decree dated 18.08.2009 passed in O.P. No. 73 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Reference Court’). 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the lands total admeasuring Acs. 11.22 guntas belonging to the appellants-claimants situated at Dharoor Village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District (presently situated in Gadwal-Jogulamba District, after reorganization of the Districts) were acquired for the purpose of laying of road from Gadwal to Raichur; that draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act and draft declaration under Section 6 of the Act were published in A.P. Gazette on 12.01.1978 and that the Land Acquisition Officer, after conducting award enquiry, passed Award No. 9 of 1979, dated 26.04.1979, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.900/- per acre for group ‘A’ category lands and @ Rs.600/- per acre for group ‘B’ category lands. 4. Not being satisfied with the compensation granted in the Award, the appellants/ claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was numbered as O.P. No. 73 of 2005 on the file of the Reference Court. 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of the appellants/ claimants, PWs. 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the said O.P. thereby confirming the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired lands, vide Award No. 9 of 1979, dated 26.04.1979. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents, vide Exs.A-1 to A-14 and the oral evidence through PWs. Challenging the said order, the present appeal is preferred by the claimants. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants contended that the Reference Court erred in appreciating the documents, vide Exs.A-1 to A-14 and the oral evidence through PWs. 1 to 7 in right perspective; that the Reference Court failed to consider the potential value of the acquired lands and thereby, committed illegality in coming to a conclusion that the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and reasonable and therefore, the impugned order of the Reference Court is liable to be set aside. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent-Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court on proper appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, has rightly answered the Reference against the appellants-claimants and therefore, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court. 9. Before the Reference Court, to substantiate their claim for enhancement of compensation for the acquired lands, the appellants-claimants have examined PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked as many as 14 documents, vide Exs.A-1 to A-14. 10. The market value of the land can be determined based on the factors like its location, i.e. whether it is in developed or undeveloped area, its fertility, its potentiality, the area of land acquired i.e. whether it is big chunk or a small plot, its advantages and disadvantages, etc. 11. By adverting to the above said factors and by taking into consideration the evidence adduced by the appellants-claimants, viz. Exs.A-1 to A-14, this Court has to examine whether the Reference Court committed any error in dismissing the Reference made by the appellants herein. 12. This Court has meticulously perused the evidence adduced by both the parties before the Reference Court and has also given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties in this Appeal. 13. A perusal of the evidence on record discloses that Ex.A-1 is the topography; Ex.A-2 is judgment rendered by the Court of Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, Mahabubnagar, which pertains to the lands acquired in Ryalampad Village of Alampur Mandal. Admittedly, the lands under acquisition in the present case are situated in Dharoor Village. The distance between Ryalampad Village and Dharoor Village is 9 kilometers. Therefore, Ex.A-2 is of no aid to the appellants-claimants. 14. Admittedly, the lands under acquisition in the present case are situated in Dharoor Village. The distance between Ryalampad Village and Dharoor Village is 9 kilometers. Therefore, Ex.A-2 is of no aid to the appellants-claimants. 14. As regards Ex.A-3, it is to be noted that though PW-3 deposed that compensation for his lands was fixed by the High Court, vide Ex.A-3 and that his acquired properties and the properties acquired under the present appeal are one and the same, he did not depose as to the actual distance between them. Further, even Ex.A-3 does not reveal the location of the acquired properties therein and the purpose of acquisition of the said properties. In such an event, this Court does not deem it just and proper to rely on said document for fixation of market value of the subject acquired lands. 15. The documents under Exs.A-4 to A-10 are either orders of the Reference Court or Awards of the Land Acquisition Officer or the judgments of the High Court, pertaining to fixation of market value of the acquired lands covered thereunder, which are admittedly situated in Alampur. 16. Exs.A-4 to A-6 are the orders passed by the Reference Court whereby it has fixed the market value of the subject lands therein situated at Alampur, which were acquired for formation of earthen embankment of protection wall. 17. Exs.A-7 to A-9 pertain to determination of market value of the houses and house sites situated at Alampur, which were acquired for the purposes mentioned therein, wherein the market value of the properties was fixed on yardage basis. 18. In the instant case, even according to the appellants-claimants, the acquired lands are agricultural lands, which were fetching income therefrom. 