JUDGMENT : (Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.) Heard Sri Anurag Rachapally, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant, Sri A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants and learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent No.3-Land Acquisition Officer. 2. This appeal, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (for short ‘the Act’) is filed by the beneficiary of the acquired lands aggrieved by the order and decree dated 02.06.2014 passed in LAOP.No.33 of 2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial (hereinafter referred to as “the Reference Court’). 3. In nut-shell, the facts of the case are that on a requisition made by the Executive Engineer, South Central Railway, Karimnagar, the private patta lands admeasuring Ac.1.11 guntas situated in Sy.Nos.1189 and 1190 of Vempet Village, Metpally Mandal, Karimnagar District, belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants were acquired for the purpose of formation of new broad gauge single railway line from Jagtial to Errapur (Phase-III); that Draft Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 02.01.2012; that Draft Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in A.P. Gazette on 21.01.2012; that possession of the acquired lands was taken on 28.02.2012; and that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and after conducting enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer passed Award No.3 of 2012, dated 08.08.2012, fixing the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,90,000/- per acre. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants received the compensation granted by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to Civil Court and numbered as LAOP.No.33 of 2013 on the file of the Reference Court. 5. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants, P.Ws-1 and 2 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-4 were marked. On behalf of the Referring Officer, R.W-1 was examined and Exs.R-1 and R-2 were marked. 6. The Reference Court, on appreciation of the evidence on record, passed the impugned order answering the Reference in favour of the claimants and enhancing the market value of the acquired lands to Rs.4,84,000- per acre as against the market value fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs.1,90,000/- per acre Hence, the present appeal is filed challenging the said order. 7. 7. Learned Standing counsel for the appellant, which is the beneficiary of the land under acquisition, contended that the Reference Court erred in placing reliance on Exs.A-1 to A-4, particularly Ex.A-4 without any basis; that the Reference Court has fixed the market value of the acquired lands on mere assumptions and presumptions though no cogent material was placed by the claimants and therefore, the impugned order is illegal and the same needs to be set aside by allowing this Appeal. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/claimants contended that Reference Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence placed on record and rightly assessed the compensation for the acquired land, which is just and reasonable and therefore, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. The contention of learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the Reference Court erred in granting separate compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands. But, as seen from Ex.R-1-Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands and even in the impugned order, the Reference Court has neither dealt with the said aspect nor awarded any compensation for the wells and trees existing in the acquired lands. Therefore, the said contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is, in fact, contrary to record and therefore, merits no consideration. 10. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the Reference Court has placed reliance mainly on Ex.P-4-registered sale deed, dated 18.09.2007, whereunder an extent of 150 square yards of land situated in Sy.No.320 of Vempet Village was sold and the sale consideration thereof works to Rs.7,26,000/- per acre. The claimants have also got examined the vendor of Ex.P-4 as P.W-2. He deposed to the effect that the lands covered by Ex.P-4 and the subject acquired lands are similar in nature and are abutting each other. His evidence remained unrebutted. It is this document that the Reference Court has adopted for fixing the market value of the acquired lands. 11. Exs.P-1 to P-3-regsitered sale deeds which were relied upon by the claimants to buttress their claim for enhancement of compensation, all pertain to the year 2007. It is to be noted that in the present case, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 09.01.2012. 11. Exs.P-1 to P-3-regsitered sale deeds which were relied upon by the claimants to buttress their claim for enhancement of compensation, all pertain to the year 2007. It is to be noted that in the present case, the draft notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 09.01.2012. Thus, it is clear that the documents vide Exs.P-1 to P-4 relied upon by the claimants pertain to five years preceding the date of 4(1) notification. Here, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NOIDA v. Harnand Singh (Deceased) through LRs and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1691, wherein it is held as under: “The sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of the notification.” 12. Following the said proposition, it is to be held that much credence cannot be given to Exs.P-1 to P-4 for fixing the market value of the acquired lands, though altogether they cannot be brushed aside in the facts of the given case, particularly when the genuineness of Ex.P-4 was proved by examining the vendor thereof as P.W-2. In fact, in Ex.R-1-Award, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred to the same Sy.No.320, in respect of which a sale deed dated 20.05.2010 was executed for the land admeasuring 256.6 guntas for Rs.39,000/- which works out to Rs.7,35,620/- per acre, which is about 1 ½ years prior to 4(1) notification. It is also relevant to note that from Ex.R-1-Award, it appears that no sale transaction has taken place in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.1189 and 1190, out of which the subject lands were acquired, within the relevant period of three years preceding 4(1) notification. Therefore, the sale transactions of adjacent Survey Numbers of the same village have to be considered for determination of market value of the subject acquired lands. 13. In such circumstances of the case, for determination of fair and reasonable market value of the acquired lands, this Court has scrupulously perused Ex.R-1-Award, which goes to show that the Land Acquisition Officer has analyzed the sale statistics pertaining to as many as 200 sale transactions of Vempet Village for the period preceding three years from the date of issuance of 4(1) notification. However, he proceeded to discard all the 199 sale deeds on the grounds viz., some reflect higher rates, some reflect lower rates and some relate to sale of houses and house sites. The Land Acquisition Officer is justified in discarding the sale deeds which reflect lower rates since it is settled principle of law that the sale deed showing the highest value should be considered as exemplar sale deed and adopted in fixing the market value of the acquired lands. 14. Further, Ex.R-1-Award also shows that the Land Acquisition Officer has discarded certain sale deeds merely on the ground that they reflect higher value. It is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432 , wherein it is held as under: “When there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted.” 15. In the light of the said judgment, this Court holds that the said reason given by the Land Acquisition Officer in Ex.R-1- Award that certain sale deeds are discarded since they reflect higher value is illegal and contrary to the settled principle of law. Further, a perusal of Ex.R-1-Award goes to show that most of the sale deeds pertaining to the year 2010 are executed in respect of house sites of Vempet Village. Further, as stated earlier, the claim of the claimants coupled with the evidence of P.W-2 makes it clear that the acquired lands have potentiality for being converted into house sites. Therefore, from this, a presumption can be drawn that the acquired lands of the claimants also have potentiality for being converted into house sites, as claimed by the claimants Though it is the case of the claimants that prior to issuance of 4(1) notification, the acquired lands were converted into house sites, without there being any evidence in that regard, the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer has totally erred in discarding the sale deeds which were executed in respect of house sites, wherein the highest value thereof works out to about Rs.7,46,786/- per acre. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer has totally erred in discarding the sale deeds which were executed in respect of house sites, wherein the highest value thereof works out to about Rs.7,46,786/- per acre. If the same is taken as exemplar sale deed, the claimants are entitled to compensation after deducting 1/3rd of the said amount towards developmental charges since the acquired lands are agricultural lands, whereas the said exemplar sale deed is regarding house site. By calculating thus, this Court is of the considered view that the market value fixed by the Reference Court for the acquired lands is not on higher side and in fact, the same is fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforestated. 16. In the light of the above discussion and reasons, this Court sees no merit in this Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 17. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. No costs. 18. As a sequel, interim order dated 07.10.2015 passed in LAASMP.No.1062 of 2015 stands vacated. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.