JUDGMENT : Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, J. This Land Acquisition Appeal, filed under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), is directed against the judgment and decree dated 01.07.2011 passed in O.P.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal (hereinafter referred to as the “Reference Court”). 2. By the impugned judgment, the Reference Court enhanced the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) in respect of the acquired lands, not being satisfied with the award given, the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal. The claimants herein are the appellants claiming enhancement of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, and the Special Deputy Collector is the respondent and referring officer in this appeal. I . BRIEF FACTS 3. The lands situated in survey numbers 81, 82, 83, 84/61, 84/A, 84/A2, 93/A, 93/A2, 93/A3, 94AA, 144, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 141, and 143 admeasuring Ac. 40.07 guntas situated at Bondrath Village, Tanoor Mandal, Adilabad District were acquired by the Government for the public purpose of formation of a new silt arresting tank across a local stream near the village. II. NOTIFICATION AND AWARD: 4. The draft notification and draft declaration were approved by the competent authority and published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 4.2.2003 and 5.2.2003 respectively. Possession of the land was taken on 4.8.1998 by the irrigation authorities. 5. Subsequently, the LAO passed an award dated 23.09.2003, fixing the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.30,000/- per acre. Not being satisfied with the said compensation, the claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered as O.P. No. 8 of 2004 before the Reference Court. 6. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) determined the market value of the lands at Rs.30,000/- per acre and passed the award granting compensation accordingly along with statutory benefits. 7. The Reference Court after enquiry enhanced the compensation to Rs.42,000/- per acre after deducting 30% towards development charges as per precedents and allowed solatium, interest, and additional market value under the Act. 8. Being aggrieved with the quantum and deductions, the present appeal has been preferred. III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE REFERENCE COURT: 9. 7. The Reference Court after enquiry enhanced the compensation to Rs.42,000/- per acre after deducting 30% towards development charges as per precedents and allowed solatium, interest, and additional market value under the Act. 8. Being aggrieved with the quantum and deductions, the present appeal has been preferred. III. ISSUES FRAMED BY THE REFERENCE COURT: 9. The Reference Court, upon the pleadings, framed the following issues for determination: (i) Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants needs any enhancement, if so, what would be just and reasonable compensation? (ii) To what relief? IV. EVIDENCE ON RECORD 10. Usually claimants are examined as “PWs” and the documents on behalf of the claimants are marked under ‘A’ series, and whereas the witnesses on behalf of the LAO/Referring Officer are marked as “RWs” and the documentary evidence on behalf of the LAO/Referring Officer is marked under ‘B’ series. However, in the instant case, the LAO was examined as PW1 and certified copy of the Award passed by LAO was marked as Ex.A1. Further, the claimant No.11 was examined as RW1 and on his behalf, RW2 was also examined and certified copy of registered sale deed, which shows the sale of one acre of land adjacent to the acquired property at the price of Rs.60,000/- per acre, was marked as Ex.B1. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, the witnesses and documents as they were referred to before the Reference Court are referred in the same manner in this Appeal. IV. FINDINGS OF THE REFERENCE COURT: 12. The Reference Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, found that the LAO considered sales from March 2000 to May 2002 in the award proceedings whereas failed to consider Ex. B-1 i.e. the sale deed dated 20.07.1998, which was prior to the notification as well as date of possession. 13. The sale transaction in Ex. B-1 was held to be bonafide, genuine, and reliable evidence of the market value of lands acquired in the same village. 14. Following the principles in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat , [ (2005) 4 SCC 789 ] , the deduction of 30% towards development charges in cases of acquisition for infrastructure such as a silt arresting tank is justified. 15. 14. Following the principles in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat , [ (2005) 4 SCC 789 ] , the deduction of 30% towards development charges in cases of acquisition for infrastructure such as a silt arresting tank is justified. 15. Thus, the Reference Court fixed the compensation at Rs.42,000/- per acre (after deducting 30% from Rs.60,000/- per acre), in addition to granting statutory benefits including 30% solatium, 12% additional market value per annum, and interest as per the provisions of the Act. 16. Being aggrieved by the order dated. 01.07.2011 passed by the Reference Court, the appellants have preferred the present Appeal. V. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES: a) Submissions on behalf of the Appellants: 17. The appellants submitted that the lands were fertile with permanent source of irrigation, abutting a main thoroughfare, carrying greater market value. 