19. Therefore, from the above analysis, it is evident that the lands/properties covered under Exs.A-4 to A-9 are all situated in Alampur town or within the limits of Alampur Mandal and the purpose of acquisition of the said properties and the nature of the said properties are distinct from the lands under acquisition in the present case. As such, reliance cannot be placed on the said documents for fixing the market value of the present acquired lands. 20. Coming to Ex.A-10, it is a sale deed, dated 11.01.1975, whereunder house site admeasuring 20 square yards at Alampur was sold @ Rs.1,500/- per square yard. As such, reliance cannot be placed on the said documents for fixing the market value of the present acquired lands. 20. Coming to Ex.A-10, it is a sale deed, dated 11.01.1975, whereunder house site admeasuring 20 square yards at Alampur was sold @ Rs.1,500/- per square yard. This document cannot form basis for determination of market value of the acquired lands for two reasons; firstly, the property covered thereunder is situated at Alampur, whereas the acquired lands are situated at Dharoor Village and Mandal, secondly, the acquired land in the instant case is a large chunk of land i.e. Acs. 11.22 guntas, when compared to the land covered under Ex.A-10, i.e. very small extent of 20 square yards. Therefore, Ex.A-10 cannot be taken as comparable sale for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands and accordingly, Ex.A-10 is discarded. It is appropriate to refer to catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz. Special Deputy Collector vs. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, AIR 1997 SC 2625 , State of J&K vs. Mohammad Mateen Wani, AIR 1998 SC 2470 , Bhim Singh vs. State of Harayana, (2003) 10 SCC 529 and Atma Singh (Dead) through LRs. vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 2 SCC 568 wherein it is held that the method of relying on price of small plots in order to fix value of large extents is not proper. 21. Ex.A-11 pertains to judgment of the High Court, whereunder the market value of the lands situated in Gadwal town was determined. The distance from Dharoor Village to Gadwal town is 10 kms. Therefore, Ex.A-11 cannot be relied upon for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. 22. Ex.A-12 is the judgment rendered by High Court, whereby the Appeal filed by the Land Acquisition Officer was dismissed. The said judgment is bereft of any particulars like the extent, location and nature of the property acquired and the purpose of acquisition of the property covered therein. Similar is the case with Ex.A-13. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said documents cannot be looked into nor they support the claim of the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation. 23. Coming to Ex.A-14, it is a registered sale deed, whereunder the father of PW-6 sold an extent of 20 square yards of house situated at Dharoor Village for Rs.1,000/-. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the said documents cannot be looked into nor they support the claim of the appellants-claimants for enhancement of compensation. 23. Coming to Ex.A-14, it is a registered sale deed, whereunder the father of PW-6 sold an extent of 20 square yards of house situated at Dharoor Village for Rs.1,000/-. However, the topography marked as Ex.A-1 coupled with the evidence of PW-7 Licensed Surveyor goes to show that subject property of Ex.A-14 is far away from the acquired lands and further, neither Ex.A-1 nor the evidence of PW-7 reveal the approximate distance between property covered under Ex.A-14 and the acquired lands. Therefore, the reasons as were given for discarding Ex.A-10 hold good for discarding Ex.A-14. 24. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that though voluminous documentary evidence, vide Exs.A-1 to A-14 was adduced by the appellants-claimants to buttress their claim for enhancement of compensation, the same cannot be relied upon by this Court for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs. 25. A perusal of the Award dated 26.04.1979 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer discloses that he classified the land under acquisition into two categories basing on their location. The acquired lands which are located within a distance of ½ km from the village i.e. in Sy. Nos. 812, 815, 1, 2 and 35 are categorized under group ‘A’ and the acquired lands which are located beyond ½ km from the village, i.e. in Sy. Nos. 34, 44, 45, 46 and 47 are categorized under group ‘B’. 26. The Land Acquisition Officer, on due analysis of the sale transactions that have taken place during the relevant period, by observing that sale deed No. 2190/77 dated 05.11.1977 pertains to land located closely to the village as well as the acquired lands, adopted the said sale deed and fixed the market value @ Rs.900/- per acre for group ‘A’ lands. 27. Insofar as group ‘B’ lands are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer with an observation that the land covered by sale deed No. 384, dated 17.04.1975, is a bit away from the village, adopted the sale deed for fixing the market value of group ‘B’ category lands @ Rs.600/- per acre. 28. 27. Insofar as group ‘B’ lands are concerned, the Land Acquisition Officer with an observation that the land covered by sale deed No. 384, dated 17.04.1975, is a bit away from the village, adopted the sale deed for fixing the market value of group ‘B’ category lands @ Rs.600/- per acre. 28. Thus, from a perusal of Ex.B-1-Award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, it is evident that he has meticulously examined the sale transactions of the relevant period and has fixed just and proper compensation for the acquired lands. 29. In view of the foregoing reasons in the above paragraphs, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order confirming the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer through Ex.B-1-Award. Hence, this Appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 30. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 31. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.