18. They contended that the sale deed Ex. B-1 dated 20.07.1998 deserved to be escalated to the date of notification in 2003 with corresponding market value increase. 19. Reference was made to previous awards in the same village, granting more than Rs.53,000/- per acre about 4 years prior to the acquisition date. 20. They argued that no deduction was warranted as the lands were agricultural and the proposed construction did not diminish the value 21. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants has prayed that, there being merit in the appeal, the same may be allowed. b) Submissions on behalf of the Respondent: 22. The respondent submitted that the 30% deduction towards development charges rightly applied by the Reference Court following judicial precedents. 23. The compensation granted was fair, based on reliable comparable sales and supported by evidence on record. 24. The plea for escalation was unsupported by sufficient evidence or statutory backing. 25. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned Government Pleader for Appeals appearing for the respondent prayed that there being no merit in the present appeal, the same deserves to be dismissed. VII. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION: 26. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on record, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal: (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands? (ii) Whether the enhancement granted is in accordance with law and evidence on record? Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and having carefully examined the material placed on record, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal: (i) Whether the Reference Court was justified in enhancing the market value of the acquired lands? (ii) Whether the enhancement granted is in accordance with law and evidence on record? (iii) To what relief are the claimants entitled? VIII. COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF COMPENSATION: 27. For proper appreciation, the comparative chart of compensation, as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and as enhanced by the Reference Court, is tabulated as under: Extent (Ac-guntas) Compensation Awarded by LAO (Rs. per acre) Compensation Enhanced by Reference Court (Rs. per acre) Difference (Enhanced compensation) (Rs. per acre) 40-07 30,000/- 42,000/- 12,000/- 28. From the above tabulation, and upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence, it is manifest that the Land Acquisition Officer had adopted a conservative approach in fixing the market value, whereas the Reference Court, on the other hand, took into account: i. the location and potentiality of the lands; ii. the sale exemplars of the proximate period; and iii. the comparability of lands situated in the vicinity of the acquired lands. 29. The critical question, therefore, is whether the reliance placed by the Reference Court on Ex. A1, and its ultimate fixation of market value at Rs.42,000/- per acre, can be said to be justified in law. X. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 30. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the lands acquired under the present notification dated 26.02.2003 are fertile agricultural lands, having irrigation facilities and potential for raising cash crops such as cotton, sugarcane, red gram, and green gram. The claimants examined RW-1, who has categorically deposed to the fertility of the lands, and nothing contrary has been elicited in cross-examination. Thus, the finding of the Reference Court that the acquired lands are irrigated agricultural lands calls for no interference. 31. Coming to the question of market value, the Honourable Supreme Court in Kapil Mehra vs. Union of India , [ (2015) 2 SCC 262 ] laid down the method of determination of the market value and further observed that: “10. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. Market Value: First question that emerges is what would be the reasonable market value which the acquired lands are capable of fetching. While fixing the market value of the acquired land, the Land Acquisition Officer is required to keep in mind the following factors: (i) existing geographical situation of the land; (ii) existing use of the land; (iti) already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or developed area and (iv) market value of other land situated in the same locality/ village/ area or adjacent or very near to the acquired land. 11. The standard method of determination of the market value of any acquired land is by the valuer evaluating the land on the date of valuation publication of notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act, acting as a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase the land in open market at the prevailing price on that day, from a seller willing to sell such land at a reasonable price. Thus, the market value is determined with reference to the open market sale of comparable land in the neighbourhood, by a willing seller to a willing buyer, on or before the date of preliminary notification, as that would give a fair indication of the market value.” 32. On a careful consideration, this Court finds that the Reference Court has relied upon Ex. B1, a registered sale deed dated 20.07.1998, under which one acre of land situated in the very same village and adjacent to the acquired land was sold for Rs.60,000/-. The genuineness of Ex. B1 is not in dispute. The contention of the State that the sale consideration was inflated in view of the impending acquisition, is not sustainable, for the reason that the Section 4(1) Notification was issued only in the year 2003 i.e., nearly four and half years after the sale transaction. Further, RW-2, the purchaser under Ex. B1, has testified that the land was sold by RW1 for family necessity, namely towards the marriage expenses of his daughter, which lends credence to the bona fides of the transaction. Therefore, the Reference Court rightly treated Ex. B1 as the best comparable exemplar for determining the market value. 33. The contention of the appellants that the value under Ex. B1, has testified that the land was sold by RW1 for family necessity, namely towards the marriage expenses of his daughter, which lends credence to the bona fides of the transaction. Therefore, the Reference Court rightly treated Ex. B1 as the best comparable exemplar for determining the market value. 33. The contention of the appellants that the value under Ex. B1 ought to have been escalated up to the date of Notification is without merit, inasmuch as the burden lied upon the claimants to place the prevailing market value before the Court in between 1998 and 2003. In the absence of any such reliable material, escalation cannot be granted as a matter of course. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel , [ (2008) 14 SCC 745 ] makes it clear that unless there is clear evidence of steady increase in market value, the Court cannot indulge in speculative enhancement. 34. As regards the deduction applied by the Reference Court, it is settled law that when a small extent of land is relied upon for determining the value of a large tract, appropriate deduction must be applied towards development, plotting, roads, and other civic amenities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor’s case (supra) has laid down that deductions ranging between 20% and 50% are reasonable, depending upon the circumstances. In the present case, the Reference Court applied a deduction of 30%, which, in our considered opinion, is neither excessive nor arbitrary. On the contrary, it is in consonance with the settled principles governing land acquisition matters. 35. In Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer , [ (2012) 7 SCC 595 ] , the Supreme Court observed that deduction towards development is justified in cases of undeveloped or underdeveloped lands, generally to the extent of 1/3rd. 19 . In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired 36. 19 . In fixing the market value of the acquired land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd of the market value towards development cost except when no development is required to be made for implementation of the public purpose for which land is acquired 36. The rationale underlying such deduction is that when a large tract of agricultural land is acquired for public purpose, a portion of it has to be utilized for laying roads, drainage, common facilities, and other civic amenities, which would not yield direct compensation to the landholder. Hence, the market value of a smaller developed plot cannot be directly applied to large agricultural lands without appropriate deduction. 37. In the present case, though the lands are irrigated agricultural lands, they are acquired in bulk to form a silt arresting tank. Such acquisition for infrastructure development falls within the category where deduction is warranted. The Reference Court applied 30% deduction from the exemplar sale deed (Ex. B-1) value of Rs.60,000/- per acre, and fixed the compensation at Rs.42,000/- per acre. X. CONCLUSION: 38. Upon a careful reappraisal of the evidence and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court, this Court finds no error or illegality in the determination of compensation. The Reference Court has rightly taken Ex. B1 as a reliable exemplar of market value and has adopted a reasonable deduction while fixing the compensation at Rs.42,000/- per acre. The plea of the appellants that the compensation should have been further enhanced either by escalation or by excluding deductions is without merit, inasmuch as no convincing evidence was placed to substantiate such a claim. The compensation fixed by the Reference Court is just, proper, and supported by the material on record. 39. Therefore, the determination of compensation at Rs.42,000/- per acre by the Reference Court, based on Ex. B1 after applying 30% deduction, is just and reasonable. The claimants are also entitled to all statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Act. The appellants have not made out any ground for further enhancement. XI. RESULT: 40. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the Appeal. The judgment and decree dated 01.07.2011 passed in O.P.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal does not warrant interference. The appellants have not made out any ground for further enhancement. XI. RESULT: 40. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the Appeal. The judgment and decree dated 01.07.2011 passed in O.P.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nirmal does not warrant interference. The Claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Act, including solatium, additional market value and interest. Accordingly, the Appeal stands dismissed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this Appeal shall also stand closed.